Why do you believe that there is a god?

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by 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?

this thread is gold. B Smooth is trolling the %+@# out of you guys. He has to be

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

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

 

It's interesting how you refuse to listen to whatever it is that you don't want to believe and expect to be taken seriously. I think it's pretty clear now what you think a discussion is supposed to be.

 

[cwalk1950]

I don't exactly know where or when or how God exists relative to what little we understand about our own existence, all I know is that God has to exist outside of our limited perception in order for him to create it.

 

[megachamploo]

so it's faith. 

 

[ayejreeun]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by B Trolling 202

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

 

It's interesting how you refuse to listen to whatever it is that you don't want to believe and expect to be taken seriously. I think it's pretty clear now what you think a discussion is supposed to be.

B Smooth be trolling, and I'll just leave it at that.  He can't be serious

 

[mycoldyourdone]

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

I don't exactly know where or when or how God exists relative to what little we understand about our own existence, all I know is that God has to exist outside of our limited perception in order for him to create it.

there's this, and there's organized religion
90% who believe are also part of the organized religion

atheists 98% of the time "attack" organized religion

but lettuce be sirius online radio

if all you know is that there is a higher power and thats it, whats the point.  that's all you know.  1 point.  

you dont have to argue with the atheists cause youre basically beside eachother. its just 1 thing were you chose to fill in the "a god exists" checkbox because of 1 + 1 logic.

 

[cwalk1950]

Well if God exists, he either created us for pure amusement or her created us with a specific purpose in mind.  If it's the latter, don't we have a responsibility to find out what that purpose is?  I'm disinclined to believe that it's the former just because of the sophistication of the universe, how everything relies on everything else and in particular how the human brain works.

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by sillyputty





No. Its not. Heres why. EVERY NOTION OF GOD was created in the context of a religion. The people that say god wants women to be wearing robes or the god that wants you to wait until marriage to have sex or the god that you have to pray to 5 times a year or the god that has 6 arms are ALL in the context of a religion. 




Without religion there is no god.




These people LIE to themselves saying, I believe in god but not religion...




that makes NO sense.




The god you believe in was CRAFTED by a religion. Lets say you're are raised as a muslim but you don't want to follow the religion anymore...do you still pray 5x a day? or do you only think god wants women to do certain things? or do you think god only answers certain types of prayer? Or what do you think happens to you when you die? Isn't that crafted by a religion too? 




Thats the point. Gods exist ONLY in religion. Those who disagree are simply lying to themselves. They want the privilege of being associated to a god but don't want to follow the rules of the religion they got their god from.

You act like before there was any such thing as an organized religion, it was impossible for a human being to believe that the universe was made by a creator. As in, if you believe in God, it can only be within the context of what all the religions of the world dictate. How does this make any sense? The first caveman could have believed that the universe was made by a creator AND NOTHING ELSE and you're going to tell him it's physically impossible for him to think that without him being a christian?

Your entire argument for atheism rests on the assertion that the word "God" can only be used in the context of religion and any other form of the word "God" that someone believes in is not really the God that you're talking about. ok.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you don't believe in evolution don't do the following.
Eat genetically modified food

Get flu shots

Get vaccinations

etc.

You benefit from so much that you don't even understand.

Abandon the trimmings of modern life and see how long you last before you make such a statement again. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty





No. Its not. Heres why. EVERY NOTION OF GOD was created in the context of a religion. The people that say god wants women to be wearing robes or the god that wants you to wait until marriage to have sex or the god that you have to pray to 5 times a year or the god that has 6 arms are ALL in the context of a religion. 




Without religion there is no god.




These people LIE to themselves saying, I believe in god but not religion...




that makes NO sense.




The god you believe in was CRAFTED by a religion. Lets say you're are raised as a muslim but you don't want to follow the religion anymore...do you still pray 5x a day? or do you only think god wants women to do certain things? or do you think god only answers certain types of prayer? Or what do you think happens to you when you die? Isn't that crafted by a religion too? 




Thats the point. Gods exist ONLY in religion. Those who disagree are simply lying to themselves. They want the privilege of being associated to a god but don't want to follow the rules of the religion they got their god from.

You act like before there was any such thing as an organized religion, it was impossible for a human being to believe that the universe was made by a creator. As in, if you believe in God, it can only be within the context of what all the religions of the world dictate. How does this make any sense? The first caveman could have believed that the universe was made by a creator AND NOTHING ELSE and you're going to tell him it's physically impossible for him to think that without him being a christian?

Your entire argument for atheism rests on the assertion that the word "God" can only be used in the context of religion and any other form of the word "God" that someone believes in is not really the God that you're talking about. ok.

Its not about being a christian. The god concept is associated to religion. Thee are more religions than the big three/four. 
Every assertion made about what god is/does/exists presupposes several notions that people conjure up. 

Those cavemen saying that god created stuff and are doing things in the context of that god are living UNDER a particular doctrine they assume the god affords them. That is religion bro.

Religion creates the context for a god to exist.

What is so hard to understand about that? 

Thats the problem. You only assert that religion has to be like modern ones. Religions have existed of various components before the major religions have and in incredibly diverse environments. You have to expand the context of what you're talking about here. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by 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 not 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.

Atheists don't say the big bang created the earth. SOME atheists do.
Atheist don't believe in gods because there no evidence to believe in gods.

Thats the point.

Scientists who research the big bang believe in the big bang. That is a completely different thing. 

Stop confusing several concepts into one. 

Its like saying Vegans are japanese,  black people are computer programmers, or athletes are nihilists. That doesn't make sense and its a false comparison. Its a non-sequitur. 

additionally. Evidence does not actually DISPROVE claims. It supports ALTERNATIVE claims. 

Think about it. When you provide evidence for against another topic, you're supporting a claim with a different conclusion. Thus your addition of evidence makes the other claim more plausible than the initial one.

Evidence doesn't DISPROVE claims. You don't disprove things. Its a misnomer...it sounds easier to say but when you break it down, you see how it is that we really think. 

Btw, you can't DISPROVE that i'm not a talking horse. You simply assert using other evidence to a separate conclusion that I'm not a horse. Do you see the difference? You're supporting the claim that I'm a human OVER the conclusion that i'm a horse. Thats where you apply your evidence. You've just made the second conclusion more probable than the first. 

Einstein didn't DISPROVE newtonian physics...he simply showed that his examples of nuclear physics and relativity supported OTHER conclusions that had more evidence behind them and were thus more plausible than newtonian physics.

Do you see what I'm saying? 

 

[mycoldyourdone]

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

Well if God exists, he either created us for pure amusement or her created us with a specific purpose in mind.  If it's the latter, don't we have a responsibility to find out what that purpose is?  I'm disinclined to believe that it's the former just because of the sophistication of the universe, how everything relies on everything else and in particular how the human brain works.

how do you know this and why are there only two choices?  what is us?
lets say a cubic square meter up in coordinates (10000000000, 423523424234234234, 5645645645645437725) up in space somewhere, what is the purpose/function of this space?

how about (5346456453645376457456746575745645, 4235234242345645645645646456456456454234234, 564564564564564564564564564545437725)?

how about (435435366, 456456456478987, 8657) in some other galaxy?

You might be thinking too human-y.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mycoldyourdone

Originally Posted by cwalk1950

Well if God exists, he either created us for pure amusement or her created us with a specific purpose in mind.  If it's the latter, don't we have a responsibility to find out what that purpose is?  I'm disinclined to believe that it's the former just because of the sophistication of the universe, how everything relies on everything else and in particular how the human brain works.

how do you know this and why are there only two choices?  what is us?
lets say a cubic square meter up in coordinates (10000000000, 423523424234234234, 5645645645645437725) up in space somewhere, what is the purpose/function of this space?

how about (5346456453645376457456746575745645, 4235234242345645645645646456456456454234234, 564564564564564564564564564545437725)?

how about (435435366, 456456456478987, 8657) in some other galaxy?

You might be thinking too human-y.

This is my problem with religion.
Its too anthropomorphic.

Look at how we portray aliens in our media. It LOOKS like us. Two arms. Two legs. Huge head. Two eyes. Mouth. Nose. Fingers. Toes. I mean its too unrealistic. The best aliens are things like the blob or something. it LOOKS foreign. 

Plus, god seems like a human thats constantly PMSing. Why is a god even getting upset or expressing emotion that it supposedly has control over and created and knows everything? 

It doesn't make any sense. Plus, these god concepts just express sensitivities from other existing god concepts...do the emotions of greco-roman cultures not ring a bell? 

 

[cwalk1950]

Well I guess there could be other possibilites although I dont know what they could be, and I mean humans by us.  Maybe I am too focused on humans but I just think that if God went through all the trouble of creating life he would be have a specific purpose in mind.  This is obviously based on my faith.

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by 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 not 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

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.

Atheists don't say the big bang created the earth. SOME atheists do.
Atheist don't believe in gods because there no evidence to believe in gods.

Thats the point.

Scientists who research the big bang believe in the big bang. That is a completely different thing. 

Stop confusing several concepts into one. 

Its like saying Vegans are japanese,  black people are computer programmers, or athletes are nihilists. That doesn't make sense and its a false comparison. Its a non-sequitur. 

additionally. Evidence does not actually DISPROVE claims. It supports ALTERNATIVE claims. 

Think about it. When you provide evidence for against another topic, you're supporting a claim with a different conclusion. Thus your addition of evidence makes the other claim more plausible than the initial one.

Evidence doesn't DISPROVE claims. You don't disprove things. Its a misnomer...it sounds easier to say but when you break it down, you see how it is that we really think. 

Btw, you can't DISPROVE that i'm not a talking horse. You simply assert using other evidence to a separate conclusion that I'm not a horse. Do you see the difference? You're supporting the claim that I'm a human OVER the conclusion that i'm a horse. Thats where you apply your evidence. You've just made the second conclusion more probable than the first. 

Einstein didn't DISPROVE newtonian physics...he simply showed that his examples of nuclear physics and relativity supported OTHER conclusions that had more evidence behind them and were thus more plausible than newtonian physics.

Do you see what I'm saying? 

I understand your point of view on the disproving ideas, but that's just a perspective that you yourself chose to take. While I understand the philosophy behind it, if I actually met you and you were a person, I myself would lay to rest the idea that you were a horse. If you told me truthfully that you are not a horse, I don't need to consider the possibility that you are actually a horse. Therefore the idea that you are a horse is disproved, this is not an incorrect method of thinking like you are making it sound. There are some things in this world that you can be sure about, and those are the things that have been disproven. Otherwise, by your thinking, we couldn't really be sure about anything in this world and that's just a philosophy. If that's just how you look at the world then I can see how you could say the stuff you do but all of that hinges on your idea.

and you're right, not all atheists believe in the big bang. I was wrongfully generalizing.

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty





No. Its not. Heres why. EVERY NOTION OF GOD was created in the context of a religion. The people that say god wants women to be wearing robes or the god that wants you to wait until marriage to have sex or the god that you have to pray to 5 times a year or the god that has 6 arms are ALL in the context of a religion. 




Without religion there is no god.




These people LIE to themselves saying, I believe in god but not religion...




that makes NO sense.




The god you believe in was CRAFTED by a religion. Lets say you're are raised as a muslim but you don't want to follow the religion anymore...do you still pray 5x a day? or do you only think god wants women to do certain things? or do you think god only answers certain types of prayer? Or what do you think happens to you when you die? Isn't that crafted by a religion too? 




Thats the point. Gods exist ONLY in religion. Those who disagree are simply lying to themselves. They want the privilege of being associated to a god but don't want to follow the rules of the religion they got their god from.

You act like before there was any such thing as an organized religion, it was impossible for a human being to believe that the universe was made by a creator. As in, if you believe in God, it can only be within the context of what all the religions of the world dictate. How does this make any sense? The first caveman could have believed that the universe was made by a creator AND NOTHING ELSE and you're going to tell him it's physically impossible for him to think that without him being a christian?

Your entire argument for atheism rests on the assertion that the word "God" can only be used in the context of religion and any other form of the word "God" that someone believes in is not really the God that you're talking about. ok.

Its not about being a christian. The god concept is associated to religion. Thee are more religions than the big three/four. 
Every assertion made about what god is/does/exists presupposes several notions that people conjure up. 

Those cavemen saying that god created stuff and are doing things in the context of that god are living UNDER a particular doctrine they assume the god affords them. That is religion bro.

Religion creates the context for a god to exist.

What is so hard to understand about that? 

Thats the problem. You only assert that religion has to be like modern ones. Religions have existed of various components before the major religions have and in incredibly diverse environments. You have to expand the context of what you're talking about here. 

The caveman might be living with the idea of having a God creating the universe, whether you decide to call this a religion or not is again up to your philosophy. The people that are telling you that they believe in God and not religion mean to say that they don't believe in the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of God. They only believe in the intentional creation of the universe and you are arguing that they therefore subscribing to just a different religion. Fine, let's say I agree with you and you can say that the caveman has religion, but many atheists argue the weakness of believing in God by citing the fallacies of the modern religions. It's the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of modern religions, that they are using to argue the nonexistence of God, not the fact that it is called "religion". But you are using your inclusive definition of religion, and applying it to the caveman even though his form of religion has little to do with modern religion. Whether or not I decide to call the caveman's belief religion, has nothing to do with the fallacy of his belief.

My point is, your entire argument about whether or not you can believe in god without religion depends solely upon how you define religion, rather than whether or not God exists.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Let me ask ya'll this, do you think religion is inseparable from god? I mean, never expected gifs and pics from the "mature" atheists. 
Seems like all of these threads now adays on here are started by nonbelievers. Do you believe in anything? Love? Knowledge? Yourself? Family?, do you have any set moral codes or do you just walk around doing whatever the $%*% you want?

Religion started a lot of things we adopt today, laws, marriage, and other cultural things were adopted from polytheistic religions , which in turn were adopted by the monotheistic ones, which were funneled to us. Point- being, religion isn't just about the actual existence of god, it's about us (people) 

And while, it may tick all of you proud atheists off that some people need religion just because you don't, ya needs to chill. 

Take the Catholic church for example, it feeds millions of hungry people around the world. But is also the richest entity on the planet, and no doubt is far from perfect. Things that involve humans, are flawed, because we are. Does that make a god any less probable? Not to me, but to some it might.

I was born affiliated with a religion, but found my own path, to what inspires me, and makes me a better person. IF being an atheist makes you a better person, do you. But don't push your thoughts, and ideals on to others, and chastise them when they fail to see it your way, because then aren't you becoming exactly what you stand against? 

Ok...here we go.



No. Its not. Heres why. EVERY NOTION OF GOD was created in the context of a religion. The people that say god wants women to be wearing robes or the god that wants you to wait until marriage to have sex or the god that you have to pray to 5 times a year or the god that has 6 arms are ALL in the context of a religion. 




Without religion there is no god.




These people LIE to themselves saying, I believe in god but not religion...




that makes NO sense.




The god you believe in was CRAFTED by a religion. Lets say you're are raised as a muslim but you don't want to follow the religion anymore...do you still pray 5x a day? or do you only think god wants women to do certain things? or do you think god only answers certain types of prayer? Or what do you think happens to you when you die? Isn't that crafted by a religion too? 




Thats the point. Gods exist ONLY in religion. Those who disagree are simply lying to themselves. They want the privilege of being associated to a god but don't want to follow the rules of the religion they got their god from.




I do believe in myself. I'm a sucker for love. and I love to take care of people. I like doing nice things. Wearing nice clothes. Sleeping with bad women. I love it all. 




I just don't accept ideology that fails to supply its claims with facts.




Additionally, moral codes are NOT created by religion. There is a reason we don't stone people to death in this country any more. Society crafts its own religious doctrines over time to fit its needs. Morality is derived from people working together to derive a way to best suit the needs of all people.




Look into social contract theory. Read some philosophy. Morality is observed in all social animals. Humans are not an exception. To say that religion is responsible for it all is incredibly inaccurate. 




Religion is an umbrella for these things. Not the cause of them. If you've noticed, no one in this country makes laws based on kings and queens anymore. But I guess to you that means kings and queens started it all. 




Law as you know it as an american is based on English Black Law and codified law around the time of the magna carta. Do your research. 




Marriage existed long before any sort of religious context. Religion has attempted to hijack the concept of marriage when it started as a secular concept. 




Some people need gossip blogs to read every day but does that make them any more useful? I'm not knocking anyones source of motivation but to separate the goals of inspiration of religion from the supernatural and realistically impossible claims to which there is no evidence...and I mean NO EVIDENCE, then that is functionally and supremely inconsiderate. 




Furthermore, don't threaten me.




To disagree is one thing but to insinuate that i'm infringing on you is another. 




The catholic church doing good things doesn't mean you get to overlook the bad things. They influence a lot of people. They told people not to use condoms or to listen to scientists about receiving treatment or understanding modern scientific theory...to the obvious thing they do that they sweep under the rug




I mean hell there are top catholics that think Galileo was wrong... like they said this TWO months ago. http://www.chicagotribune...04,0,1142889.story 

In any case this is all besides the point.




What does doing good or bad have to do with anything? You don't have to be religious to help people and you don't have to be an atheist to be bad. NONE of this suggests that there is a god anyways. Its just people acting under the premise that there is one.




 If the fact that the catholic church exists is proof of god then the fact other religions exist is proof of their gods...and I know you don't agree with that. 




I'm not pushing my thoughts. I'm asking for people to provide evidence for their thoughts. Otherwise you're just free to do and say what you want and no one can check you on it. 




What if white people weren't forced to understand black people aren't as bad as they think they are? What if they just thought they could burn us at the stake because we were turned black because of a curse? But to you, you just want to be free to do whatever you want to say for no reason at all or without justification. Its illogical because religion is the only thing where you suspend your doubt and rationale that you apply in every other decision or thought you encounter otherwise. 




Be a good person for goodness sake. Thats the point here. You dont need a religion to do that. Especially one that you don't even follow completely. 

"God exists only in religion" - That alone sums it up for me
Marriage is a LEGAL agreement, and is defined by law in our country to be very similar to a certain book, but religion has no effect on our nations laws 

 Threaten you? I was just saying ya'll waste a lot of key strokes on something ya'll don't believe in. 

 
You slurred a lot of my words, and even added some of your own,

 so I took the liberty of posting everything I said.

 

[Grine]

Funny how those that don't believe in God spend so much time and energy trying to prove that there's no God...

Hmmm...

Sillyputty, I see you dropping jewels...

 

[stillatit]

Wait..

So y'all in here getting mad that sillyputty is actually taking the time to back up his argument with detailed posts and facts? Isn't that what you're supposed to do instead. Should you not care enough about your argument make that $%*# make sense anymore or is that just the standard NT way?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by StillAtIt

Wait..

So y'all in here getting mad that sillyputty is actually taking the time to back up his argument with detailed posts and facts? Isn't that what you're supposed to do instead. Should you not care enough about your argument make that $%*# make sense anymore or is that just the standard NT way?

Thats just what happens when you've been raised to not question what you have been told. 
People spend too much time around people who think like them so no one gets to validate what they know against someone who disagrees with them. Therefore when they argue someone, their same talking points don't standup on their own.

Thats why I get pissed when people say "go join an atheist forum" or something. ...like why? So I cant sit over there and talk with people I already agree with? The best ideas are created when people with different conclusions sit down and check each others facts and biases to come to the best understanding of something. It creates a filter where both sides won't let garbage slip through to produce the finest and most refined conclusion that represents all invested parties. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Let me ask ya'll this, do you think religion is inseparable from god? I mean, never expected gifs and pics from the "mature" atheists. 
Seems like all of these threads now adays on here are started by nonbelievers. Do you believe in anything? Love? Knowledge? Yourself? Family?, do you have any set moral codes or do you just walk around doing whatever the $%*% you want?

Religion started a lot of things we adopt today, laws, marriage, and other cultural things were adopted from polytheistic religions , which in turn were adopted by the monotheistic ones, which were funneled to us. Point- being, religion isn't just about the actual existence of god, it's about us (people) 

And while, it may tick all of you proud atheists off that some people need religion just because you don't, ya needs to chill. 

Take the Catholic church for example, it feeds millions of hungry people around the world. But is also the richest entity on the planet, and no doubt is far from perfect. Things that involve humans, are flawed, because we are. Does that make a god any less probable? Not to me, but to some it might.

I was born affiliated with a religion, but found my own path, to what inspires me, and makes me a better person. IF being an atheist makes you a better person, do you. But don't push your thoughts, and ideals on to others, and chastise them when they fail to see it your way, because then aren't you becoming exactly what you stand against? 

Ok...here we go.



No. Its not. Heres why. EVERY NOTION OF GOD was created in the context of a religion. The people that say god wants women to be wearing robes or the god that wants you to wait until marriage to have sex or the god that you have to pray to 5 times a year or the god that has 6 arms are ALL in the context of a religion. 




Without religion there is no god.




These people LIE to themselves saying, I believe in god but not religion...




that makes NO sense.




The god you believe in was CRAFTED by a religion. Lets say you're are raised as a muslim but you don't want to follow the religion anymore...do you still pray 5x a day? or do you only think god wants women to do certain things? or do you think god only answers certain types of prayer? Or what do you think happens to you when you die? Isn't that crafted by a religion too? 




Thats the point. Gods exist ONLY in religion. Those who disagree are simply lying to themselves. They want the privilege of being associated to a god but don't want to follow the rules of the religion they got their god from.




I do believe in myself. I'm a sucker for love. and I love to take care of people. I like doing nice things. Wearing nice clothes. Sleeping with bad women. I love it all. 




I just don't accept ideology that fails to supply its claims with facts.




Additionally, moral codes are NOT created by religion. There is a reason we don't stone people to death in this country any more. Society crafts its own religious doctrines over time to fit its needs. Morality is derived from people working together to derive a way to best suit the needs of all people.




Look into social contract theory. Read some philosophy. Morality is observed in all social animals. Humans are not an exception. To say that religion is responsible for it all is incredibly inaccurate. 




Religion is an umbrella for these things. Not the cause of them. If you've noticed, no one in this country makes laws based on kings and queens anymore. But I guess to you that means kings and queens started it all. 




Law as you know it as an american is based on English Black Law and codified law around the time of the magna carta. Do your research. 




Marriage existed long before any sort of religious context. Religion has attempted to hijack the concept of marriage when it started as a secular concept. 




Some people need gossip blogs to read every day but does that make them any more useful? I'm not knocking anyones source of motivation but to separate the goals of inspiration of religion from the supernatural and realistically impossible claims to which there is no evidence...and I mean NO EVIDENCE, then that is functionally and supremely inconsiderate. 




Furthermore, don't threaten me.




To disagree is one thing but to insinuate that i'm infringing on you is another. 




The catholic church doing good things doesn't mean you get to overlook the bad things. They influence a lot of people. They told people not to use condoms or to listen to scientists about receiving treatment or understanding modern scientific theory...to the obvious thing they do that they sweep under the rug




I mean hell there are top catholics that think Galileo was wrong... like they said this TWO months ago. http://www.chicagotribune...04,0,1142889.story 

In any case this is all besides the point.




What does doing good or bad have to do with anything? You don't have to be religious to help people and you don't have to be an atheist to be bad. NONE of this suggests that there is a god anyways. Its just people acting under the premise that there is one.




 If the fact that the catholic church exists is proof of god then the fact other religions exist is proof of their gods...and I know you don't agree with that. 




I'm not pushing my thoughts. I'm asking for people to provide evidence for their thoughts. Otherwise you're just free to do and say what you want and no one can check you on it. 




What if white people weren't forced to understand black people aren't as bad as they think they are? What if they just thought they could burn us at the stake because we were turned black because of a curse? But to you, you just want to be free to do whatever you want to say for no reason at all or without justification. Its illogical because religion is the only thing where you suspend your doubt and rationale that you apply in every other decision or thought you encounter otherwise. 




Be a good person for goodness sake. Thats the point here. You dont need a religion to do that. Especially one that you don't even follow completely. 

"God exists only in religion" - That alone sums it up for me
Marriage is a LEGAL agreement, and is defined by law in our country to be very similar to a certain book, but religion has no effect on our nations laws 

 Threaten you? I was just saying ya'll waste a lot of key strokes on something ya'll don't believe in. 

 
You slurred a lot of my words, and even added some of your own,

 so I took the liberty of posting everything I said.

I slurred a lot of your words? Besides quoting them word for word and responding to each claim made in every sentence?
You're a clown. 

Additionally, you took the time to address two sentences of what I responded to you with...and you ended up agreeing with me. 

Your marriage conclusion is false though. If marriage is designed by religion then which religion is it designed after? Why do you officially married when you sign  the papers then? Who says you have to get married in a church? Where in the bible or koran are the financial benefits of marriage like tax benefits? Or emergency patient access? etc. 

Now if you want to talk about the necessity of marriage...then we can talk about that later. thats a whole other argument. 

What are you talking about homeboy? 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by megachamploo


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 not 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.

Atheists don't say the big bang created the earth. SOME atheists do.
Atheist don't believe in gods because there no evidence to believe in gods.

Thats the point.

Scientists who research the big bang believe in the big bang. That is a completely different thing. 

Stop confusing several concepts into one. 

Its like saying Vegans are japanese,  black people are computer programmers, or athletes are nihilists. That doesn't make sense and its a false comparison. Its a non-sequitur. 

additionally. Evidence does not actually DISPROVE claims. It supports ALTERNATIVE claims. 

Think about it. When you provide evidence for against another topic, you're supporting a claim with a different conclusion. Thus your addition of evidence makes the other claim more plausible than the initial one.

Evidence doesn't DISPROVE claims. You don't disprove things. Its a misnomer...it sounds easier to say but when you break it down, you see how it is that we really think. 

Btw, you can't DISPROVE that i'm not a talking horse. You simply assert using other evidence to a separate conclusion that I'm not a horse. Do you see the difference? You're supporting the claim that I'm a human OVER the conclusion that i'm a horse. Thats where you apply your evidence. You've just made the second conclusion more probable than the first. 

Einstein didn't DISPROVE newtonian physics...he simply showed that his examples of nuclear physics and relativity supported OTHER conclusions that had more evidence behind them and were thus more plausible than newtonian physics.

Do you see what I'm saying? 

I understand your point of view on the disproving ideas, but that's just a perspective that you yourself chose to take. While I understand the philosophy behind it, if I actually met you and you were a person, I myself would lay to rest the idea that you were a horse. If you told me truthfully that you are not a horse, I don't need to consider the possibility that you are actually a horse. Therefore the idea that you are a horse is disproved, this is not an incorrect method of thinking like you are making it sound. There are some things in this world that you can be sure about, and those are the things that have been disproven. Otherwise, by your thinking, we couldn't really be sure about anything in this world and that's just a philosophy. If that's just how you look at the world then I can see how you could say the stuff you do but all of that hinges on your idea.

and you're right, not all atheists believe in the big bang. I was wrongfully generalizing.

I try to be as objective as possible, but if evidence doesn't support other claims then what does it do? If it simply disproves things then how does it go about establishing an alternative conclusion then? 
Thats my point. Evidence supports other claims to a greater degree of certainty than the original disputed claim. Look at court. BOTH sides introduce evidence and the one with the most plausible or cogent or complete set of evidence according to ones rights should win the case. 

 

[flipnlu]

The world let alone the universe will never be controlled by one man or entity. Hostory has shown this to be true many times. We are all one.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by megachamploo


You act like before there was any such thing as an organized religion, it was impossible for a human being to believe that the universe was made by a creator. As in, if you believe in God, it can only be within the context of what all the religions of the world dictate. How does this make any sense? The first caveman could have believed that the universe was made by a creator AND NOTHING ELSE and you're going to tell him it's physically impossible for him to think that without him being a christian?

Your entire argument for atheism rests on the assertion that the word "God" can only be used in the context of religion and any other form of the word "God" that someone believes in is not really the God that you're talking about. ok.

Its not about being a christian. The god concept is associated to religion. Thee are more religions than the big three/four. 
Every assertion made about what god is/does/exists presupposes several notions that people conjure up. 

Those cavemen saying that god created stuff and are doing things in the context of that god are living UNDER a particular doctrine they assume the god affords them. That is religion bro.

Religion creates the context for a god to exist.

What is so hard to understand about that? 

Thats the problem. You only assert that religion has to be like modern ones. Religions have existed of various components before the major religions have and in incredibly diverse environments. You have to expand the context of what you're talking about here. 

The caveman might be living with the idea of having a God creating the universe, whether you decide to call this a religion or not is again up to your philosophy. The people that are telling you that they believe in God and not religion mean to say that they don't believe in the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of God. They only believe in the intentional creation of the universe and you are arguing that they therefore subscribing to just a different religion. Fine, let's say I agree with you and you can say that the caveman has religion, but many atheists argue the weakness of believing in God by citing the fallacies of the modern religions. It's the heaven/hell, wrong/right, sin aspect of modern religions, that they are using to argue the nonexistence of God, not the fact that it is called "religion". But you are using your inclusive definition of religion, and applying it to the caveman even though his form of religion has little to do with modern religion. Whether or not I decide to call the caveman's belief religion, has nothing to do with the fallacy of his belief.

My point is, your entire argument about whether or not you can believe in god without religion depends solely upon how you define religion, rather than whether or not God exists.

Well what else is there to cite besides modern religions? Obviously no one is threatened or directly influenced by the influence of fundamentalist Zoroastrianism. 
It doesn't matter if you call it religion or not, its the fact that his perception of "god" is HIS interpretation and none of it is corroborated with any significant, or empirical evidence. 

His "god" concept exists within a set of paramaters for what that god does and how it lives. Thats religion. 

 

[gp9rm4108]

If any of you have questions on the bible and Christianity PM me. I can't do it in this free for all setting where there is too much nonsense and disrespect going on.