Troll_Whisperer said: The true religion is the one I believe in, the same way the best console is the one I bought.

I was going to say something similiar.  If you belong to a religion, then you are likely to think the one you belong to or were raised in is the true church.  That's what religion is.  There would be no Catholic Church if they didn't believe they were right.  Same with all the rest.

Jay520 said: It doesn't. If you believe in God, then choosing a religion based on which has the best morals could lead you to an incorrect God. You would be choosing the religion which has the guidelines, rules, traditions, etc that you like. However, that would have nothing to do with whether or not that religion is based on a true God. I just dont see how anyone who believes in a God could base their religion off of something that doesn't necessarily move them towards the correct God.

It does make sense to a person looking for a god or a religion to belong to. You aren't, you could care less. So I think that's why you aren't really understanding.

After all, none of this meant anything to you, it was just your little experiment. Which I don't blame you for doing.

There should be an option for 'none'. That's what I would vote for. I was raised Catholic, and have a lot of respect for the church, but I am Atheist.

NintendoPie said: Jay520 said: It doesn't. If you believe in God, then choosing a religion based on which has the best morals could lead you to an incorrect God. You would be choosing the religion which has the guidelines, rules, traditions, etc that you like. However, that would have nothing to do with whether or not that religion is based on a true God. I just dont see how anyone who believes in a God could base their religion off of something that doesn't necessarily move them towards the correct God. It does make sense to a person looking for a god or a religion to belong to. You aren't, you could care less. So I think that's why you aren't really understanding. After all, none of this meant anything to you, it was just your little experiment. Which I don't blame you for doing.

Let me explain. Most religions claim that there is only one God which belongs strictly to their religion. Therefore, all other God-based religions are based on a false God(s). Let's say that the religion that worships the actual God is called Religion A. It is quite possible that Religion A does not teach morals you follow. Therefore you would go to religion B, C, or D whom all teach the morals you believe. However Religion A is the only religion that worships the correct god. By going to Religion B, C, or D, you are worshipping a false God - one that doesn't exist. Thus, depending on Religion A, you could go to Hell for not praising the correct God.

It doesn't make sense to choose a God-based religion based off of morals because morals so not correlate with a valid God. Morals are simply what you think is right or wrong. Not necessarily what God thinks is right or wrong.

Jay520 said: Let me explain. Most religions claim that there is only one God which belongs strictly to their religion. Therefore, all other God-based religions are based on a false God(s). Let's say that the religion that worships the actual God is called Religion A. It is quite possible that Religion A does not teach morals you believe in. Therefore you would to to religion B, C, or D whom all teach the morals you believe however. However Religion A is the only religion that worships the correct god. By going to Religion B, C, or D, you are worshipping a false God - one that doesn't exist. Thus, depending on Religion A, you could go to Hell for not praising the correct God. It doesn't make sense to choose a God-based religion based off of morals because morals so not correlate with a valid God. Morals are simply what you think is right or wrong. Not necessarily what God thinks is right or wrong.

 

That is a good question, Jay. A great one actually. I just believe, personally, that my God is the real one. For certain reasons. 

Though, if my God is as nice and forgiving as has been told then he could possibly forgive the people for following the "false" god as long as they are good people on the inside and do indeed have a "heart". Right?

TheLivingShadow said: I'm sorry I'm answering again to the same post, but honestly I didn't even read the second part the first time around, so I thought that you were one that could be rationally talked to. I was wrong.

Thank you for attacking me personally.  I suppose that because you've already concluded that I cannot hold rational conversation, any response to you will not be heard.  Instead of putting me into your box of irrational people, perhaps you could think about what I've said?  It may be that there are supporting thoughts behind what I've said.  Or, if I am a fool, then perhaps you could point out to me the errors in my argument.  And there are errors.  I am not perfect.  I am a one who is evolving, changing, and growing, and I hope and believe that the rest of you are doing so as well.

Now, it was said by some above that the hole in my argument is that "a negative cannot be proven", that is, that it cannot be proven that God does not exist.  This is true.  But if it cannot be proven, then we ought not go around asserting it.  If we are scientists, we ought to assert that which we can show evidence for.  It was mentioned that we can show that there is no need for God.  I will accept this premise as true.  However, it does not follow that IF we can show that there is no need for God, THEN we can truthfully claim that there is no God.  Therefore, asserting that because I have a coherent theory that does not require God does allow one to truthfully claim that there is no God.  One can, however, claim that because my particular set of beliefs does not require God in order to function properly, that I choose not to believe in God.  That same person may then argue to others that their particular belief in God is not a necessary component of having a coherent set of beliefs.  That person may not argue that the other person's beliefs are incorrect; he has not shown that they are not correct, but only that they are not necessary.

Now, the religious zealot does the same thing as the zealous atheist.  Many people will think that they can logically prove the validity of their religion, and so they will press their arguments against others.  The others may successfully counter their arguments, but the zealous man will not listen, because a particular argument has fostered their belief, and so they will not allow that argument to be dislodged, because that argument is their foundation.  In the case of Christians (which, having been raised in this culture, I am most familiar with) many are convinced by arguments that have had holes poked in them, such as Pascal's wager, or variants of the ontological argument.  They will make these arguments the basis of their faith.  Sadly enough, the Bible does not ask for you to base your faith on particular logical strains of thought.  The Bible asks you to seek first the Kingdom of God.  It asks you to place faith in Jesus Christ.

The Bible offers this; "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you".  I'm not sure what more you need.  That gives a pretty clear way to know about the Bible.  Ask, seek, knock.  Have you?

Jesus says, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself".  That gives a pretty clear way to know about Jesus.  Do you want to know if what Jesus said is true?  Well, Jesus offers this method to knowing.  Seems clear to me.

small44 said: Netyaroze said: Why are humans always trying to answer questions they can't possibly answer. Its like if you asked how many Planets rotate around the brightest star in the Sombrero galaxy. Now I could use literature/scifi movies as facts and back up my opinion based on the "data" presented there. Religions where created by humans, deeply flawed beings just because it happened in the past doesn't give it more credibility. Maybe someone got it right by pure luck. But probably not. In koran it was said that the earth is round 1400 years before how a Mohammed Peace be upon him was had known that if it was not from god?

No proof whatsoever. He just guessed right. There are not many other options. Who knows how many other people had that thought but never uttered it. Its possible to deduce that the earth is round through everyday observations and logic:

 http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

He eventually had good eyesight and saw ships on the horizon sailing up earths curvature. Its not like its impossible to know that the earth is round. He created a religion and was probably very smart.

Here is a video I think you all should check out.

Jay520 said: VXIII said: Nem said: If you cannot prove something exists, then by default its proven that it doesnt exist. There is no need to further prove it. It makes no sense. Thoughts / ideas, emotions, feelings, they all exist but no one can prove that they do. Yes, but the idea of a God is much more extraordinary than the idea of those things, so more proof is necessary before accepting it as a justified truth. And besides, all of those can be proven. Emotions can be proven through examining hormones in the brain / body. And feelings of course can be proven by the fact that we have senses. Its quite obvious to everyone. And all conscious brings have thoughts. The idea of a God doesn't have anywhere near the objective justification as those three. Tying to use subjective experiences as proof doesn't work because not everyone had those experiences, so its not objective at all. So there is no justified reason to accept God as being real.

You used a simple philosophy to reach that conclusion, philosophy... not science ( apart from the hormones), even though I agree, this can not by any chance considered a proof that leaves no room for doubt. It is quite obvious to everyone indeed, but the thing is, can it be objectively proven to someone who doesn't feel or sense those things ?. this reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my friends; he believes that "unconditional love" doesn't exist in our world ... I couldn't prove him wrong but I have faith that it exists.

However, I'm not trying to prove that God exist by all that, I was simply replying to Nem who claimed that If you cannot prove something exists then it doesn't exist.

To answer you main point of this thread, God existence is the only thing that makes sense for me... the source of all "causes". Islam is the only religion that gave me such a God "Before eveything, after everything, and nothing else is like him".

Science cannot prove there is not a God, the same way a denominations/regligions can never really prove there is a God. Religions are merely the different interpretations of same individuals. I, for instance, believe in a little of both. I love science, but I also believe that there exist a higher being that created it all.

This is like asking me which fruit is better when we're at a game store. That question can only be answered by you.