IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Facts can be proven. I am about to disprove this "Fact".
God, if you exist, strike me down right now so I may never live one more second.
-
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
Facts can be proven. I am about to disprove this "Fact".
God, if you exist, strike me down right now so I may never live one more second.
Vampires especially Dracula does have their origins. Dracula originating from the crazed ruling blood-gore fanatic, Vlad the Impaler who ruled Romania during the 8th century. So what would you say about the origins of God?
Relax I wasn't trying to "put you in the corner" I am trying to take note and better understand in much depth about Athiesm, especially from a personal stand point. I also want to know why some, not all Athiests, would criticize a religion (Christianity) instead of the sub-religions (Roman Catholic, the Mormons) or the immoral people/group that twists religion to their likings (the Papacy, the Taliban, the KKK?)
Yes, because that would be empirical evidence that one does exist.
EDIT: IOWA is still here.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Yep. Maybe god is sleeping?
grainysand
Android Expert
I'm sure he's just taking a holiday. He will be back to smite us heathens in just a bit.
...
Any minute now.
...
Real soon, I'm sure!
Just fyi, as far as I'm concerned any religion where one of the guiding principles is "if you don't agree with me re: the rights of women to control their own bodies and the rights of homosexual people to love as they will, and and if you don't believe in my imaginary sky fairy you'll burn for all eternity" is a pretty shitty religion. I don't know why people get so worked up over Islam: there is very little to differentiate the most troublesome aspects of it from that of Christianity.
...
Any minute now.
...
Real soon, I'm sure!
Just fyi, as far as I'm concerned any religion where one of the guiding principles is "if you don't agree with me re: the rights of women to control their own bodies and the rights of homosexual people to love as they will, and and if you don't believe in my imaginary sky fairy you'll burn for all eternity" is a pretty shitty religion. I don't know why people get so worked up over Islam: there is very little to differentiate the most troublesome aspects of it from that of Christianity.
Fonseca
Android Enthusiast
All of you arguing over this are kind of silly. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're correct, especially not over an internet forum. So how about we stop arguing or even try to show others why we think the way we do? It is a pretty basic question that is being asked, either you believe in God, or you don't; nothing else needs to be said.
As for me, yes I believe in God.
Also, making fun/belittling others' beliefs is wrong as well.
As for me, yes I believe in God.
Also, making fun/belittling others' beliefs is wrong as well.
This is true, but complete absence of evidence, as is the case with all religions, leaves you with no good reason to believe in something.
If I was on a jury and you were up in court for murder, if there was absolutely zero evidence against you, would it be OK for me to say "well, there is no evidence whatsoever, but absence of evidence doesn't mean that you didn't do it, so I'm delivering a guilty verdict"? The logical thing to do would be to deliver a not guilty verdict, I'm sure you would agree.
As an atheist, if you were to ask me whether god exists or not, I would say "I don't know". That doesn't mean that I'm thinking "well, there's just as much chance of the Christian god existing as there is of it not existing" though. I have no more reason to believe in a god than I do to believe in the existence of a race of people who all look just like me, living on the planet "fried" in some far off galaxy. I can't possibly know that they don't exist - nobody here can - but nobody here has any reason to believe that they do exist either.
Of course. With that statement, you seem to be portraying atheists as people who are closed-minded and not willing to accept facts. Nothing could be further from the truth. You show me one shred of evidence that a god exists right now and I'll take the first step on the road to believing. Without evidence, while something may be true, there is no reason to believe that it is. The more extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence must be, but unfortunately, theists have absolutely nothing they can offer up as evidence - not one shred of it.JQwerty91 said:
Perhaps you could quote where in the Bible it says you will get to see your loved ones again. Good luck with that. So, praying at the last minute for the luxury of getting to worship a dictator for the rest of eternity seems kinda ... well, not worth the price of admission. But, it doesn't exist ... so, no worries.
This is a discussion forum. The thread starter's first post is this: -
verizyou said:
Not really, as there's a world of difference between me respecting your right to believe something (which I do) and me respecting what it is you actually believe (which I don't). For example, I respect a racist's right to believe what they believe, but I find racism abhorrent and I will happily attack a person's racist beliefs.Fonseca said:
In your case, if your beliefs are rock solid, then what anyone says in here shouldn't affect you in any way, so I don't really understand where your post is coming from as you're totally free to ignore this thread if you don't want to get involved in the discussion.
See thats where the criticism shouldn't be directed towards. No where in the Bible or Islam's book does it directly say that "homosexuals are evil, or God will kill you if you won't beleive him". That is where I blame the imperfections of man that comes into play. We could interpret a sentence into many different ways; and trying to translate languages from one text to another can corrupt the true meaning behind a passage. For an ex. "I am God". One person can interpret that as a welcoming introduction while another could interpret that as a fearful message to 'listen to me or die'. Like I said before there will always be people trying to twist a religion into their own gratification.
How would you interpret this?
It's a pretty clear set of instructions. Whether you believe that the Old Testament "rules" should still be applied or not (and it seems that only a minority of very conservative Christians do), there was a point where god clearly instructed people to put those that had committed homosexual acts to death.Leviticus 20:13 said:
And what about this rather loving statement from god in the Qu'ran: -
So god might not kill you if you don't believe, but he will punish you with terrible agony both in this world and beyond. Or maybe you can interpret that in some other way?Qu'ran 3:56 said:
That was a question in general, your interpretation of my question is a different meaning than what it was orginally aimed for. If I was portraying athiests as close minded people wouldn't I say, "You Athiests are potential flip flops"
The problem I have with the 'religious', is kinda embodied in what you say here.
Each individual twists religion to their own gratification.
An atheist basically lives their life to their own moral code, some don't like homosexuals for example, but they don't hide behind any story about it being against God. Whereas the religious have their religion to hide behind when it comes to their bigotry.
I've had this discussion before with somebody who hated homosexuals, when asked why their answer was that it was against their religion (RC). So I asked; what if conclusive proof were to be found tomorrow that there was NO God, and that your religion was moot, would you still hate homosexuals? Of course they said they would, because it was still wrong.
My point is that religion is just an excuse as to why you live you life the way you do in the vast majority of people I know. And most people who claim their religion in one area ('Sorry can't work on a Sunday, sabbath and all that...), only live their religious life to suit themselves (...instead I'm going to go out Saturday night, get drunk and hook-up with some random girl... can you say I was with you if the wife asks?)
IMO. I interpret it as an accustomed western cultured welcome that states who you are. Like a simple "howdy" or hello.
If by "flip flop" you mean "changing your mind" then every atheist is a "potential flip flop". I'm willing to change my mind, given strong enough evidence. A theist is usually unwilling to change their mind, despite any evidence to backup their beliefs. That's the major difference between the two and it's why discussions like this are ultimately pointless, because if a person believes something is absolutely true despite there being no evidence at all, how can you expect to change that person's mind? They are past the point where logic and reason have any effect.
Being open-minded doesn't just mean "open to the idea that something is true". That's just part of it. Being open-minded also means "open to the idea that what is being proposed might be false". You would then examine the evidence and come to a conclusion.
I think he meant how do you interpret the passage after the question.
I like and in some parts agree where your going at this. Religion should not be used as a scapegoat especially if its involving needs that will only suit themselves (especially during the Slave Trade of the 1800s where they use religion and twist it so that they can "rightfully" justify that slaves have no freedom in the South). The main purpose of Religion was to recognize that you believe your diety exists however like you and I recognized before, people twists the words in the text and use it for their own gain.
But as you say people each interpret their deity differently, so few people actually believe in anything except their own construct.
An atheist lives his life by his own rules; a theist lives his life by his own rules, but pretends/believes that he's being lead (and I believe this is to absolve himself of personal responsibility much of the time)
It's not really surprising that that sort of thing happens, given some of the passages in the Bible: -
Or if you want to give your slave a bit of a slap: -Leviticus 25:44-46 said:
And again, you could say "Old Testament rules only applied at that time", but god clearly allowed slavery (including child slavery) and you could beat slaves hard with a rod, as long as they didn't die. Seems a bit harsh, coming from the all-loving god.Exodus 21:20-21 said:
I see where your going with this, but who wrote it? What version of did the text originate from? and what year was this published? and most importantly was there any human involvement that could of changed the original test of the Quran or Bible? I can tell from that text you took from the bible originated during the Crusade back when the Papcy (Pope Urban II) declared a radical change to Christianity who used the Bible to justify the Crusade to the public masses. The Quran should easily follow. And to answer to your question, yes honest to truth how you interpret it was dead on.