Athiests, even agnostics, nearly everyone it seems wants to prove this and prove that. If it was ever possible to "prove" God exists, would you believe and accept him then?
I can not think of any proof you might offer which would absolutely convince me of the existence of whatever god you might name. Science is the endeavour of delving into the very nature of reality, the attempt to understand all. There is no deeper than that. It is the ultimate purpose and reason. Well, I like it at least. Religion is merely superstition which, unfortunately, rears its ugly head and gets in the way sometimes. Okay, think about it. Why am I talking about it right now? Because you raised the topic for discussion, obviously hpoing for a response. I'm being nice and responding. That is why. Indeed, it is a good thing to consider a character who tried to do good throughout his life. However, like other characters who tried to always do good, such as Winnie The Pooh and the Wombles, we must keep in mind that they are fictional. It would be both encouraging and discouraging to me if such a god's existence was proven. On the one hand, it might be a slight comfort to know there is basically a safety net to existence. On the other hand, such a being's existence raises these problems: - If everything is according to that being's plan, I have no free will. - If that being is the motor force behind all events, he/she/it is an absolute bastard and should be tortured to death. - If that being is omnipotent yet refuses to be involved, he/she/it is a pathetic bastard. Why? For watching 2,800 innocent people be smashed to death in New York. For letting tens of millions die in WW1. For the black death. For numerous other slaughters. Yes, this is in contradiction with the free will point. See why it poses a problem?
Very true when you say that following in the way of a person who's intentions were purely good, isn't a bad thing. The idea of religion and especially Christianity is not a horrible idea at all. To paraphrase the movie Dogma Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! : God wants you to have the idea. He doesn't want you hold onto a belief. Maybe those weren't God's words but the main idea is there. If you were to have the idea of someone who takes care of you, who will be waiting when you lose everything, who looks after you; your life could have more meaning and give it a direction. The problem with "faith" and "believing" is that it was turned from an idea to something that can manipulate people to do things. It was used to gain power, that's where the idea of faith turns into firmly believing....believing can also be denial....Christians wanted everyone to become Christian. My point of view on why people want to disprove Christianity and any god is because they see the problems such beliefs have caused. It's fruitless to point these problems out to a "believer" because their answer will have been manipulated by the society (or people). It is easier to argue that there is no God because of the type of proof and lack of proof of the "believer's" core idea.
That can be debated rather fiercely. Understanding can be misunderstanding without even realizing it. As you use edvidence of Winnie the Pooh and Wombles to prove the hypothesis that Jesus is fictional, I'll use optical illusions to prove that reality can be misinterpreted. The striving for understanding your environment can bias you towards an explantion that gives you the answers all at once. I'm trying to be nuetral here.
I was not proving anything. Merely saying that there is no more reason to believe Jesus was real than there is to believe the Wombles are real. And personally I find the Wombles far more entertaining.
So your just "saying" you don't "believe" that? By responding to this thread, I would suspect you want to add your point of view to the topic. By giving your point of view, your saying what you think is correct...unless your lying to throw us all off, but I don't think that's the case. What's the diferance between "proving" and "believing" in this particular case? btw, I've never heard of Wombles....must be an Aussie thing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1) I'm not really interested in the semantics of the words "belief" and "saying". What I'v said is pretty clear. 2) The Wombles is an old British kids show, like the Smurfs but with big white shaggy things.
Maybe me saying proving was the wrong word to use...... Big white shaggy things! sounds like it would be fun!
grazz, The term ‘belief’ is often misused, or used to imply things incorrectly. It is the basis for a belief that is of importance. For example: I believe that the Sun exists because there is significant scientific evidence and proofs that it exists. This is a rational belief because it is based on facts. The basis here is factual. Also, someone might say: I believe there is a god, because the bible told me. This is an irrational belief because the bible contains no evidential or factual support for the claim that a god exists. All religious beliefs are irrational. However, very few people and especially religious people want to accept that they are irrational. To overcome this impediment religions have stolen and misused the term ‘faith’ and tried to imply that a belief based on faith is somehow a legitimate and rational method for belief. It isn’t. Belief based on ‘religious’ faith is a belief without facts. So when someone says they believe something then the next question you should ask should concern the validity of the basis for their belief. You can then determine if their belief is rational or irrational.
Piffle. I'm human. I have every right in the universe to have any opinion I want. There is no "entitlement" involved. That assumes the right to have an opinion in something given to us. Having an opinion is an instrinsic part of being human. I might as well be. Nobody else is.
Kiz, Strictly speaking atheists aren’t interested in proving anything. Their issue is with theists who make incredible claims and who offer no proof, and who then feign surprise when less gullible people won’t believe them. As for a proof: If it is a recognizable proof conducted under valid scientific conditions then why shouldn’t it be believed? Your doubt that atheists would not believe you stems from some 2000 years of attempted proofs by Christians that have all been shown invalid. You must therefore understand the atheist’s justifiable skepticism that something new might suddenly appear. It seems reasonable to disbelieve something that has no factual basis. But talking about it helps others less rational to perhaps come to their senses and start thinking for themselves. More talk about the absurdity of religion is quite important. Unfortunately it does tremendous harm. It encourages people to have false hopes that they are being protected by this fictitious person and that they might live forever. These feelings discourage people from taking greater efforts to protect themselves and to learn about reality. If that could be shown true then I would agree, otherwise you appear to have nothing more than a fantasy and are living in a dreamworld.
If God appeared in front of me and did something only he could do, then I would believe he exists. Until then I see no reason to believe that he does, so I don't. What kind of God creates people, unleashes plagues and death on them and then simply walks away for a few thousand years? You'd think a creator would play a more active role in his creation... "Their issue is with theists who make incredible claims and who offer no proof, and who then feign surprise when less gullible people won’t believe them. " Exactly.
Yes, I think Adam is saying 4 billion people are irrational in their belief of a higher-being. He needs physical evidence, not accounts of supposed history. Know why quantum mechanics is so hard to understand? It's because it deals with why something acts the way it does....is there much physical evidence for such an idea...not in the sense we are used to......I'm just saying (or proving) that people who use only science to understand the way the world is, need something to convince them....and the track record of all religions isn't enough to just believe what they are suggesting.
Not just arrogant. Arrogant in addition to being better than you, smarter than you, et cetera. I probably beat you in personal hygiene as well.
Kiz, Yes. Why do you think that is a problem? A few centuries ago virtually everyone on the planet believed the world was flat. Do you want to imply that because a lot of people believe something then it must be true? In which case you must believe that the world was flat at one time. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. There is nothing that says that an enlightened minority might not have the correct idea. These generally tend to be scientists who are deliberately searching for truth, e.g. Galileo. As opposed to the vast majority who tend to search for what is the most comfortable.
"Their issue is with theists who make incredible claims and who offer no proof, and who then feign surprise when less gullible people won’t believe them. " Why should theists try to prove something to you in the way you want them to.....try to prove the existance of nuerons in the way they want you to........impossible.
If God appeared in front of me and did something only he could do, then I would believe he exists. Until then I see no reason to believe that he does, so I don't. What kind of God creates people, unleashes plagues and death on them and then simply walks away for a few thousand years? You'd think a creator would play a more active role in his creation... I would believe to if he came down and did something Godlike. It would be awesome. In the meantime I remain undecided on what to believe.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Kizlevru This is a very interesting statement you make. If I KNEW that there was a God, then I would know; belief would be irrelevant. You go on to mention faith as a necessary element in religion, but before I continue... I'm noticing several semantic errors in this thread, so allow me to clear them up. Belief is the act of maintaining a point of view that may or may not correspond with facts or reality. I believe that I am the reincarnation of Hitler (not really, but it's an example). It's up to YOU to buy it or not. Knowledge is a point of view that is backed-up with hard, empircal data and/or evidence that has been (or can be) confirmed by disinterested third parties. Continuing, Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian, makes the assertion that Faith IE a belief in God and the bible is a virtue. But, there's a stumbling block. He speaks of the 'faith of demons', which is based on evidence; namely, demons have witnessed God's power first-hand and know the truth of Christianity. The problem is that if demons have faith (ie know of God), then they are by his own terminology virtuous. In order to clear up this dilemma he coins the terms 'demonic faith' and 'Christian faith'. The distinction is thus. Knowledge based upon concrete and irrefutable evidence is bad, and belief based on nothing more than blind faith is good. To further simplify, it's good to be an ignorant fool and bad to require proof of something before acknowledging it's reality. Which, when you think about it, sums up the Christian mentality quite neatly.
"And by who better than following Jesus's example." Your own. It shows more good in you to be able to make selfless choices based on your own will than basing every choice on the life of another human.
