GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[Mr Burns]

Indeed without people believing is god we wouldn't have atheists, everyone would be the same with no definition, but that does not mean that since there are people that believe, they have to prove it.

disagree. I think if someone is going to get into a debate about whether gods exists, then they should be willing to prove it. What have they got to hide?

I would not start a conversation and start critising peoples beleifs, just because they believe in a god. But if someone want to tell me how wonderful and great god is, then yes, I feel they do need to prove it!

 

[Triggaaar]

Maybe one day it WILL be possible for someone to do just that.

To do what, swim across an ocean underwater unaided?

Who would have believed Usain Bolt could smash the world record like that?

Me. Usain Bolt can sprint a couple of seconds faster than people could 70,000 years ago, and you're comparing that to someone turning into a fish?[/QUOTE]

 

[birthofanorange]

No what I said will not be possible. It is not possible for a human being to live uaided underwater. It would need for us to evolve into another species. It may happen one day. Unlikely.

A lot of people beleives it was possible for Usain Bolt to run that fast. Many Many people beleive its possible for a human to run faster, and not doubt in people who are alive todays lifttime, a human will run 100m in under 9 seconds.

By asking me not to limit myself by ignoring possibilities, possibilities I think are impossible, then are you not asking me to have faith??

'Possibilities that YOU think are impossible' - That doesn't mean they don't exist, only that they don't exist for you. That's not faith, that's reason.

 

[El Presidente]

I would just like to apologise to all the wives of NSC'ers who are not getting their weekly portion due to me starting this thread

 

[birthofanorange]

Hahahaha!!!!!! True dat!

 

[Triggaaar]

disagree. I think if someone is going to get into a debate about whether gods exists, then they should be willing to prove it. What have they got to hide?

You don't seem to understand the concept of belief. It's not about having something to hide, it is simply impossible to prove. And it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, but that's not stopping you debating it. To simply say that the onus of proof is on the other side is weak. You basically believe that people should never debate religion, because those that believe cannot prove it (and ironically, if they could, there would be no debate). Just because someone can't prove that what they believe in exists does not mean they don't believe in it. If I asked you what your favourite colour was, and you told me, could you then prove it?

 

[Mr Burns]

'Possibilities that YOU think are impossible' - That doesn't mean they don't exist, only that they don't exist for you. That's not faith, that's reason.

So it is possible for a human to swim unaided underwater across oceans? I think thats impossible, don't you then?

Okay, last one before I go to bed. So its possible for a human to jump out of a plane, and fly around like Superman?

I think you'll find that possibility doesn't exisit for me or anyone else. Its a possibilty that I think is impossible. So it you are saying its not impossible, prove it to me, and I'll do it. It not, stop taking shit.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Indeed without people believing is god we wouldn't have atheists, everyone would be the same with no definition, but that does not mean that since there are people that believe, they have to prove it.

There's still the agnostics.

They could exist without "religion" and still allow the posibility of the atheist.

Undone? I disagree.

There's too many atheists who spin the bible concept of God as evidence against it to make it an untruth.

As science advances, more 'facts' from the bible turn into generalisations and fables, to protect the religion from its flaws.

If people are trying to use science as some mighty weapon to discredit the whole bible they must be a bit thick and missing the point of what a lot of the bible is about.

There was no single first homosapien. There was no one day when one species became extinct and we emerged, it was a gradual process, and if you could see all our ancestors lined up, you wouldn't be able to decide which one was the first homosapien. However, the period where our species did become what is now referred to as homosapien was many thousands of years before any scripture. The open mind you need to believe the bible is the same one you need to believe all the nostradamus predictions (and I'm not saying you need that mind to believe in god, which is a much easier game, but to believe the bible is accurate).

I've said as much in another response.

I never put a time frame on when "adam and eve" came about nor suggested it wansn't a gradual process.

What i will say is though, just as a religious person using the bible as absolute truth is flawed, so is the atheist who tries to use the bible as proof there's no god and religion is all wrong is jsut as flawed in their thinking.

 

[El Presidente]

Okay, last one before I go to bed. So its possible for a human to jump out of a plane, and fly around like Superman?

Only if his name is GUS POYET

 

[birthofanorange]

Okay, I'll stop taking shit. lol!

Sleep well, and I bet you fall out of bed trying to fly in your dreams!

 

[Mr Burns]

You don't seem to understand the concept of belief. It's not about having something to hide, it is simply impossible to prove. And it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, but that's not stopping you debating it. To simply say that the onus of proof is on the other side is weak. You basically believe that people should never debate religion, because those that believe cannot prove it (and ironically, if they could, there would be no debate). Just because someone can't prove that what they believe in exists does not mean they don't believe in it. If I asked you what your favourite colour was, and you told me, could you then prove it?

I know its not about having something to hide? I dont think you understand what I am saying. I've not once said people should never debate religon. I love a good regilious debate. But if someone believes something, and willing to debate that it exists, then prove it to me. As I said, I would loveeeeo there to be a god, I would love there to be an afterlife. But to believe in something, if I feel the need to, I need to be able to prove it to myself it exsists, not just have faith in someone elses word, and my logic tells me, regilion is bullshit. I've deceided to go looking for it, and have never ever been able to find it, therefore I don't beleive in it. So if someone who TELLS ME its real, then I say prove it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE prove it to me. I'm fully open to it, just need someone to prove it.

I'm fully aware its impossible to prove something doesn't exsist. But if someone beleives somethings exsists, they should be able to prove it.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Am I. Okay. But in typical regilous rambling, you've managed to completely ignore the point put to you.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Biggums
The concept of a "god" has been around a long time. Quite posisbly since the inception of homo sapiens, maybe even preceding that.
.
REPEAT. I've just knicked this quote from another posters quote. Did you really say that? How the hell would you know that? You can date a "concept" back to before "the inception of homo sapiens"? ? ? ? ? Wow!! Is that what someone told you to beleive? That is arrogence beyond beleif

The fact you seem to think my posts are "religious" ramblings suggests you're not understanding what i'm suggesting.

I'm not supporting the religious line of thought, i'm supporting the nobody knows the truth line of thought.

The concept of "deities" would have its basis in the likes of homo erectus and homo sapiens seeing lightning or hearing thunder and through fear and non comprehension of its origins associating it with some other power.

This has nothing to do with todays concept of "god" more from where the seeds would have originally grown from.

 

[birthofanorange]

I've deceided to go looking for it, and have never ever been able to find it, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE prove it to me. I'm fully open to it, just need someone to prove it.

Good to know that you ARE open to the possibility of the impossible. Happy landings!

 

[Mr Burns]

There's too many atheists who spin the bible concept of God as evidence against it to make it an untruth.

Athesits spin the bible!!! Ha Ha, pot kettle black!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You don't go looking for God.

You look for this first Spirituality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Triggaaar]

There's too many atheists who spin the bible concept of God as evidence against it to make it an untruth.

How many is too many? You have grown up knowing that science has proven that the bible is not based on facts, and as such you have decided that it was never meant to be taken that way, but instead it is a story that requires deep thought to fully understand. But that's not how people used to view the bible, they actually thought it was accurate.

I never put a time frame on when "adam and eve" came about nor suggested it wansn't a gradual process.

You said "I mean if the bible is written by homo sapiens it stands to reason they will start writing about the coming of their kind, not of those before whom they would have known next to nothing about" and
"Adam is the awakening/rise of homo sapien man from what proceded him which would still tie in with the theory of evolution. "

But the coming of their kind (and therefore Adam) happened many tens of thousands of years before they think it did, and if they were penning the word of god they would have known. But they weren't, they were making it up.

What i will say is though, just as a religious person using the bible as absolute truth is flawed, so is the atheist who tries to use the bible as proof there's no god

Well I agree with that bit.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Athesits spin the bible!!! Ha Ha, pot kettle black!

Of course a lot of religious people spin the bible, that's a given.

So hardly pot kettle black.

It's the atheists who use the concept of the bible literally to prove some points scoring who are up there with the biggest of the plonkers of the lot.

 

[El Presidente]

It's the atheists who use the concept of the bible literally to prove some points scoring who are up there with the biggest of the plonkers of the lot.

As a converted atheist, I look at the evidence that overwhelmingly suggests that life evolved on this planet. I believe that this is inconsistent with the existence of a deity, and therefore, in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary, God as defined by the major religions of this planet does not exist.

 

[Triggaaar]

But if someone believes something, and willing to debate that it exists, then prove it to me. As I said, I would loveeeeo there to be a god, I would love there to be an afterlife. But to believe in something, if I feel the need to, I need to be able to prove it to myself it exsists, not just have faith in someone elses word, and my logic tells me, regilion is bullshit.

It's one thing to say that hyperthetically you'd love someone to prove it to you (who wouldn't), but since you know that's not possible (come on, you know right?), it's not a phrase to use in a serious debate.

I'm fully aware its impossible to prove something doesn't exsist. But if someone beleives somethings exsists, they should be able to prove it.

No. Let's just imagine there is a god - he's all powerful, created the universe (I know Joshua thought he said we were the at the centre, but he meant it metaphorically) etc. So god then decides whether he wants us to know he exists or not:
If he wants us to know, it would be quite simple for him to slap us round the head with our own hand every day and shout at us "who's ya daddy!"
but he doesn't do that (and remember, we're imagining he does exist)
so if he doesn't want us to 'know' he exists (he wants us to have blind faith instead), given that he's all powerful, created everything etc, it's not hard to imagine he hasn't left any proof lying around is it.

So if you think believers should have proof, you're missing the point.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

How many is too many? You have grown up knowing that science has proven that the bible is not based on facts, and as such you have decided that it was never meant to be taken that way, but instead it is a story that requires deep thought to fully understand. But that's not how people used to view the bible, they actually thought it was accurate.

The bible isn't that complicated. It's a book of parables on how to lead a decent life.

You don't even have to be religious to take knowledge from it.

There are real people contained within it so it does offer some interesting reading in regards to some documented historical figures.

You said "I mean if the bible is written by homo sapiens it stands to reason they will start writing about the coming of their kind, not of those before whom they would have known next to nothing about" and
"Adam is the awakening/rise of homo sapien man from what proceded him which would still tie in with the theory of evolution. "

But the coming of their kind (and therefore Adam) happened many tens of thousands of years before they think it did, and if they were penning the word of god they would have known. But they weren't, they were making it up.
Well I agree with that bit.

Are you dismissing the ancient oral traditons of most cultures used to pass on information of ancestors through songs and stories, drawings etc?

It's widely reported that Captain James Cook discovered Australia, yet there's cave paintings that suggest other white men walked the land long before he arrived on Australian shores.

Putting a modern spin on ancient practices just doesnt work.