Does God exist?
- Thread starter Steven
- Start date
Solaris
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,318
- Reaction score
- 4
I don't think God Exists, and that doesn't have to be proven. to be substanciated.theSteven said:
Raeven0
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,495
- Reaction score
- 0
I do think there exists a God, but definitely not as described by either part of the Bible, and that Muslim organisation never sent me my free complimentary Koran.
Why? No logical reason, none that is acceptable in formal discourse. I may as well be an atheist, though, 'cause I'd act the same.
Why? No logical reason, none that is acceptable in formal discourse. I may as well be an atheist, though, 'cause I'd act the same.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,317
- Reaction score
- 16
You actually got me thinking there, of what I belive in. I decided to vote no, but my mind is open.
spookymooky
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,013
- Reaction score
- 0
Suideism is and interesting idea...john3571000 said:
I'd vote if there was an "I have no f___ing clue option.
baxter
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 0
theotherguy
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,107
- Reaction score
- 1
excellent idea for the politics forum, but you really should have said "supreme being(s)" to cover all the bases.
My answer:no
Of course, god can never be proven nor disproven, as that is the nature of the divine being. Divine being's and religions act like psychological viruses. They don't exist as life, yet they feed off of the lives and minds of others, and use them to reproduce.
A god is nothing without followers, because a god has no body and no real power. It is only when thousands of people beleive in a god that the god gains any power, per se. A god may not be real, but when it has a billion followers all willing to do work in what they think is his name, that god becomes very real in the world. But all in all, gods are only phenomenon and products of our minds.
Thus, religions have evolved throughout time in terms of these things:
1. Spread-(evangalism): A religion or god with a maximum emphasis on spread will gain more members, and will be more powerful.
2. Faith- A religion or god that insists that its members beleive it above all else, in spite of evidence, logic or reason has powerful antibodies against skepticism. Skepticism is a "cure" for the virus of a religion, but over time religion has developed the antibody of faith to get rid of it.
3. Ritual- A religion or god promoting absolute rituals and laws gives more order to itself, and is less likely to dissolve or be taken over by another religion.
4. Violence- A religion that uses violence or armed conflict to spread is even more likely to succeed due to the fact that all opposition is killed.
5. Structure- A religion that is structured and heirarchial will not only be more likely to spread through exisisting government bodies, like christianity through the Roman Empire, but it will become more ritualistic and therefore more real to its followers, and more likely to sustain itself
Thus, over time, the thousands of religions that have come to be have fought it out with each other over the minds and souls of the human race, and those that have come out on top are naturally evangelical, faithful, ritualistic, sometimes violent, and highly structured.
My answer:no
Of course, god can never be proven nor disproven, as that is the nature of the divine being. Divine being's and religions act like psychological viruses. They don't exist as life, yet they feed off of the lives and minds of others, and use them to reproduce.
A god is nothing without followers, because a god has no body and no real power. It is only when thousands of people beleive in a god that the god gains any power, per se. A god may not be real, but when it has a billion followers all willing to do work in what they think is his name, that god becomes very real in the world. But all in all, gods are only phenomenon and products of our minds.
Thus, religions have evolved throughout time in terms of these things:
1. Spread-(evangalism): A religion or god with a maximum emphasis on spread will gain more members, and will be more powerful.
2. Faith- A religion or god that insists that its members beleive it above all else, in spite of evidence, logic or reason has powerful antibodies against skepticism. Skepticism is a "cure" for the virus of a religion, but over time religion has developed the antibody of faith to get rid of it.
3. Ritual- A religion or god promoting absolute rituals and laws gives more order to itself, and is less likely to dissolve or be taken over by another religion.
4. Violence- A religion that uses violence or armed conflict to spread is even more likely to succeed due to the fact that all opposition is killed.
5. Structure- A religion that is structured and heirarchial will not only be more likely to spread through exisisting government bodies, like christianity through the Roman Empire, but it will become more ritualistic and therefore more real to its followers, and more likely to sustain itself
Thus, over time, the thousands of religions that have come to be have fought it out with each other over the minds and souls of the human race, and those that have come out on top are naturally evangelical, faithful, ritualistic, sometimes violent, and highly structured.
dream431ca
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 0
Solaris said:
God is not about evidence or logic. It's really about faith.
baxter said:
I find it funny how people blame god for natural disasters and most of those people don't believe in god anyway.
CrazyHarij
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 10,075
- Reaction score
- 1
I dont think theres is a god, but i believe there's a total possibility of this only being a smaller part of a larger reality, or that we are all one creating our own reality.
be gentle with the new age nutjob stamps please :E
be gentle with the new age nutjob stamps please :E
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 62
15357 said:
you havent thought this through have you? anyone who could bend time (which he'd have to if he knew what you were going to do in the future) and shape someone's life through specific (unseen, no less) interventions would be considered a "higher lifeform" therefore for all intents and purposes he is a god to us
I don't believe it's possible to assert a God or gods don't exist, but it's entirely rational to not believe in one. So with the assmption that voting "no" means the latter...
Clearly defined gods can be disproven, or at least rendered meaningless if we're operating on a basis of logic. If you say that God is a pink man in my attic, but I look up and see he's not there, then your God has been disproven. If you say that you're God is omniscient, but has granted us free will, he has been disproven since the two are logically incompatible. Those specific gods with contradictions can be safely dismissed. Similarly, a god without clear definition is pretty much a meaningless entity. An amorphous blob not worth trifling with. Some people also make statements like "the universe itself is God". In such situations, they would need to explain what earns it the title of God as opposed to simply being the universe.
But logic is still a human product. Although it is the basis of pretty much all human interactions and our understanding of the universe, I am not so pompous as to assume it is verifiably inerrant on an all-encompassing scale. I see no reason to doubt logic, but if for a moment we are to suspend it and entertain the idea that the workings of God transcend logic (and subsequently all rational human thought), then again, such a hypothetical God is also of little relevance to us. If it cannot relate to his children through the very intellectual means with which he has endowed us with, then there simply is no reason for human belief in such a being, regardless of wether or not it actually does exist. He is simply beyond our reach, and any say-so otherwise is foolish, limiting, and counter to all our intellectual development.
This is ignoring the sheer multitude of gods people have to choose from, or the possibility that one's "true" God may be playing a giant cosmic hoax on you, in which you will burn in Hell regardless of what you do, or that there is perhaps a god that rewards skepticism towards his existence. Couple this with the complete absence of evidence for such beings...
No, I do not believe in any gods. I do not rule out their existence entirely, for that would be a positive assertion I have no ability of backing up. But I simply find no good reasons to believe in them, and I seriously wonder how anybody else can.
Clearly defined gods can be disproven, or at least rendered meaningless if we're operating on a basis of logic. If you say that God is a pink man in my attic, but I look up and see he's not there, then your God has been disproven. If you say that you're God is omniscient, but has granted us free will, he has been disproven since the two are logically incompatible. Those specific gods with contradictions can be safely dismissed. Similarly, a god without clear definition is pretty much a meaningless entity. An amorphous blob not worth trifling with. Some people also make statements like "the universe itself is God". In such situations, they would need to explain what earns it the title of God as opposed to simply being the universe.
But logic is still a human product. Although it is the basis of pretty much all human interactions and our understanding of the universe, I am not so pompous as to assume it is verifiably inerrant on an all-encompassing scale. I see no reason to doubt logic, but if for a moment we are to suspend it and entertain the idea that the workings of God transcend logic (and subsequently all rational human thought), then again, such a hypothetical God is also of little relevance to us. If it cannot relate to his children through the very intellectual means with which he has endowed us with, then there simply is no reason for human belief in such a being, regardless of wether or not it actually does exist. He is simply beyond our reach, and any say-so otherwise is foolish, limiting, and counter to all our intellectual development.
This is ignoring the sheer multitude of gods people have to choose from, or the possibility that one's "true" God may be playing a giant cosmic hoax on you, in which you will burn in Hell regardless of what you do, or that there is perhaps a god that rewards skepticism towards his existence. Couple this with the complete absence of evidence for such beings...
No, I do not believe in any gods. I do not rule out their existence entirely, for that would be a positive assertion I have no ability of backing up. But I simply find no good reasons to believe in them, and I seriously wonder how anybody else can.
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
This is sort of arguing semantics here...
Atheism is the belief that there is definately no God or supreme being, but it can also be making no claim on God's existance. But a narrower definintion is that you believe there is no God.
Agnosticism is the belief that humankind does not have the capability of determining whether or not there is a God. Some agnostics believe that because of this, it does not pertain to your life.
An Agnostic atheist can't really exist; you can't say "We can't know for certain, but I'm certain there is no God." (Using the narrower definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism.)
But rereading your post makes me think you're more of an atheist who cannot back his belief with hard evidence, just like every other religion ever. So never mind
Atheism is the belief that there is definately no God or supreme being, but it can also be making no claim on God's existance. But a narrower definintion is that you believe there is no God.
Agnosticism is the belief that humankind does not have the capability of determining whether or not there is a God. Some agnostics believe that because of this, it does not pertain to your life.
An Agnostic atheist can't really exist; you can't say "We can't know for certain, but I'm certain there is no God." (Using the narrower definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism.)
But rereading your post makes me think you're more of an atheist who cannot back his belief with hard evidence, just like every other religion ever. So never mind
Erestheux said:
Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. That is it. Atheists can deny the existence of gods outright, but that is not central to atheism itself. Just like a theist can admit the possibility of error, but still believe in gods.
Agnosticim pertains to knowledge and certainty. That is not the same as theism. That is why they are not comparable. When you apply it to theism, agnosticism is the idea that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of gods.
I fail to see how this is mutually exclusive to both theism or atheism.
An agnostic atheist cannot exist with those definitions... and those definitions are faulty. You admit it yourself that they are narrow. With that admission in mind, why do you apply that to the central tenet of atheism itself?
You are either a theist or an atheist because there are no other options. It's very simple. If you believe that a god exists, you are a theist. If you do not hold belief in a god, you are an atheist. Wether or not you accept the possibility of error is irrelevant.
But rereading your post makes me think you're more of an atheist who cannot back his belief with hard evidence, just like every other religion ever. So never mind
I don't need to back my belief because I have no belief. I make no assertions about the existence of gods, only that I lack good reason to believe in them. The burden of proof, or "backing up" if you wish to call it that, falls on the shoulders of theists.
I'm going to reiterate this again because I think many people need to recognize the distinction.
"I do not believe in God" =/= "I believe God does not exist"
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
Why are you lecturing me on the definition of terms by making the definitions way more ridiculously complex then needed?
As riomhaire stated, athiests believe there is no god, agnostics do not believe in god. That's the definition I go by to avoid making ridiculously long uneedingly complex discussions arguing semantics.
Thus, an atheist would vote no in this poll, an agnostic doesn't have an option.
As riomhaire stated, athiests believe there is no god, agnostics do not believe in god. That's the definition I go by to avoid making ridiculously long uneedingly complex discussions arguing semantics.
Thus, an atheist would vote no in this poll, an agnostic doesn't have an option.
ríomhaire said:
Sure, that works for convenience's sake. The terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" are also convenient, although erroneous
I just find it irritating when people people treat them as the actual, literal definitions or attempt to base an argument off of a misrepresentation.
Erestheux said:
Making it more complex? On the contrary, I've shown how simple it is. It is you who have made unnecessary additions to atheism (ie. atheists believe there is no god).
That's the definition you go by for the sake of convenience. You were mistaken if you thought you could successfully argue to me those definitions as factual.
Some atheists might vote no. Others might not. Again, I must stress there is a distinction between not believing in something and claiming something does not exist. One is an assertion, whereas the other makes none.
A link for you: http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
Before scoffing at the geocities domain, do actually read it. I'll select some key quotes from it.
"Theism and atheism are dealing in the realm of belief. They pertain to what we do or do not believe. Agnosticism and gnosticism are dealing with knowledge, i.e., knowing or not knowing. Being aware of this seemingly obvious fact is critical to understanding the difference between atheism and agnosticism and the label you may or may not fall under."
"...there are different types of atheists. Atheism itself is very broad; it is lack of god-belief. If you’re of the mindset that atheism is the positive belief that there are no gods, you’re wrong. Believing that there are no gods is a characteristic of some atheists, not atheism."
"Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity; agnosticism is the absence of knowledge, in this context the absence of knowledge whether or not one or more gods exist. Atheism and agnosticism are two different spheres of thought and should be treated as such."
"Because agnosticism is dealing with knowledge and not belief, therefore being a separate school of thought, it is not a third option aside from theism and atheism. A person either has or does not have a belief in one or more gods."
"That is: either the theist or atheist knows there is or isn’t a god (gnostic) or he or she simply believes there is or does not believe there is (agnostic), while admitting that he or she does not know."
If you wish to read up on the the relationship between atheism and agnosticism, you should check out http://atheism.about.com/.
Erestheux said:Whatever, you call your things whatever you want. I don't enjoy arguing about the definitions of words. Have fun.
Funny how you put up the "oh, I don't really care" gig after faced with reasoning showing how you're wrong.
You're not fooling anybody. And yes, I did have fun. :thumbs:
Raeven0
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,495
- Reaction score
- 0
theism: "belief in God or gods"
a: "not"
atheism: "not belief in God or gods", i.e., "disbelief in God or gods"
"Perhaps there exists a god, but I do not believe so."
"I believe no god exists."
gnostic: "wise"
a: "not"
agnostic: "not wise", i.e., "lacking the knowledge to say whether God or gods exist"
"There may or may not exist a god. I know not, and refuse to take an opinion."
a: "not"
atheism: "not belief in God or gods", i.e., "disbelief in God or gods"
"Perhaps there exists a god, but I do not believe so."
"I believe no god exists."
gnostic: "wise"
a: "not"
agnostic: "not wise", i.e., "lacking the knowledge to say whether God or gods exist"
"There may or may not exist a god. I know not, and refuse to take an opinion."
spookymooky
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,013
- Reaction score
- 0
It doesn't mean he's wrong. Niether of you are wrong. English doesn't work like that. Unfortunately, both of your definitions probably apply, as definitions are defined by common usage.Ludah said:
