How many believe in God

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But how hard could it be to poke holes in the Catholic dogma? Always willing to lend a hand, me.

Category:Roman Catholic philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go tell them that.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

I already pointed out where it is illogical if you did not see.

You're right, I didn't see. Because you mentioned biology, not the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Is it now? And how so?

Science isn't concerned with 'higher' purpose. Science is a body of knowledge and the processes involved in collecting that knowledge.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Oh, now it all becomes clear. It's humanity, yes, and tell me, what is your definition of humanity?

In that context 'humanity' meant 'human nature'.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Have I not already repeated? What is the theory of selective breeding? Punett Squares? A human theory of genetics and heredity! But does it really matter yet for advancing our way of life while we live on earth? It is to boost the earth, goodness for the race of people! Yet life is not just a large battleground to finding the meaning of it and advancing humankind! Do many atheists not belive in Armageddon? So what will their efforts have meant then? What you basically say is that we just arrived, and that there is therefore no purpose at all to our existence. Nothing cannot create knowledge and love, and it certainly cannot create beings that are smart enough to refute them or even have the ability to come up with a theory about it in the first place. Can a manmade couch give us a theory on why it's here? It's that same concept, just common sense. Even the couch itself is man's own rendition of what they feel as comfort, but that's just making a point.

None of this demonstrates a lack of support for evolution.

[Strokes]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

You're right, I didn't see. Because you mentioned biology, not the Big Bang.

I didn't mention either, I mentioned the theory of evolution and how it coincides with the "Big Bang".

Science isn't concerned with 'higher' purpose. Science is a body of knowledge and the processes involved in collecting that knowledge.In that context 'humanity' meant 'human nature'.

That is why it goes against all religion's laws. It also is one certain way for people who don't believe in a higher purpose to collect that knowledge in order to compile more explanations for what they believe the universe is.

None of this demonstrates a lack of support for evolution.

You are obviously finding yourself blindsighted to what I'm conveying in my explanations. My odd metaphor perhaps?

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Plato

They are called the design argument, the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. All the (philosophical) arguments for the existence of God fit into these categories.

Sorry, I assumed you were speaking in specifics.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Plato

Category:Roman Catholic philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go tell them that.

"Hi, how's heaven? No answer? Oh dear... I guess you were wrong about that bit."

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

I didn't mention either, I mentioned the theory of evolution and how it coincides with the "Big Bang".

You said:

the atheist theory of "The Big Bang" is completely illogical. You say that the world is nothing more than matter and natural laws, yet in what way is it possible for life itself to be able to support eachother in every way of the earth? the sun that helps the trees grow that we have oxygen? The plants that keep us healthy and grow of the water of the rain? I need to ask you, how can you belive that science and evolution was able to do this.

What you're talking about there is not the Big Bang, but biology (or more accurately, ecology). That's my point. I'm not saying your questions aren't worthy of answers, just that they have nothing to do with the Big Bang, so by asking questions about ecology you're not showing that either ecology, evolution, or the Bang Bang are illogical, either partially or "completely".

Originally Posted by Strokes

That is why it goes against all religion's laws. It also is one certain way for people who don't believe in a higher purpose to collect that knowledge in order to compile more explanations for what they believe the universe is.

Why does it go against religion's laws? Does religion outlaw seeking knowledge?

This also illustrates the difference between scientists and atheists. An atheist says God doesn't exist, and therefore couldn't create the world. That might violate a religious law. A scientist might say natural planetary formation lead to the world's existence and God is not necessary to explain it, though he might grant that it's possible that he set all the required processes in motion. That needn't violate any religious laws, particularly where they're open to interpretation (which is certainly the case with Creation. While the Bible clearly states God created the world, 'how' is not so certain).

Originally Posted by Strokes

You are obviously finding yourself blindsighted to what I'm conveying in my explanations. My odd metaphor perhaps?

Maybe. But all I'm doing is pointing out that none of what you're saying actually addresses some of the statements you made.

You seem to be saying two things:
1) God exists and created us and the world.
2) Science's explanations are illogical and are no substitute for God.

Which is fine, if that's what you believe. Nothing I'm saying is intended to challenge (1), since I believe it's impossible to know for sure, at least today, but I can understand why people would believe it none-the-less (or refuse to believe it).

But with (2) you denied two scientific theories without showing a) an understanding of them or b) any reason to refute them.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

"Hi, how's heaven? No answer? Oh dear... I guess you were wrong about that bit."

My point is, it's not easy unless you're debating with somebody who's not as good at dialectic as you. I read in another post that Dinc is 16 so not to make assumptions but he probably isn't as knowledgable or skilled as you. Some of them aren't dead by the way.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Plato

My point is, it's not easy unless you're debating with somebody who's not as good at dialectic as you. I read in another post that Dinc is 16 so not to make assumptions but he probably isn't as knowledgable or skilled as you. Some of them aren't dead by the way.

Who said I'd be debating him? Re-read his post. "I have no faith; I believe in the Catholic dogma because of the intellect."

At no point have I asked him to actually fight. I have volunteered to do what he has stated he cannot: find holes in the Catholic dogma.

[joecooool]

dont think that just because i dont believe that god exists that i believe god does not exist. theres a big difference, learn it!

i am an agnostic atheist, i believe gods existence is currently unknown. and therefore i cannot believe god exists, and i cannot believe god does not exist.

i simply believe that it is unknown at this time. that it is possible but not yet proven to be probable.

gods existence is unknown, and therefore belief that god exists, or belief that god does not exist is unjustified.

unknown things are irrelevant to life

they are hypothesis's, god is a hypothesis for the origins of the universe, just one among many

everyone has to back up what they believe, if you believe god exists present your reasons, if you believe god does not exist present your reasons, i will refute them all backing up my position that its unknown

and therefore irrelevant.

many people think that if something is unknown you get to pick either or, YOU DONT. if its unknown its unknown, case closed. if gods existence is unknown belief god exists is wrong.

atheist = without theism = no theism = no belief in god

agnostic = no knowledge of gods existence

atheism and agnosticism are the same thing

i am an agnostic AND and atheist, meaning i have no knowledge of gods existence and therefore i have no belief in it.

the reason i have no knowledge of gods existence is because ive talked to a hundred people that believe in god and found all their reasons to support their belief inadequate.

delusion, brainwashing, subjective points of view, guesses, etc...

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

While the Bible clearly states God created the world, 'how' is not so certain).

That is called the mystery of faith, we as humans do not have all the answers, and as far as we come can never have one to all.

You seem to be saying two things:
1) God exists and created us and the world.
2) Science's explanations are illogical and are no substitute for God.

Definitely all these, but I'm still guessing all I'm trying to get across is not clear to you.

Which is fine, if that's what you believe. Nothing I'm saying is intended to challenge (1), since I believe it's impossible to know for sure, at least today, but I can understand why people would believe it none-the-less (or refuse to believe it).

It's impossible to anything for sure, but it's faith in what we invest in that gives us our beliefs, which can be taken from what both you and I are saying.

But with (2) you denied two scientific theories without showing a) an understanding of them or b) any reason to refute them.

I have more than reason.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

That is called the mystery of faith, we as humans do not have all the answers, and as far as we come can never have one to all.

True, we might never have all the answers. But we have some, and if you think they're wrong you should show why, if you make that claim. Or don't make the claim. Either way is fine.

Originally Posted by Strokes

Definitely all these, but I'm still guessing all I'm trying to get across is not clear to you.

If there's more than that, then no, it's not clear.

Originally Posted by Strokes

It's impossible to anything for sure, but it's faith in what we invest in that gives us our beliefs, which can be taken from what both you and I are saying.

*nod*

Originally Posted by Strokes

I have more than reason.

I assume that which is more is something you can't share? Still, in the case of your reason you didn't share it either, which means the points you made were effectively pointless.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

How many on here believe in God, Im not talking about the christian god but if ou believe in him thats ok too.

LOL You've got to be kidding me?

God is a belief based on the geographical accident of your birth and parents.

If your born in Ireland, your probably RC

If your born in Scotland your probably Protestant

If your born in Indonesia your probably Muslim


Funnily anough all of these 'faiths' believe they are 100% correct whilst the other is wrong. Funny that isnt it. Whatever religion you are born into turns out to be the correct one.

Let me burst your bubble. Its all complete manure. All of it. Complete and utter bullocks.

God created the stars, the sky, little flowers, cancer, child abuse, road traffic accidents, rape. You get it?

No probably not. Brainwashing is hard to recover from.


One tip to help you - read 'Why I am not a Christain' by Bertrand Russell

Open your mind.

Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

True, we might never have all the answers. But we have some, and if you think they're wrong you should show why, if you make that claim. Or don't make the claim. Either way is fine.

If there's more than that, then no, it's not clear.

I'm not following.

*nod*

It's almost flattering you agree.

I assume that which is more is something you can't share? Still, in the case of your reason you didn't share it either, which means the points you made were effectively pointless.

You seem like you're tapping into intimidation. You need to chesk out a site, because what it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a bona-fide liar who does not have any proof for the simple fact that I've not posted them, and yet I feel....possibly that opinion and a book you don't see eye to eye with will never be enough. I'm sorry if you feel this way, and I do admire that you feel you have the more answers than anyone in this topic, but the fact of the matter is that you will obviously not succumb to anything of little value to you in any sense, where you regard them as facts and it still remains that what I say isn't fact when you analyze it. To me, I feel that is "pointless", even in what you've uttered.

Even so, you didn't understand what I meant when I wrote it, you said I had "no reason to refute" what I stated, and my reason should have become clear.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_506.html

(the url's do not work)

I don't want to sound so like I'm leaning too far on one argument, you can say it if you like, but that's completely false.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by joecooool

unknown things are irrelevant to life

Life IS the unknown!

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

You seem like you're tapping into intimidation.

Not at all, just making observations and interpreting them. And not being careful enough with the way my attitude affects my word choice.

Originally Posted by Strokes

You need to chesk out a site, because what it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a bona-fide liar who does not have any proof for the simple fact that I've not posted them, and yet I feel....possibly that opinion and a book you don't see eye to eye with will never be enough.

Almost. It's enough for me that you give some reason, any reason, for refuting a scientific theory. If you say that they're wrong because God said so through the bible, or because some philosophers/scientists who are also believers have constructed some arguments, which you agree with, then you have some foundation for your criticisms. Unstable foundations, but foundations none-the-less.

However, it still doesn't follow from either God's word nor the arguments of believers, that those scientific theories are illogical. They disagree, certainly. But illogical? That still requires that you point out where they're illogical, rather that simply pointing out a conflicting alternative.

Originally Posted by Strokes

you feel you have the more answers than anyone in this topic

Yers... I've certainly made that claim many times.

Originally Posted by Strokes

but the fact of the matter is that you will obviously not succumb to anything of little value to you in any sense, where you regard them as facts and it still remains that what I say isn't fact when you analyze it. To me, I feel that is "pointless", even in what you've uttered.

True. Well constructed arguments are of value to me. Appeal to authority is not. Unsubstantiated dismissal is not. If analysis results in a claim being proven non-factual, how can anyone be expected to accept the claim as valid?

Originally Posted by Strokes

Even so, you didn't understand what I meant when I wrote it, you said I had "no reason to refute" what I stated, and my reason should have become clear.

Well, to be clear I said you didn't show a reason, not that you didn't have one. You've now given a hint as to what your reasons are. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Strokes

I don't want to sound so like I'm leaning too far on one argument, you can say it if you like, but that's completely false.

You still haven't made an argument. You've implied one, but unless you make it explicit it still doesn't support your case.

But I suppose that might be beside the point. Are you here to make your opinion clear, and to have people understand it, and to show that it's a reasonable one, or is there some other purpose to you posting here?

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

They disagree, certainly. But illogical?

Basically, it seems to me that all you are trying to say is that I should just forget any opinion, statement, fact, foundation, argument, or any type of thing I'm able to conjure because in your mind they're invalid. But the fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convert anyone, or prove anything either, and it seems as if that is what you are trying to do and are expecting the same, but that was not, and is not my goal in this. You may give me every detail and research until your eyes turn red in this type of thing, and yet in my beliefs, I have heard not one thing stated that has been such a fact as to give me reason to doubt myself, or anyone.

Yers... I've certainly made that claim many times.

Which, I'm guessing you're saying, gives you reason to say that you do have all the answers.

Well, to be clear I said you didn't show a reason, not that you didn't have one. You've now given a hint as to what your reasons are. Thank you.

And yet these, "foundations" you speak of, they seem to only take part in your plea. And what is this reason you say has become clear?

Are you here to make your opinion clear, and to have people understand it, and to show that it's a reasonable one, or is there some other purpose to you posting here?

It's funny, you're absolutely correct. I did not post here to debate with someone who is on the opposite side of the schism. Nor did I post to make my opinion clear to anyone. I posted because I saw this particular question, answered it, and was then given a reply to which was trying to weaken my statements, though, debunk as you may, know that I did not come here to change a mind, or proclaim my thoughts so that all would know. Thankyou for asking that. And anything that I may say that you think is illogical, or lacking in truth, or fact for that matter, is your own contemplation.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Strokes

I posted because I saw this particular question, answered it, and was then given a reply to which was trying to weaken my statements, though, debunk as you may, know that I did not come here to change a mind, or proclaim my thoughts so that all would know. Thankyou for asking that. And anything that I may say that you think is illogical, or lacking in truth, or fact for that matter, is your own contemplation.

Discipline is a virtue. I recommend it.