GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[Lush]

No such thing as woman's intuition, then?

'A bloomin' good idea about something based on real life experience' is a different thing. And can still be wrong.

 

[8ace]

Don't believe in God but if he does exist he's definitely a Proddy or a Jew and not a Catholic or a Muslim.

 

[HovaGirl]

'A bloomin' good idea about something based on real life experience' is a different thing. And can still be wrong.

Come on, love! Support for the sisterhood, er, DAFT Bints!

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't care what people believe in as long as it's legal and it doesn't impact on me. The trouble is that religious beliefs are allowed far too much latitude and they often impinge on the basic freedoms of non believers.

the problem of religions in a nutshell. if it werent for the advantages granted to religions, i dont think most athiest would give a toss.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's your belief and that's no problem,i agree with science and love the subject,i also have a very clear grasp of common sense and facts,but as a believer in a, non judgemental supreme creator,i have a very open mind,open to all possibilities and answers.

why does a non-judgemental, supreme creator allow a child to suffer or die? why does it allow entire peoples to be killed by famine, disease or war, including those devoted to him?

why is he supreme over all the other gods?

 

[Mr Burns]

I, nor no one else can prove to you god does not exist. Neither can I prove to you the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. In fact there are no big fire breathing dragons that live on the bottom of the sea, but I cannot prove they don't live in caves down there. As much as I would like to, I cannot prove there is no planet in our Galaxy made of marshmellows.

But being of average intelligence (well above actually but I aint gonna brag about my Mensa membership) I can work out for myself, that all things being equal, firebreathing dragons don't live at the bottom of the sea, the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, there is no planet made of marshmellow, and there is no god. If any of them did exist, it would be bloody cool, but alais, I'm afriad we have to accept that these thousand year old fables are a little bit dated today.

of course as science proves more things, the regilious types will justify somehow thats its gods work, but me for one, thinks regilion is for the weak of mind, but each to there own. If someones wants to live that way, go for it. Knock yourself out. Just dont get offended when people laugh at you if you try and spread your beleifs.

Time for another quote from the atheist site. One that the Borat video someone posted reminded off "George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

 

[Mr Burns]

why does a non-judgemental, supreme creator allow a child to suffer or die? why does it allow entire peoples to be killed by famine, disease or war, including those devoted to him?

why is he supreme over all the other gods?

Oh oh Oh. I know that one. That's gods will. You cannot question gods will........ That's the best one I've heard on that one!!! He's just testing us!! Sounds a bit of a [unt if you ask me.

 

[Mr Burns]

 

[seagullmouse]

God created the universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of suns and countless planets, and he did it all for a species that have only existed for 0.00145% of the universe's lifetime, living on one tiny pointless little planet in the Milky Way. The arrogance of this belief is beyond belief!

God facepalm!

 

[Shooting Star]

but me for one, thinks regilion is for the weak of mind:

Personally I take the Bible and specifically the New Testament to be historical documents based on eye witness accounts. I fail to see this as being weak of mind. Christians judge these as authoritative historical documents, Atheists don't. Only time will tell who's right, but neither are "weak of mind".

 

[Mr Burns]

Personally I take the Bible and specifically the New Testament to be historical documents based on eye witness accounts. I fail to see this as being weak of mind. Christians judge these as authoritative historical documents, Atheists don't. Only time will tell who's right, but neither are "weak of mind".

How will time tell who right? ? ? ? ? Is Jebus coming back then? Or are you talking about when we die, because frankly mate, by then, I'll be passed giving a shit.

 

[El Presidente]

Personally I take the Bible and specifically the New Testament to be historical documents based on eye witness accounts. I fail to see this as being weak of mind. Christians judge these as authoritative historical documents, Atheists don't. Only time will tell who's right, but neither are "weak of mind".

They may be eyewitness accounts, but they have been passed down, interpreted, and reinterpreted for the best part of 2,000 years.

Given the amount of rewriting of history that takes place on NSC (and many other outlets) within 24 hours of the event first taking place, then it is highly unlikely that the gospel is..................gospel.

 

[Mr Burns]

God created the universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of suns and countless planets, and he did it all for a species that have only existed for 0.00145% of the universe's lifetime, living on one tiny pointless little planet in the Milky Way. The arrogance of this belief is beyond belief!

God facepalm!

No no no. Don't talk rubbish!! Didn't you know the earths only been here a couple of thousand years!!!! All the other stuff you speak of is evidence placed by athesits trying to prove there is no god.

Or is it just the bible "evolving" as science proves it wrong time and time again.

 

[beorhthelm]

Personally I take the Bible and specifically the New Testament to be historical documents based on eye witness accounts.

if i recall correctly not one of the gospels is first hand witness, written several decades later and is translated through greek, to latin to modern langauages such as English, with the embelishment of several hundred years interpretation. different denominations, even f***ing different editions have changes. they are as historical as Shakespeare.

 

[Shooting Star]

They may be eyewitness accounts, but they have been passed down, interpreted, and reinterpreted for the best part of 2,000 years.

Given the amount of rewriting of history that takes place on NSC (and many other outlets) within 24 hours of the event first taking place, then it is highly unlikely that the gospel is..................gospel.

That may be, and there's arguments on both sides of the coin. My point was that Christians believe these to be 'gospel' and Atheists don't, but either position you take doesn't make you weak of mind as some posters have suggested.

And Mr Burns, I said only time will tell as we'll only find out at the end of our lives, and if there is a God then you will surely give a shit when you die.

 

[El Presidente]

That may be, and there's arguments on both sides of the coin.

True, but there are arguments on both sides of the coin in every court case, and court decisions are based on evidence, not faith.

The issue I have with faith is that it disregards evolution.

 

[Mr Burns]

That may be, and there's arguments on both sides of the coin. My point was that Christians believe these to be 'gospel' and Atheists don't, but either position you take doesn't make you weak of mind as some posters have suggested.

And Mr Burns, I said only time will tell as we'll only find out at the end of our lives, and if there is a God then you will surely give a shit when you die.

Well, as other have pointed out, what you take as quote "historical documents based on eye witness accounts" are in fact no such thing. So if you want to blindly carry on believing that, then I would suggest you are weak minded. If you go and look deeper into it, and see that maybe they are not "historical documents based on eye witness accounts", then maybe you will be thinking for yourself, and thats enlightment, better than any work of fiction can be.

I'm not scared of dying. Certainly not scared of any ****ing god when I die. If you're so scared of this thing, based on thousand year old ramblings of leaders controlling their people, then f*** him.

I'd much rather go and live with the devil. Much for fun. If you've got to live by such a set of rules down here and he aint even around ,then f*** living up there when hes up there with you. What a shitty place heaven must be. Give me hell and handfuls of whores any day of the week

 

[Shooting Star]

Well, as other have pointed out, what you take as quote "historical documents based on eye witness accounts" are in fact no such thing. So if you want to blindly carry on believing that, then I would suggest you are weak minded. If you go and look deeper into it, and see that maybe they are not "historical documents based on eye witness accounts", then maybe you will be thinking for yourself, and thats enlightment, better than any work of fiction can be.

Have you looked deeper into it? Or have you just copied what someone else has said and then tried to act like you know chapter and verse on the matter (excuse the pun)? What it seems like to me, to use your wording, is that you have blindly quoted what El Presidente wrote and not really thought about it for yourself. The rather juvenile second half of your post where you felt the need to swear four times to make a point rather illustrates this. I would suggest that you therefore are weak minded.

I'm not getting into an argument about this specific subject as I am no expert on it, and I'm sure the majority of NSC posters aren't either. I have read a couple of books on the matter and choose to believe one side of the argument on the topic of historical evidence, and other posters such as El Presidente have presented the other. My point is that whichever side of the argument you agree with, it doesn't make you "weak minded".

 

[El Presidente]

What it seems like to me, to use your wording, is that you have blindly quoted what El Presidente wrote and not really thought about it for yourself.

I think that is HIGHLY unlikely

Myself and Mr B do like to use the 'Good cop, bad cop' approach to our side of the argument though.

 

[El Presidente]

I have read a couple of books on the matter and choose to believe one side of the argument on the topic of historical evidence, and other posters such as El Presidente have presented the other. My point is that whichever side of the argument you agree with, it doesn't make you "weak minded".

I don't think you are weak minded at all. Each to their own. Ultimately we make our own conclusions, and mine are based on Darwin, Einstein, Newton et al. Just because they are scientists doesn't mean they are right, but their reasoning and logic stacks up IMO.