Do you believe in God

[bbrosen]

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

That is an arrogant statement

 

[bbrosen]

I guess we will all find out eventually.

lol, right, I tell people it's ok if you choose not to believe, but you better not be wrong! If I am wrong, well, then, no biggie, dissapointmet, but no biggie, on the other hand if you are wrong, well......dress for warmer climes!

 

[ragnarokx]

Don't get so hung up on evidence, Einstein didn't. Many scientists believe something without being able to prove it. To me Science and Religion do not have to disagree. I love science and technology but it's doesn't change my fundamental belief and I don't see why it should.

Einstein, along with every other scientist, prove nothing right - they only prove things wrong. It is impossible to prove something right in science. That is why the best explanation for something is used until it is proven wrong. Once it is, a new explanation is used, and so on (see "the scientific method"). Much different than religion/the bible, which is not possible to test for being wrong. Hence the reason why religion is rejected by science.

lol, right, I tell people it's ok if you choose not to believe, but you better not be wrong! If I am wrong, well, then, no biggie, dissapointmet, but no biggie, on the other hand if you are wrong, well......dress for warmer climes!

I thought God was all forgiving - so do non-believers really have anything to worry about in your eyes?

 

[HalfFrozen]

The evidence is all around you, you just refuse to see it....He Lives....

Explain to me what I refuse to see... please explain.

Santa Clause is real.......

Where is your evidence?

That is an arrogant statement

Because it is true? And it also hurts your feelings? lol

lol, right, I tell people it's ok if you choose not to believe, but you better not be wrong! If I am wrong, well, then, no biggie, dissapointmet, but no biggie, on the other hand if you are wrong, well......dress for warmer climes!

Lets hope you are not wrong, cause what a let down that would be. Let down OF A LIFE TIME!

I am fairly certain you will be GREATLY disappointed.

 

[krouget]

Hence the reason why religion is rejected by science.

Just to note, some details of religion are rejected by science. Many scientist do believe in God and faith, though.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~Einstein

I otherwise agree with your post.

 

[Deleted User]

there is so much arrogance in this thread i want to punch it in the face. I believe there is a god partly because of science. The universe at its most fundamental foundation doesn't make any sense. Also where the hell did the big bang come from? I also believe in evolution... I think many atheists don't know that religion and evolution can be friends. Another reason i believe the bible is because of the concepts in it. Murder is equal to checking out a hot chick in god's eyes. No person would ever think like this. As previously said in other posts, there is also no way to live that will allow you to enter heaven without forgiveness. No person can do it.
The following is completely my opinion but hell will not be a fiery slave driven factory for the devil. I think it will be you, alone, for all eternity. Heaven is not filled with that awesome choco milk shake you love either.

 

[aiz4andy]

Just to note, some details of religion are rejected by science. Many scientist do believe in God and faith, though.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~Einstein

I otherwise agree with your post.

Oooohh.....bad move! Especially in its original context, but furthermore regarding this - another Einstein quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
~ Albert Einstein

A survey of the Royal Society revealed less than 1 in 10 scientists believed in a god

 

[Rota]

which means? Atheists are so much more arrogant

Logically thinking != arrogance

Thinking other people are arrogant because they don't believe in fairy tales = arrogant

 

[HalfFrozen]

there is so much arrogance in this thread i want to punch it in the face. I believe there is a god partly because of science. The universe at its most fundamental foundation doesn't make any sense. Also where the hell did the big bang come from? I also believe in evolution... I think many atheists don't know that religion and evolution can be friends. Another reason i believe the bible is because of the concepts in it. Murder is equal to checking out a hot chick in god's eyes. No person would ever think like this. As previously said in other posts, there is also no way to live that will allow you to enter heaven without forgiveness. No person can do it.
The following is completely my opinion but hell will not be a fiery slave driven factory for the devil. I think it will be you, alone, for all eternity. Heaven is not filled with that awesome choco milk shake you love either.

A break in your wall of text would be great...

Power of jesus is making you want to punch non-believers...huh?

You believe in god because of science, ok.. Well why is that?

The universe at its most Fundamental Foundation doesn't make any sense... What exactly do you mean by it not making sense.

Ever hear of a little tiny thing called the LHC, like most things in science, its unknown until we find the best possible was to explain it, and so far we have been trying to recreated the big bang and what caused it.

You believe in Evolution and the bible? Sounds like you are a tad bit confused.

Religion and Evolution will never be alike, because they are not anywhere near each other in being alike.

You believe the bible is true because of the concepts it has in it!? So you are saying, if you are reading a book and it is about all this ridiculous nonsense and then it also says "ohh yeah BTW killing people is bad". And that justifies it as a real book? I am positive we don't need a book to tell us that killing is bad.

Murder is equal to checking out a girl? If that was the case this world would be literally torn into two if we lived by that statement.

 

[OfTheDamned]

I will remind all Agnostics, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims and self appointed Deities that none of this needs to be made personal. What you believe or choose not to is entirely up to you just like posting in or reading this thread. You can continue to believe what you believe, but this thread will be closed if it continues in the manner that it has been. The rudeness needs to stop and anymore of this will result in infractions.

 

[Deleted User]

dang dude you got me beat lol, did you even think about any of the things i said as a whole or did you just take meaning from them with blocks of 3 or 4 words? God created evolution as a way for people to explain how we got we without forcing them to believe in god.

break!!!!! even though a paragraph should be at least 4-5 sentences, and yes i could have split my paragraph but i didn't realize this forum was so formal

Religion and Evolution will never be alike, because they are not anywhere near each other in being alike.

that is one of the dumbest statements i have read in this forum or any forum, thats like saying the computer isn't powered because power isn't going to the computer. Really? That isn't actually an explanation i hope you know.

Murder is equal to checking out a girl? If that was the case this world would be literally torn into two if we lived by that statement.

what!?!? i just said people don't think like that, but in gods eyes neither will keep you out of heaven any more than the other.

Thinking other people are arrogant because they don't believe in fairy tales = arrogant

no, actually, arrogant is not a logical word to explain that. The smug, snarky, "i'm better than you" attitude that HalfFrozen has starting with the statement

A break in your wall of text would be great...

is arrogant

 

[Deleted User]

sorry OfTheDamned, hadn't refreshed in a while but i should have known... i am done

 

[krouget]

Oooohh.....bad move! Especially in its original context, but furthermore regarding this - another Einstein quote:

In your quote, Einstein makes a distinction between God and a personal God, in that, there isn't a God which exist who caters to our individual needs/wants. In context, he is looking at it from a more holistic approach, in which 'God' has hand in creation, in tandem with science and what it aims to accomplish in its understanding of the universe. This is why both quotes exist, without contradicting each other.

A survey of the Royal Society revealed less than 1 in 10 scientists believed in a god

While I respect your claim, I could also produce surveys which include results which counter a 10% number. Do you have a link to the source, or any information on what type of Scientist they surveyed?

 

[HalfFrozen]

dang dude you got me beat lol, did you even think about any of the things i said as a whole or did you just take meaning from them with blocks of 3 or 4 words? God created evolution as a way for people to explain how we got we without forcing them to believe in god.

How do you know god created Evolution, or even that god exists?

break!!!!! even though a paragraph should be at least 4-5 sentences, and yes i could have split my paragraph but i didn't realize this forum was so formal

It isnt formal, but it makes you seem like an angry shaking your fist in the air kind of person.

that is one of the dumbest statements i have read in this forum or any forum, thats like saying the computer isn't powered because power isn't going to the computer. Really? That isn't actually an explanation i hope you know.

How is it the dumbest thing you have ever read? Why? Explain how they are SOOO much alike. Please, Go on.

what!?!? i just said people don't think like that, but in gods eyes neither will keep you out of heaven any more than the other.

Then you need to work on your wording.

no, actually, arrogant is not a logical word to explain that. The smug, snarky, "i'm better than you" attitude that HalfFrozen has starting with the statement is arrogant

That was arrogant because I hurt your feelings?

 

[aiz4andy]

In your quote, Einstein makes a distinction between God and a personal God, in that, there isn't a God which exist who caters to our individual needs/wants. In context, he is looking at it from a more holistic approach, in which 'God' has hand in creation, in tandem with science and what it aims to accomplish in its understanding of the universe. This is why both quotes exist, without contradicting each other.

Try reading the letter that quote was in in its full contect, and then consider the following letter he wrote to Eric Gutkind in 1954:

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein.

While I respect your claim, I could also produce surveys which include results which counter a 10% number. Do you have a link to the source, or any information on what type of Scientist they surveyed?

All 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS) who possess an email address (the great majority) were polled, and about 23 per cent responded (a good figure for this kind of study). They were offered various propositions, for example:

 

[Deleted User]

That was arrogant because I hurt your feelings?

no because the definition of arrogant is: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

I did not attack anyone coming into this thread. I didn't like the attitude in this thread so i addressed that and then i stated my beliefs.

 

[krouget]

Try reading the letter that quote was in in its full contect, and then consider the following letter he wrote to Eric Gutkind in 1954:

Right, neither of his ideas contradict what I've stated. Einstein's approach to God is more metaphorical and partially deist, but in what I think you're referring to, doesn't fall in line with any conventional religion. That much has long been a source of debate.

Transitioning into the greater topic, if you've read my previous post, it outlines a broader possibility in the existence of God (#246, highly abstract), though I myself am not a believer. The adherence to faith and/or 'God' does not owe its existence to the ideas behind popular theist beliefs, though that's typically where these types of threads go when they address faith/religion. I think you're misunderstanding my position, but it has less to do with the idea of a personal god, which you continue to reference in the rest of your post. You won't get much dispute from me on that end, as again, I don't believe in such an entity.

We can debate the rest of the Einstein stuff over PM, if you'd like, but my underlying point has been made, as previously mentioned. Thanks for providing more info. on the survey, I'll take a more in-depth look a bit later.

 

[Phenomenological]

Oh, and another little philosophical nugget for you. Nothing serious, just something light hearted, but something amusing to consider none the less.

If there was a god, could he/she create a boulder they couldn't lift?

The perfect argument against the existence of an omnipotent being. Think about it.

 

[vincentp]

You're claiming Atheist. The burden of proof is to now show me there is not God.

That's not true. In fact that's the most common misconception. There are some fundamental problems with this logic.

First of all, someone that follows a specific religion is also an atheist relative to all other religions. A Christian, for instance, does not believe in Zeus. He does not believe in Shiva. He only believes in the god that is real to him. It would not be unreasonable - based on your logic - for me to ask you for proof that Zeus does not exist.

Second, and more importantly - atheists are not making a claim that nothing exists. The reason they believe that nothing exists in the first place is because of the lack of proof. If sufficient proof were to be given that a supreme being existed, then there would be no need for atheism. It would no longer exist. No one is atheist towards grass because we know it's there. If someone were to say "grass doesn't exist", that would be ridiculous. We wouldn't ask them for proof because we know they're wrong. The fact that you ask atheists for proof at all validates the viewpoint.

Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief in the absence of evidence. Atheists are forced to defend their belief because they are assailed by believers of various religions into defending their position when - in reality - the burden of proof will always be on the believer.

If you believe in a god, then good for you. I have nothing against you. I do not intend this post to be bigoted in any way. This was intended only as a logical argument.

 

[Sev]

Don't feel like debating, but yes, I do beleive in God.

All I have to say is, our so called leaders are fallacies.

 

[HalfFrozen]

no because the definition of arrogant is: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

I did not attack anyone coming into this thread. I didn't like the attitude in this thread so i addressed that and then i stated my beliefs.

So you dont want to answer any of my questions? That is fine. Guess we know how spongy some people are nowadays...

Don't feel like debating, but yes, I do beleive in God.

All I have to say is, our so called leaders are fallacies.

Why are they fallacies?

 

[HalfFrozen]

That's not true. In fact that's the most common misconception. There are some fundamental problems with this logic.

First of all, someone that follows a specific religion is also an atheist relative to all other religions. A Christian, for instance, does not believe in Zeus. He does not believe in Shiva. He only believes in the god that is real to him. It would not be unreasonable - based on your logic - for me to ask you for proof that Zeus does not exist.

Second, and more importantly - atheists are not making a claim that nothing exists. The reason they believe that nothing exists in the first place is because of the lack of proof. If sufficient proof were to be given that a supreme being existed, then there would be no need for atheism. It would no longer exist. No one is atheist towards grass because we know it's there. If someone were to say "grass doesn't exist", that would be ridiculous. We wouldn't ask them for proof because we know they're wrong. The fact that you ask atheists for proof at all validates the viewpoint.

Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief in the absence of evidence. Atheists are forced to defend their belief because they are assailed by believers of various religions into defending their position when - in reality - the burden of proof will always be on the believer.

If you believe in a god, then good for you. I have nothing against you. I do not intend this post to be bigoted in any way. This was intended only as a logical argument.

This. Because all my other posts have been deleted pretty much saying this exact same thing. lol

 

[Sev]

So you dont want to answer any of my questions? That is fine. Guess we know how spongy some people are nowadays...




Why are they fallacies?

I don't feel like arguing, just my opinion.

 

[aiz4andy]

Right, neither of his ideas contradict what I've stated. Einstein's approach to God is more metaphorical and partially deist, but in what I think you're referring to, doesn't fall in line with any conventional religion. That much has long been a source of debate.

Transitioning into the greater topic, if you've read my previous post, it outlines a broader possibility in the existence of God (#246, highly abstract), though I myself am not a believer. The adherence to faith and/or 'God' does not owe its existence to the ideas behind popular theist beliefs, though that's typically where these types of threads go when they address faith/religion. I think you're misunderstanding my position, but it has less to do with the idea of a personal god, which you continue to reference in the rest of your post. You won't get much dispute from me on that end, as again, I don't believe in such an entity.

We can debate the rest of the Einstein stuff over PM, if you'd like, but my underlying point has been made, as previously mentioned. Thanks for providing more info. on the survey, I'll take a more in-depth look a bit later.

To be honest with you, I kind of accept that Einstein was more accepting of the Deist type of entity. I've had debates before about him but they never go anywhere. What I have gained from these debates is that Einstein was open the idea of "something" but didn't know what it was, and didn't believe it was concerned in human life (The Spinoza God, you will probably know).

My main reason for debating it here is because I hate hearing that quote about science and religion, as it is always separated from its whole context and used to suggest that Einstein was religious.

The debate nearly always digresses to "whatever Einstein thought must be true", so it does rile me.

My argument is against the personal god - mainly because this is where the most ridiculous and dangerous claims are made. A Deist God, I don't really have any problem with as I don't see there is an argument to be had about what he does and doesn't want us to do.

 

[MJM128]

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.

So say I claim that the life forms on earth are the only ones in the entire universe, and there exists no other, I don't have to provide any proof or reasoning for my belief?