-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Do you believe in God
- Thread starter verizyou
- Start date
We can both see the BP oil spill.
It's comments like these that deserve no answer. You just don't get it.
I'm out.
HalfFrozen
Android Enthusiast
Well, it's how I see religion in a not-so-evil light. Everyone here is mentioning their bad experiences with it, but not a whole lot are giving the pros of religion for those that do believe.
It was more of just a random thought.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
I have a spoon in my hand IOWA and I would whack you with it if I wasn't trying to enjoy some soup
I'd bend the spoon with my mind. Maybe ill ask god for help and see if he answers.
HalfFrozen
Android Enthusiast
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
You still didn't tell me what high school you went to that interrogated you and such.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
And I'm not going to. Not a good habit to splatter the internet with your personal details. I will say, howver it was a catholic high school.
mrqs
Android Expert
so because the term "flying spaghetti monster" exists and has meaning, that means the flying spaghetti monster must exist
Already explained this once on this thread, but atheists don't " believe there is no God", rather they don't " believe there is a God".
These are two very different things, very logical yet very hard to understand by people of faith as they have already discarded logic in place of faith.
These are two very different things, very logical yet very hard to understand by people of faith as they have already discarded logic in place of faith.
The claim that the God not existing is one that is not made in faith and doesn't seem reasonable to me. If I made a claim that there exists in a box a ball and I ask you do you believe me? Is it still needed to prove that there isn't a ball that exists in the box that you have to bring proof, or have faith that there isn't? You can't just say no the does not exist the ball in that box and I don't have to prove that it does exist. To me that's what it comes down to.
Just like santa clause to disprove him or say he doesn't exist intellectually you would go into the background of the idea, and discovery where the consept came from, you would show "proof" that he was an idea, and you'd show the "proof" that he is just made up. Or you would show the "proof" that he is real. Either way you present reasons why you believe in the existence of something or the lack of existence in something. Otherwise you can just say I haven't seen it so there is no need for proof for anything. I've never seen a tiger so does that mean me not believing tigers exist doesn't need to be proven, or shown why i believe that?
Just like santa clause to disprove him or say he doesn't exist intellectually you would go into the background of the idea, and discovery where the consept came from, you would show "proof" that he was an idea, and you'd show the "proof" that he is just made up. Or you would show the "proof" that he is real. Either way you present reasons why you believe in the existence of something or the lack of existence in something. Otherwise you can just say I haven't seen it so there is no need for proof for anything. I've never seen a tiger so does that mean me not believing tigers exist doesn't need to be proven, or shown why i believe that?
May I remind everyone to keep the debate civil and to stay clear of posting insults or derogatory comments? This may be The Lounge but basic forum Rules still apply and disrespectful posts will not be tolerated. I've already removed several posts and issued infractions because of unacceptable remarks made in them - I don't want to have to repeat the exercise.
mrqs
Android Expert
the santa claus comparison is a good one in that the origins of neither are fully known
we have only some literature to go on - we don't know who first told the story
but to disprove santa claus, you don't need to go in to the history of it, because the concept includes details that would be easily observed if it were true - such as santa claus coming to bring gifts to children
you can also find details in the concept that contradict our knowledge of the universe, such as that there isn't enough time in a single day for santa claus to visit every home that the concept claims he does
similarly, you don't have to know the origins of the concept of a god to point out the paradox of an omnipotent, benevolent being in a world where suffering exists; or any other logical fallacies of theology
HalfFrozen
Android Enthusiast
HalfFrozen
Android Enthusiast
Major major major differences in your logic.
Tigers:
Evidence of their existence.
Pictures
Videos
Anatomies of their body
Seen by probably millions in person
god:
No evidence of one to ever exist(and no, mankind and the earth is not proof)
No pictures(BUT HE IS INVISIBLE!)
No youtube video footage of "god was in my room last night"(though I bet there is a video called that)
No anatomy of a so-called god(for obvious reasons)
Seen by absolutely positively NO ONE!
Major major major differences in your logic.
Tigers:
Evidence of their existence.
Pictures
Videos
Anatomies of their body
Seen by probably millions in person
god:
No evidence of one to ever exist(and no, mankind and the earth is not proof)
No pictures(BUT HE IS INVISIBLE!)
No youtube video footage of "god was in my room last night"(though I bet there is a video called that)
No anatomy of a so-called god(for obvious reasons)
Seen by absolutely positively NO ONE!
That only proves the point I was making. The point being you can't just say I don't believe something exists and you don't have to "prove" it, like previous posters were advocating. Those examples of no evidence are examples of what you'd use to "disprove" God if you will. Just like those on the flip side will use other means to try and "prove" that God does exist.
krouget
Android Enthusiast
I believe God exist in the hearts and minds of those who choose to recognize that God exist. The idea behind this concept is as abstract as defining love, and by similar means, I feel the concept and acceptance of God is equal parts cognitive, and socially contingent (if you believe strongly enough, and can get enough other people to believe, you see the spread of religion, as with other things). The attempt to explain ones relationship with God is otherwise entirely too subjective. In a sense, this is more tolerance of another persons reason for what they believe, though I myself, do not believe in a God (former Roman Catholic).
Oddly enough, though I'm tolerant of various religions at a personal level, my only real quarrel is when they disallow for the advancement of ideas, brought about by intellectual curiosity. I don't think a relationship with God should directly contradict ones ability to question what goes on around them, and benefit from those answers (this also doesn't assume anyone who believes in God does this, as many scientist or people who adhere to such logic methods, for example, believe in God).
Oddly enough, though I'm tolerant of various religions at a personal level, my only real quarrel is when they disallow for the advancement of ideas, brought about by intellectual curiosity. I don't think a relationship with God should directly contradict ones ability to question what goes on around them, and benefit from those answers (this also doesn't assume anyone who believes in God does this, as many scientist or people who adhere to such logic methods, for example, believe in God).
This response is always interesting, because the lack of proof is sort of contradictory to the point of faith. 'Proof', or lack thereof, should be of no consequence to your [figurative] investment in the idea that God exist. Using a lack of evidence to bolster faith just seems like it upsets the entire idea of conviction, and how it applies to a steadfast belief in God.
HalfFrozen
Android Enthusiast
You are still not seeing it clearly though, in order for an Atheist to provide proof for their claim, would take an actual god to exist in the first place to disprove.
The only people who have to provide proof for their claim are people claiming something to exist. Not, not exist.
Major major major differences in your logic.
Tigers:
Evidence of their existence.
Pictures
Videos
Anatomies of their body
Seen by probably millions in person
god:
No evidence of one to ever exist(and no, mankind and the earth is not proof)
No pictures(BUT HE IS INVISIBLE!)
No youtube video footage of "god was in my room last night"(though I bet there is a video called that)
No anatomy of a so-called god(for obvious reasons)
Seen by absolutely positively NO ONE!
The evidence is all around you, you just refuse to see it....He Lives....
lol