-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Do you believe in God? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter RANK 1
- Start date
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Re: Do you believe is God?
Okay seeing Jesus etched into a piece of burnt toast isn't a miracle.
Okay seeing Jesus etched into a piece of burnt toast isn't a miracle.
Re: Do you believe is God?
someone else i kno who actually is a believer argued that just because you became blind deaf and dumb and lost all ur senses it wouldnt mean the person next to you doesnt exist, and that the same thing applies to relgion.
im not for or against this perspective but its a perspective. i guess if u want to make this like a criminal case in the law then yes, youd be right. but why is it somehow impossible for you to just accept the beliefs of people irrespective of whether you think they are wrong or right? does it matter either way tbh?
as for my arguments its called apatheism, aka the existance of god is inconsequencial to human life. "Unlike theists, atheists, etc., the unique feature of an apatheist is that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their beliefs and behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist"
funkshen-
can you prove to me that an athiests arguement is based entirely on evidence? (im not trying to make this into an arguement im just trying to interprety wat it is ur saying)
im not saying the burden of proof is not on the religious believers.
someone else i kno who actually is a believer argued that just because you became blind deaf and dumb and lost all ur senses it wouldnt mean the person next to you doesnt exist, and that the same thing applies to relgion.
im not for or against this perspective but its a perspective. i guess if u want to make this like a criminal case in the law then yes, youd be right. but why is it somehow impossible for you to just accept the beliefs of people irrespective of whether you think they are wrong or right? does it matter either way tbh?
as for my arguments its called apatheism, aka the existance of god is inconsequencial to human life. "Unlike theists, atheists, etc., the unique feature of an apatheist is that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their beliefs and behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist"
funkshen-
can you prove to me that an athiests arguement is based entirely on evidence? (im not trying to make this into an arguement im just trying to interprety wat it is ur saying)
Re: Do you believe is God?
Speaking od seeing deities in stupid places, does anyone remember that huge story about seeing the saint in a shadow or something?
Or on a dogs ass.
Speaking od seeing deities in stupid places, does anyone remember that huge story about seeing the saint in a shadow or something?
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Re: Do you believe is God?
1. If you suddenly became blind, deaf and dumb and lost all your senses, obviously people wouldn't cease to exist, and the idea of people would not be faith based because you would have experienced people before you lost your senses. Also, people exist. There is ample proof of this.
"just accept the beliefs of people irrespective of whether you think they are wrong or right? does it matter either way tbh?"
Why do you clowns always pull this canard? Where did I ever explicitly state that I did not accept peoples beliefs? I accept that people believe in shit that I do not. That's fine, this causes me no distress. It causes me slight distress when people unnecessarily push it on me, like door knocking at 8am on a Saturday, or making a law based on some religious shit - other wise I honestly do not give a shit what people believe. What is with you and this whole "right/wrong" argument? Clearly because I do not believe in God, I am not going to say they're right - but I am not saying they are "wrong" for believing in what they do, - it basically comes down to: do you have any evidence to support your claims, confirm/deny.
Why in itself is that such a heinous question? It applies to everything else in life - you cannot make outlandish claims about something without proof, otherwise you get laughed at, sued or thrown in gaol.
"as for my arguments its called apatheism, aka the existance of god is inconsequencial to human life."
Why is this non offensive to you, but the idea of people explicitly stating that they do not believe God exists becomes an argument of "you're wrong/I'm right"?. According to Christians, the existence of God IS of consequence to human life, so doesn't this idea of apetheism also imply that "they are wrong"?
Mate.
1. If you suddenly became blind, deaf and dumb and lost all your senses, obviously people wouldn't cease to exist, and the idea of people would not be faith based because you would have experienced people before you lost your senses. Also, people exist. There is ample proof of this.
"just accept the beliefs of people irrespective of whether you think they are wrong or right? does it matter either way tbh?"
Why do you clowns always pull this canard? Where did I ever explicitly state that I did not accept peoples beliefs? I accept that people believe in shit that I do not. That's fine, this causes me no distress. It causes me slight distress when people unnecessarily push it on me, like door knocking at 8am on a Saturday, or making a law based on some religious shit - other wise I honestly do not give a shit what people believe. What is with you and this whole "right/wrong" argument? Clearly because I do not believe in God, I am not going to say they're right - but I am not saying they are "wrong" for believing in what they do, - it basically comes down to: do you have any evidence to support your claims, confirm/deny.
Why in itself is that such a heinous question? It applies to everything else in life - you cannot make outlandish claims about something without proof, otherwise you get laughed at, sued or thrown in gaol.
"as for my arguments its called apatheism, aka the existance of god is inconsequencial to human life."
Why is this non offensive to you, but the idea of people explicitly stating that they do not believe God exists becomes an argument of "you're wrong/I'm right"?. According to Christians, the existence of God IS of consequence to human life, so doesn't this idea of apetheism also imply that "they are wrong"?
funkshen
dvds didnt exist in 1991
Re: Do you believe is God?
also, there's this little thing called the scientific method.
i can't speak for "atheists", surely you know this.
also, there's this little thing called the scientific method.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Re: Do you believe is God?
I don't get it
I don't get it
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Re: Do you believe is God?
how come dogs dont go to heaven
how come dogs dont go to heaven
Re: Do you believe is God?
to katie tully
wat proof would you have that people exist as an individual in such circumstances. i mean you would have kno way of really telling that they exist.
well the fact that ur expressing other peoples beliefs as "shit" is rude. if it really means that little to you as to what someone believes then you wouldnt be trying to convince me that god does not exist for certain and that ur right. im not telling you to say they're right, i didnt start this questioning of right or wrong. im only expressing my point of view because its either engage in this senseless argument of study. aka the lesser of the two evils in my opinion. the fact ur trying to convince anyone that god doesnt exist, trying to make people see logic in ur argument, suggests that somehow the people believing otherwise offends you.
im not saying im right, nor am i saying your wrong. im saying it can go either way and in actual fact it matters little as to whether god exists or not. As for christianity i guess that implies that i am indifferent to their perspecitves and dont really care what they believe until a christian tries preeching his or her faith in attempt to make me covert.
LOL to ^ last few convoz
to katie tully
wat proof would you have that people exist as an individual in such circumstances. i mean you would have kno way of really telling that they exist.
well the fact that ur expressing other peoples beliefs as "shit" is rude. if it really means that little to you as to what someone believes then you wouldnt be trying to convince me that god does not exist for certain and that ur right. im not telling you to say they're right, i didnt start this questioning of right or wrong. im only expressing my point of view because its either engage in this senseless argument of study. aka the lesser of the two evils in my opinion. the fact ur trying to convince anyone that god doesnt exist, trying to make people see logic in ur argument, suggests that somehow the people believing otherwise offends you.
im not saying im right, nor am i saying your wrong. im saying it can go either way and in actual fact it matters little as to whether god exists or not. As for christianity i guess that implies that i am indifferent to their perspecitves and dont really care what they believe until a christian tries preeching his or her faith in attempt to make me covert.
LOL to ^ last few convoz
Last edited:
funkshen
dvds didnt exist in 1991
Re: Do you believe is God?
smeethaj, you are right. lacking all senses, one couldn't know whether anyone else continued to exist. in fact, our senses mediate our knowledge. but if this happened at say, the age of 20, such a person could draw on 20 years of experience to inform a belief that well, everyone else is most likely alive. but pragmatically, it makes no difference, because you're totally fucked either way.
but even if you have all your senses, how can you be sure everyone else exists? you can't truly be sure. this is a weak solipsism.
why don't you just admit that, maybe, you can't be completely sure of all things, but that doesn't necessitate an invisible friend who assuages this confronting notion.
smeethaj, you are right. lacking all senses, one couldn't know whether anyone else continued to exist. in fact, our senses mediate our knowledge. but if this happened at say, the age of 20, such a person could draw on 20 years of experience to inform a belief that well, everyone else is most likely alive. but pragmatically, it makes no difference, because you're totally fucked either way.
but even if you have all your senses, how can you be sure everyone else exists? you can't truly be sure. this is a weak solipsism.
why don't you just admit that, maybe, you can't be completely sure of all things, but that doesn't necessitate an invisible friend who assuages this confronting notion.
do you live in the real world?
Last edited:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Re: Do you believe is God?
1. This analogy doesn't really even make sense. If you suffered from all of those conditions simultaneously, you would have no way to communicate with anyone, so my question is: if you're born this way then proving people exist is irrelevant because the concept of people would not exist to you. If you can't see, hear, talk and have some sort of peripheral neuropathy whereby you can't feel... then I mean the whole argument is dumb. If it is something you acquired later in life after having experienced people, then you don't need proof that people exist, because it's just dumb to suggest otherwise. It's like saying "if you became a paraplegic tomorrow, how can you prove that people actually can walk and aren't just a projection of your subconscious".
2. I refer to everything as shit, deal with it.
3. I'm not trying to convince you of shit man, why are you making connections and drawing conclusions when they don't exist. I am merely arguing that in the absence of proof to support a claim, the claim remains baseless until proven otherwise. I'm saying you can't argue that God both can and cannot be proven simultaneously, he isn't Schroe's cat.
4. Dude this time you're actually wrong because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, and two my argument is dripping in logic.
wat da ff, mate you're doing circle work
1. This analogy doesn't really even make sense. If you suffered from all of those conditions simultaneously, you would have no way to communicate with anyone, so my question is: if you're born this way then proving people exist is irrelevant because the concept of people would not exist to you. If you can't see, hear, talk and have some sort of peripheral neuropathy whereby you can't feel... then I mean the whole argument is dumb. If it is something you acquired later in life after having experienced people, then you don't need proof that people exist, because it's just dumb to suggest otherwise. It's like saying "if you became a paraplegic tomorrow, how can you prove that people actually can walk and aren't just a projection of your subconscious".
2. I refer to everything as shit, deal with it.
3. I'm not trying to convince you of shit man, why are you making connections and drawing conclusions when they don't exist. I am merely arguing that in the absence of proof to support a claim, the claim remains baseless until proven otherwise. I'm saying you can't argue that God both can and cannot be proven simultaneously, he isn't Schroe's cat.
4. Dude this time you're actually wrong because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, and two my argument is dripping in logic.
can one of you other guys deal with this last sentence because I don't even
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
How can you prove other people exist1111
I'll smack you in the face with a crowbar. If it hurts you and not me, other people exist.
I'll smack you in the face with a crowbar. If it hurts you and not me, other people exist.
Re: Do you believe is God?
i admit that you cant be sure of all things. i guess to an extent you cant be sure of most things. i could even go so far as to say nothing is certain, but then id have to argue that which i cant b bothered doing. lol
many aspects of human life are uncertain, based largely on beliefs.
you wont hear me telling anyone their beliefs are wrong nor will i say their beliefs are right.
right or wrong every individual is entitled to believe whatever the hell they wat until it reaches the point where it effects another outside themselves.
sorry bout the aggressive use of language, i have a personal vendeta against anyone who tries to force their perspectives upon me without respecting my right to believe wateva the hell i want too so long as it doesnt affect another. and yes if it took my fancy that does mean i can believe in unicorns. thats irrelevent to anyone else but me.
i admit that you cant be sure of all things. i guess to an extent you cant be sure of most things. i could even go so far as to say nothing is certain, but then id have to argue that which i cant b bothered doing. lol
many aspects of human life are uncertain, based largely on beliefs.
you wont hear me telling anyone their beliefs are wrong nor will i say their beliefs are right.
right or wrong every individual is entitled to believe whatever the hell they wat until it reaches the point where it effects another outside themselves.
sorry bout the aggressive use of language, i have a personal vendeta against anyone who tries to force their perspectives upon me without respecting my right to believe wateva the hell i want too so long as it doesnt affect another. and yes if it took my fancy that does mean i can believe in unicorns. thats irrelevent to anyone else but me.
Last edited:
Garygaz
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,827
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Do you believe is God?
the problem is that religion affects everybody, mostly in a negative way