Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

The point was that it wasn't a claim of truth or fact, but my opinion. The only mistake I made was to forget "..., in my opinion" at the end of my original post. Though, I had assumed it was implied.



How don't you get this? Ok, we will use your example: you can believe the sky is green if you want, regardless of evidence, because it is merely a belief. However, if you said "the sky is green", then I would most likely tell you that you're claim was stupid. The God debate doesn't have enough evidence to support either belief 100%, therefore, this whole thread is opinionated, and although some elaboration is expected it is not necessary.

Don't assume anything.

 

[Iron]

We certainly didnt

 

[rant]

arguments usually end when the onus is brought in.

i'll always be told that it's on me to go and look for the god that doesn't care enough to appear to his lost lamb in a dream

and i'll always tell the religious that it's them to prove god, because science as far as we are concerned is what brings home the proverbial bacon or perhaps halal/kosher

 

[Iron]

We are not against science. It's great! Yay! PARTY WOOO
But lets move on from the notion that SCIENCE could ever solve the God question, k? It's fundamentally not suited to it, it cant touch it, it is something else, a different thing, unrelated, separate
pls, think children of thee

 

[bell531]

The sky IS green, it's my opinion - you can't refute it.

See what I did there?

I see what you tried to do there. However, you are wrong. The sky is blue right now, and partly cloudy with a chance of rain. There is evidence to refute your claim, however, if you, for some reason, hold this as an opinion then that is not my place to disprove it.

And yes, the God debate doesn't have enough evidence on both sides (more so on the affirmative side as you can't really prove a negative...) but it is more of a RATIONAL and reasonable conclusion one can declare based on evidence at hand.

No evidence on either side. You can't claim that because there is no solid evidence for belief that it's most likely wrong.

 

[tommykins]

I see what you tried to do there. However, you are wrong. The sky is blue right now, and partly cloudy with a chance of rain. There is evidence to refute your claim, however, if you, for some reason, hold this as an opinion then that is not my place to disprove it.



No evidence on either side. You can't claim that because there is no solid evidence for belief that it's most likely wrong.

what/

 

[Kwayera]

why wouldn't it be God's fault? he created us.


lol, thing is - he thinks it's 'okay' to put his opinion on a subject forth without any sort of backup. after being told it's okay to have an opinion, just at least put forth some evidence, he says it's not necessary - if so, gtfo the thread, we don't need anyone that has nothing to contribute.

took the analogy out of context, but the sky is blue due to the wavelengths emitted from somewhere - forgot.

The sky is blue due to the scattering of sunlight by atmospheric particles. Same reason why the ocean is (mostly) blue, too.

 

[tommykins]

The sky is blue due to the scattering of sunlight by atmospheric particles. Same reason why the ocean is (mostly) blue, too.

<3333 thanks

 

[Iron]

I call them God dots

 

[bell531]

what/

???

 

[rant]

To every man his little cross. Till he dies. And is forgotten.

 

[tommykins]

???

You can't claim that because there is no solid evidence for belief that it's most likely wrong.

do you not see the insanity in this...

 

[Iron]

Hey guys, Mark is pretty


Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

lovenit aye

 

[Continuum]

... Why couldnt you just said "there is inconclusive evidence to support God, or dispell God, and therefore I am agnostic"? And before you go disputing the bible get your facts right, do some reasearch on your own. Stop summiting to those athiests websites.

And for matter of fact, agonostic is weak. It is saying that "I fear that there is no God, but I dont want to belive in a God."

Do you have any idea just how ignorant you sound? All the information from the Bible which I interpreted is perfectly correct. Perhaps you should get your facts straight.

It's funny how so many atheists and agnostics know so much more about Christianity than ignorant people like you, who supposedly follow the core teachings of the Bible. True Christians are those who continually criticise their religion, yet still find the faith to believe. People like you are only sheep, filtering out whatever doesn't fit in for the sake of simplicity - evident by you're constant bitching of 'fuck, it's too long, cbf reading it all'.

 

[tommykins]

Do you have any idea just how ignorant you sound? All the information from the Bible which I interpreted is perfectly correct. Perhaps you should get your facts straight.

It's funny how so many atheists and agnostics know so much more about Christianity than ignorant people like you, who supposedly follow the core teachings of the Bible. True Christians are those who continually criticise their religion, yet still find the faith to believe. People like you are only sheep, filtering out whatever doesn't fit in for the sake of simplicity - evident by you're constant bitching of 'fuck, it's too long, cbf reading it all'.

repped

 

[Iron]

Na brau, Lukybear's cool dawg. Jus in the wrong denomination is all, he's goin froo some sheeit homey
chill bro, chill dawg, he's cool

 

[bell531]

Don't assume anything.

I apologise for that, however even if I had said that you're opinion would have been the same, as you said earlier:

That said, however, you're still an idiot if you believe in God.

A thoroughly idiotic statement if ever I saw one. There is no evidence to disprove God (in some form), therefore one's belief is based wholly on opinion. In rejecting this opinion, you are being ironically close-minded in the discussion in which your opinion is based on thought.

 

[forks]

Originally Posted by rant
awesome allegory snip

I really like this analogy and will use it to describe Christianity... God communicates telephatically, he shows himself - and those with faith are those who don't just ignore the telephatic voice, eventually filter other voices out to hear the voice better, and build a relationship with the person behind the voice, and later on, trust the voice, and follow it, and get to the ice cream.

On the other hand - unbelievers are those who hear the voice, filter it out, or "have doubts" to trust the voice and don't follow the instructions. They rationalize, they find other things, and find out that they can understand the world better than this telapathic voice they managed to drone out ages ago. They question those who follow the voice - "You're stupid, why are you following it? There is no proof" - and they would be right - there is no "proof"...except for those who tasted the ice cream, and came back to tell the other kids about it. Until of course, the kids who *think* they got the ice cream too come rushing and start telling other kids about it too!

Of course, the point was initially made about "how about those kids who never find out where the voice is coming from"? They don't have the understanding behind it to "get to the ice cream", so to speak, to learn and filter out "is this really the voice". It is the job of those found the ice cream to go back and tell them... but sadly, that doesn't happen. Is it "unfair"? Yes. So what do you do about it? You go around the world, and you tell them about how to get there.

Whether this is "fair" or "unfair" is hard to judge - since we as humans hav no idea "who gets into heaven and who gets into hell". Of course - this is avoiding the question and throwing it to uncertainity - but I think it is better than assuming and judging what will happen.

 

[bell531]

do you not see the insanity in this...

You can't claim that because there is no solid evidence for belief that it's most likely wrong...because at the same time there is no solid evidence for not-believing.

EDIT: *belief in God

 

[Continuum]

Na brau, Lukybear's cool dawg. Jus in the wrong denomination is all, he's goin froo some sheeit homey
chill bro, chill dawg, he's cool

Fk, if I was like him...