Why do you believe that there is a god?

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Richard Dawkins presented us facts from his wheel chair that God doesn't exist...all those idiots use their intelligence to argue against God rather than formulating something with true utility for the human race...what scientific contributions have they made to bettering life on earth? What a true waste of intelligence...its not wonder these men aren't believers...they let their fellow men starve to death in the streets so they can make hypothetical musings about God. 



have any of those books allowed greater understanding between people with differences? What is the point of theoretical research that supposedly proves God doesn't exist? 

WHERE ARE YOUR BOOKS ANTON?  

Richard Dawkins isn't a para/quadriplegic. He is capable of up-right bipedal motion. 

LOL I think B.erry Smoothie over there was thinking of Stephen Hawking.

Completely different person buddy. Your statements have lost even more credit.

 

[kramer]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Kramer

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Leviticus is in the Old Testament bro, the only thing from the OT that still applies is the 10 commandments. God wants us to follow those but he already knows he can't hence why he saved us. And nice argument saying I pick and choose cuz you totally know me, sounds like you just use that argument against all Christians without actually knowing anything about the person

Ah, the OLD TESTAMENT argument.



I expected this

. 




Your god inspired an ENTIRE book and only meant for you to follow half of it.




Plus if god changes his mind half-way through the story, is that god absolute? So he can just arbitrarily just change his mind...even though hes omniscient/all knowing?




Sounds like more picking and choosing to me. 


Why even quote scripture from the first half then? It doesnt matter right? 




That means we can get rid of the ENTIRE Genesis account on that accord...BOTH OF THEM

...but wait! That still applies some how! 

So what about these passages? So you're saying god didn't come to change the laws... Oh word??




What about these:




Luke 16:17 
It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.





Matthew 5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.



2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 7:19

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

2 Peter 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.





So...none of that applies? Stop playing games with me bro. I know what I'm talking about. We can go in on this bible reading if we need to. I thought god was being pretty obvious here. 




If the OT doesn't matter then why follow the parts in leviticus saying being gay is wrong? Since you're New Testament scholar? 







But what if dude says there was no bad stuff in the New Testament?





Matthew 15:4
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Luke 19:27
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Luke 12:51
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Matthew 15:25-26
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!

 

[freelythinkingmind]

in before the wrath of god.

 

[sillyputty]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Kramer

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Kramer


Leviticus is in the Old Testament bro, the only thing from the OT that still applies is the 10 commandments. God wants us to follow those but he already knows he can't hence why he saved us. And nice argument saying I pick and choose cuz you totally know me, sounds like you just use that argument against all Christians without actually knowing anything about the person

Ah, the OLD TESTAMENT argument.



I expected this

. 




Your god inspired an ENTIRE book and only meant for you to follow half of it.




Plus if god changes his mind half-way through the story, is that god absolute? So he can just arbitrarily just change his mind...even though hes omniscient/all knowing?




Sounds like more picking and choosing to me. 


Why even quote scripture from the first half then? It doesnt matter right? 




That means we can get rid of the ENTIRE Genesis account on that accord...BOTH OF THEM

...but wait! That still applies some how! 

So what about these passages? So you're saying god didn't come to change the laws... Oh word??




What about these:




Luke 16:17 
It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.





Matthew 5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.



2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 7:19

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

2 Peter 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.





So...none of that applies? Stop playing games with me bro. I know what I'm talking about. We can go in on this bible reading if we need to. I thought god was being pretty obvious here. 




If the OT doesn't matter then why follow the parts in leviticus saying being gay is wrong? Since you're New Testament scholar? 







But what if dude says there was no bad stuff in the New Testament?





Matthew 15:4
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Luke 19:27
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Luke 12:51
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Matthew 15:25-26
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!

 

[ayejreeun]

Has any believer on NT ever been turned by these threads?

 

[sillyputty]

This video talks about a guy who is college and is struggling with his faith. I encourage all believers and nonbelievers to check this out:

 

[kramer]

I kinda lost you when you said fly off the handle and hurt my feelings cuz Im not gonna get my feelings hurt from you. I never said you couldn't try and debunk my mystical whatever you said. Go for it. Assuming you believe in evolution or whatever I don't believe that happened. Im also tired of writing long speeches on here so Im done. You win. Not that either of us have changed beliefs.

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by ayejreeun

Has any believer on NT ever been turned by these threads?

I've said this before, but I was a hardcore Catholic and threads like these helped me realize that Catholicism isn't the way. You just need an open mind, which is frowned upon in most religions.

Would definitely consider myself agnostic; I just don't know.

Why do you guys continue to respond to B Smooth? He says the same things over and over again and then goes on random tangents such as the "I bet you're Asian" comment.

 

[b smooth 202]

I'm saying the same thing over and over again? Everybody in this thread is saying the same thing over again. I already hypothetically accepted that God doesn't exist JUST for the sake of the argument. So what is the 'purpose' of expressing Atheism?

What will you guys have to talk about after you rid the world of God? Science? Facts? 

 
Its a joke. I have fun taunting so called atheists whose favorite topic of discussion is always God. So I mixed up Richard Dawkins with Stephen Hawkings..both of them are the same in my book....I guess that takes away from my 'credibility'.

 the point is those scientists made the initiative to prove that God doesn't exist....which is laughable! Think of all the real tangible material issues plaguing our planet which those atheist scientists could have focused their  research efforts on..its bad enough Europeans pillaged and raped the rest of the world using God to justify themselves...now with all the capital they've amassed from their plunders they're trying to kill God as well.

 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I'm saying the same thing over and over again? Everybody in this thread is saying the same thing over again. I already hypothetically accepted that God doesn't exist JUST for the sake of the argument. So what is the 'purpose' of expressing Atheism?

What will you guys have to talk about after you rid the world of God? Science? Facts? 

 
Its a joke. I have fun taunting so called atheists whose favorite topic of discussion is always God. So I mixed up Richard Dawkins with Stephen Hawkings..both of them are the same in my book....I guess that takes away from my 'credibility'

Whats your problem man?

I keep responding to your comments and you don't follow up to them. Do you just drop those arguments and create new ones after that?

This discussion is about the existence of a god. 

Thats all atheism discusses.

It doesn't care about the political unstabilization in north africa or the value of the Yen. 

Stop creating and confusing arguments where neither a parallel or comparison exists. 

 

[jordanpp30]

Point is.

You're still believing in HUMANS.

Prophets who helped write the Bible, or scientists who claim there is no God.

God or scientists.. its all about who YOU put your faith in.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by JordanPP30

Point is.

You're still believing in HUMANS.

Prophets who helped write the Bible, or scientists who claim there is no God.

God or scientists.. its all about who YOU put your faith in.

I don't CLAIM that there is no god.
The evidence that says there is a god doesn't stand on its own. Thus the claim for the existence of a god can't be justified. 

BTW, people who blindly trust scientists are in no better of a situation. You have to take their data, run their experiments and test whether or not the same data produces the same results. Thats how we define what is true or not or more plausible. 

If you test the claims of the existence of prophets and they don't stand on their own, then you can't support those claims. Its the same principle. 

Stop trying to pit "faith" concepts against other faith concepts. It dishonest.

You're just trying to pit yourself as the opposite of others to legitimize your stance. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I'm saying the same thing over and over again? Everybody in this thread is saying the same thing over again. I already hypothetically accepted that God doesn't exist JUST for the sake of the argument. So what is the 'purpose' of expressing Atheism?

What will you guys have to talk about after you rid the world of God? Science? Facts? 

 
Its a joke. I have fun taunting so called atheists whose favorite topic of discussion is always God. So I mixed up Richard Dawkins with Stephen Hawkings..both of them are the same in my book....I guess that takes away from my 'credibility'

Whats your problem man?

I keep responding to your comments and you don't follow up to them. Do you just drop those arguments and create new ones after that?

This discussion is about the existence of a god. 

Thats all atheism discusses.

It doesn't care about the political unstabilization in north africa or the value of the Yen. 

Stop creating and confusing arguments where neither a parallel or comparison exists. 

I like how you left out the paragraph where I did respond to you...I know 'it' doesn't care about anything...it wants to argue about something it doesn't believe exist in the first place which doesn't make sense. They don't want to argue about their destructive behavior or the material world  they pissed and #@@* on. 
A true atheist wouldn't even entertain the notion of God...but thats hardly the case with atheists who are obsessed with getting people not to believe in God. 
The state of the rest of the world is directly connected to Europe, and everything is connected to God...so keep hiding. Your time is coming to an end.  The narrative is there. The dialectics are there. Y'all are in trouble and are now on borrowed  time. 

So go organize an Atheist organization or something...see how far you get. 

What is the purpose of expressing atheistic beliefs if God doesn't exist? 

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Your entire god concept is based on ideas that others have created to interpret that god. If that god exists then no one really can be certain of:



A. What that god's powers are. In terms of where it resides, what it can do, how it intervenes, if it even cares




B. even if this god exists then nothing says to "worship" it or to even acknowledge it. These notions are drafted by religion. 




The only reason people pray is to make concessions to an ALL KNOWING being whose mind people think they can change to act in their favor. Its essentially a bribe of the mental state. 




God WAS created by religion. 




That is why in each religion people think of different types of gods with different abilities and stories relating to it. 




Do you believe in a "jesus" btw? Just curious.




Its funny how religions need a HUMAN prophet to share the message with them...if god really cared it would just share the news using clouds as a loudspeaker or something...I'm being facetious here. 




Also saying "you can't disprove it" doesn't make sense. Can you disprove that I'm not a talking horse typing right now on an iPad? Disprove that. Evidence SUPPORTS claims. It doesn't disprove them. It merely supports other claims to a greater extent. More evidence behind a claim, the less likely the other situation is plausible.




Science doesn't explain everything.




Just UNDERSTAND that already.




But it provides evidence behind other more reasonable explanations for the things that "god" supposedly did. 




It doesn't DISPROVE god...it simply makes claims supporting other conclusions FAR MORE LIKELY. 




Plus, just saying you "believe" to find god somewhere doesn't it make it so. Where is your evidence? You say its in the gray area, well lets FIND it first. If we can't find it then the search continues, but just having faith that its there doesn't make you more right or your claim more true. You simply do not have evidence.




This is flawed reasoning. YOU THINK RELIGIONS INACCURATELY PORTRAY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT PROVE. That indicates your OWN bias towards what god can and cannot do! Don't you understand this?




That means your "god" is only what YOU THINK it is. 




If you can discredit other religions on the lack of evidence or evidence that you find to be flawed then others can use your conclusions against the very claim you support.




You can't assert others have it wrong when you yourself can not add to the conclusion any further by backing it up. 




How does it make sense that there is a "purpose" ? 




I assert that I DO NOT KNOW. 




I go where the evidence suggests.




What does "purpose" mean to you anyways?




If it was spontaneously occurring why doesn't that make it able to be on "purpose" ? 




It happened THAT way, right? So you COULD assert that random assortment was ON PURPOSE. 




...but you won't. You only want to support the claim for a god by separating the two by saying purpose only happens with a god. 




Thats the error here. You're separating two things for the sake of SOUNDING like they're different when they technically could be deeply and intimately related. 




Saying it "makes more sense" to you in the lack of evidence either direct doesn't make you more right or more true. 




The HONEST thing to do is to sit on the fence and collect ONE IOTA of evidence...which you lack. Don't pick sides before you haven't even researched the teams yet. 




This is what I don't understand.


lol. I think you completely misunderstand my opinion of this topic. You should read my 2nd post in this thread in response to Anton that explains what I mean by the word God. I'll copy and paste it for you below. I'm not asserting anything or telling people to believe in God. I use the word God and purpose to mean that our universe came to be as a result of a biased decision to choose the existence of the universe rather than its nonexistence, a conscious influence, an effort of a will. Science supports the idea that the creation of the universe was a result of the big bang, a physical coincidence that lead to the start of life as a result of molecules being arranged in the right order to cause a series of chemical reactions that culminated in our existence today. If we found out our universe today exists because two mommy and daddy universes had sex (the big bang hehe) and our universe is the baby, then that's enough to say that our universe didn't spontaneously occur. Then that would mean that the big bang theory (what atheists believe) is true but the existence of God (my definition of the word, God) is also true. God in this case would be the mommy and daddy universe's decision to have the big bang. So which do I think is more likely, the big bang being the absolute beginning, or the decision to have the big bang being the absolute beginning? Is there evidence for either? No. But I pick the latter and atheists tend to pick the former. Is that what you should believe? idgaf, just try not to sound so irritated.
 
And !+* do you mean evidence cannot disprove claims.

You'll have to explain that one to me a little more clearly.
Evidence either supports claims or disproves them. I can disprove that you are a talking horse by meeting up with you and confirming that you are indeed a person who likes to write in colors.  If you claimed that the earth was flat and you could fall off the edge, then if you travelled in a straight line from one spot and came back to it that would disprove your idea that the world is flat. Scientific experiments have disproved hundreds of thousands of hypotheses about our world. Your entire yellow section is invalid.

Also, if you were a horse you'd have hooves and touch screens do not respond to hooves. I'm not exactly sure if that's true but I could do an experiment where I'd have a horse touch an ipad screen and check for a response. If it didn't work then I could disprove the claim that hooves work on touch screens

Here's a list of other ideas that science has disproved since you don't think science can disprove anything.
http://www.toptenz.net/to...rned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Here was my second post. Feel free to read it with this one that I just made and respond with another long rainbow haiku.

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

I share a lot of ur beliefs with a few major exceptions

-I don't call whatever "created" us, a God-As humans we create and manipulate things, technically we are Gods to lesser forms of life
-I will never try to characterize what "God" and try to pass it off as fact
-What you consider God may in fact have a God itself, something to think about

I see what you're saying. But just because I didn't mention those things you listed doesn't mean I don't feel that way. I think it would take a lot of me to explain my thoughts exactly as I feel. I use the term God as an umbrella word for all the explanations for our existence that don't fit the beliefs of the atheists (a mere physical coincidence). God for me doesn't necessarily mean that some entity decided to just make us and act as a supreme being. I think the truth is a lot more complicated than we can imagine.

I guess when I say that I believe in God, I mean I don't believe that we exist as just a coincidence. Our cellular processes exist with reason and I think we do too, just on a larger scale. Then again believing just means standing by what you think is most likely. I wouldn't call any of it fact. With the amount of evidence that Atheists have, they can also only believe. There are some atheists that think they know the truth. Those are the ones I try to avoid.

 

[noblekane]

as the thread gets longer the post get bigger

this thread is still going... this will not end well

 

[cwalk1950]

Anything that has a beginning has a creator.  The universe has a beginning, therefore it has a creator. 

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

A true atheist wouldn't even entertain the notion of God...but thats hardly the case with atheists who are obsessed with getting people not to believe in God. 

Your posts get worse and worse. In the United States, atheists are considered the least trusted minority group. In many parts of the country, people are discriminated and ostracized for being atheists. Religious groups continue to get away with unconstitutional practices. I believe it was George H. W. Bush has been recorded saying that atheists are second class citizens. That is why American atheists care.

There is something called the GPI (Global Peace Index) that quantifies how peaceful a country is. The GPI is interesting because many of the religious countries are ranked incredibly low relative to countries that have a large atheist population. That is why atheists throughout the world care.

If you think that we shouldn't care about the topic of god, you're a moron.

 

[yndgaf]

Because people believe there is a devil

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

Anything that has a beginning has a creator.  The universe has a beginning, therefore it has a creator. 

This is a "chicken vs egg" type answer. It's not helpful at all.

 

[cwalk1950]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

Anything that has a beginning has a creator.  The universe has a beginning, therefore it has a creator. 

This is a "chicken vs egg" type answer. It's not helpful at all.

You'll have to elaborate, what makes it a "chicken v. egg" type answer and why is it not helpful? 

 

[megachamploo]

because your answer requires the creator to have been created. If you're just gonna say the creator has a creator then you'll have to keep going back which would mean there was no beginning at all. Therefore if you believe that there is a beginning, then you can't just say that there is a creator like it's a FACT. Maybe if that's what you believe then that's what you believe, but it's not 100% certain like you make it sound.

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

A true atheist wouldn't even entertain the notion of God...but thats hardly the case with atheists who are obsessed with getting people not to believe in God. 

Your posts get worse and worse. In the United States, atheists are considered the least trusted minority group. In many parts of the country, people are discriminated and ostracized for being atheists. Religious groups continue to get away with unconstitutional practices. I believe it was George H. W. Bush has been recorded saying that atheists are second class citizens. That is why American atheists care.

There is something called the GPI (Global Peace Index) that quantifies how peaceful a country is. The GPI is interesting because many of the religious countries are ranked incredibly low relative to countries that have a large atheist population. That is why atheists throughout the world care.

If you think that we shouldn't care about the topic of god, you're a moron.

The GPI is a PR tool. There is nothing that quantifies peacefulness

 
Where are these atheists your talking about? Where are your statistics man? I know thats your favorite subject

 

 

[cwalk1950]

No, the premise states that if it has a beginning, it has a creator.  God doesn't have a beginning.

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

No, the premise states that if it has a beginning, it has a creator.  God doesn't have a beginning.

So you're saying that everything has a beginning except God. So god exists in a parallel universe where beginnings don't exist?