By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you believe in god, if not do you believe in something else?

xlost7 on 17 November 2008
WessleWoggle said:
@xlost7

But does God forgive me? :P

No, God doesn't. Well, your God might...

Whatever, I support the J.C.'s message :) Even though..
he may have been a liar,
he was just a man,
he may have not existed,
he may not have been good or divine at all,
he may have just been fucking nutters.

Doesn't matter to me the only proof of him is a recycled version of some text written by ignorant men of the past, and people's 'personal' relationships with him.

Doesn't matter that his holy book is full of bullshit.

I can get past aaalllllll that bullshit you can get to the heart of the story.

I think the message was to believe in peace to go to heaven, not to believe that Jesus came and died for our sins.

Worshiping any mere man seems silly to me, especially based on some old texts, some people's made up idea of him in their head, and their 'personal' relationships with him.

WWJDFABH?
Hmm, what WOULD jesus do for a bong hit?

But does God forgive? Yes he forgives, he forgives everyone for their sins. That's why I said I forgive you. It says in the Bible to forgive your enemies because they know not what they are understanding.

I forgive you. I have nothing against you or anything. You have your beliefs and I have my beliefs. It's just your not understanding that Jesus is God.

 



Around the Network
xlost7 on 17 November 2008
WessleWoggle said:
xlost7 said:
But dude Jesus is God, its just God used a human form which is Jesus.

Jesus is God if you actually read the bible.

Again in clear since: Jesus=human form----->God

So me worshiping Jesus is kist short for saying God because Jesus which is God that was in human form was suffering on Earth like we are.

That's where I draw the line. We're all God incarnate, as is all conciousness, not just jesus.

 

 

We are like God, but in human form. Jesus is God, he just wanted to show us his suffering he would go through in human form. No one believed him or anything. Read the Bible and you will understand. Until then we can go on and on about this subject and clearly I don't have the time or energy to do it.

I will pray for you and forgive you bro. Again we are at peace and its only a discussion. I won't debate on this anymore. God's actions will speak louder than words.

Take the time out and read the book of Revelations in the bible.



xlost7 on 17 November 2008

@WessleWoogle

Well thanks bro, and if you believe that God doesn't judge. You go on, I totally disagree but look that's my opinion. Whatever makes you feel good and gets you through life and gets you in Heaven to live what God promised us. You go ahead and I will do the same on my end.

It was nice talking spirtual talk with you. I hope I didn't upset you in any way. You was pretty cool with the discussion there wasn't know hate in regards to what we was talking about.

Thanks bro and good night and God bless you :)



Profcrab on 17 November 2008

I believe that when I die all of those responsible for making oversized haltertops will burst into pillars of flame that will burn off and regenerate their flesh for all eternity.

I give this thread a 9.4.



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

Soleron on 18 November 2008
Kasz216 said:

Seems like an illogical hypothisis from a scientific standard.

I mean... look at how scientists approach things.

They see something they don't understand and ask a question.

"Why"

Then they come up with a hypothisis for why... and keep with that hypothisis believing in it and expiermenting with it until they prove or disprove it.

It's not a matter of "Do pink faeries exist." or "Does god exist"

It's a question of "Why does everything exist."

God is simply the hypothisis to that answer. 

Just how something like Dark Energy was the hypothisis to why the universe is expanding, despite the fact there was no actual proof for such a thing.  Or Ether... which was a hypothsis for... I forget what it was a hypothisis for now... something with why light travels "slower" in some areas?

Until

A) Another hyptohisis is proven.

or

B) Your hypothisis is disproven.

It's just as likely as any other outcome scientifically.

 

That is NOT science. Scientific theories must be disprovable. Since it is not possible to disprove God, God is not a valid scientific hypothesis. "The absence of a God" IS disprovable, for example if a God appeared.

Dark Matter / Dark Energy aren't good science either, since they aren't disprovable. An example of a sound theory is evolution: a single fossil in the wrong place or a single mechanism that couldn't eveolve gradually could disprove it - but no  one has successfully found one.

And no, again you are confusing "no evidence either way" with "50% probablity". We can make judgements about fairies despite the fact we can't prove they don't exist - i.e. that it is unlikely they do.

 



Around the Network
Rath on 18 November 2008
Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
Jackson50 said:
Soleron said:

No, and no. Faith is irrational, and religion is an artifact of human culture and evolution (for an great explanation of this, read Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' - despite the name it is a very reasoned and informative book).

I would not recommend The God Delusion. It offers nothing new in this debate. If you have heard the arguments for why God does and does not exist, then there is no point in reading his book. This whole debate on whether or not God exists will never find a resolution. At best, no one knows.

 

You can't have understood his book then. His book is NOT primarily about arguing that God does not exist. He first argues that the rational position is not agnosticism ("no one knows") but atheism ("probably no God, with scientific conviction")*, and then, for two-thirds of the book, explains where religion comes from, why it is bad regardless of its truth and how we can solve the real underlying problem of irrationality.

*His main point is that, just because something can't be decided either way, that doesn't imply a 50% probability of it being true. You don't believe in fairies, but there isn't a 50% chance of fairies existing.

Seems like an illogical hypothisis from a scientific standard.

I mean... look at how scientists approach things.

They see something they don't understand and ask a question.

"Why"

Then they come up with a hypothisis for why... and keep with that hypothisis believing in it and expiermenting with it until they prove or disprove it.

It's not a matter of "Do pink faeries exist." or "Does god exist"

It's a question of "Why does everything exist."

God is simply the hypothisis to that answer.

Just how something like Dark Energy was the hypothisis to why the universe is expanding, despite the fact there was no actual proof for such a thing. Or Ether... which was a hypothsis for... I forget what it was a hypothisis for now... something with why light travels "slower" in some areas?

Until

A) Another hyptohisis is proven.

or

B) Your hypothisis is disproven.

It's just as likely as any other outcome scientifically.

 

The existence or non-exisetence of God are not scientific hypotheses as it is impossible to test using the scientific method.

It seems highly likely that in the future we will be able to find out whether dark matter really exists, it even seems somewhat likely that we will be able to test things like M-Theory, the existence of God however can never be disproven by experiment and as such can never be considered scientific.

For the second part of your post, many people (including me) think that as long as there is no need for a God to explain the universe why should we make things more complex by having one?

 



mesoteto on 18 November 2008

 

 

the best response and only thing i have very ltaken from my alcoholic father is this little pearl

 

"i know its dosnt hurt me to believe in god and try to do right by him, in fact its been proven healthy to have faith in something, and if i am wrong i havnt really been out anything. But if the tables turn and you are wrong...well them you will be out alot now wont you?"



 

Soleron on 18 November 2008
Rath said:

the existence of God however can never be disproven by experiment and as such can never be considered scientific.

 

Well, it can actually. if God appeared and proved omnipotence, etc. under controlled conditions that would count as a disproof of the nonexistence of God.

 



mesoteto on 18 November 2008

^not true the skeptic would always find a way to doubt


and in teh end they can always say they are tripping balls and its not real



 

Tispower1 on 18 November 2008
Soleron said:
Kasz216 said:

Seems like an illogical hypothisis from a scientific standard.

I mean... look at how scientists approach things.

They see something they don't understand and ask a question.

"Why"

Then they come up with a hypothisis for why... and keep with that hypothisis believing in it and expiermenting with it until they prove or disprove it.

It's not a matter of "Do pink faeries exist." or "Does god exist"

It's a question of "Why does everything exist."

God is simply the hypothisis to that answer. 

Just how something like Dark Energy was the hypothisis to why the universe is expanding, despite the fact there was no actual proof for such a thing.  Or Ether... which was a hypothsis for... I forget what it was a hypothisis for now... something with why light travels "slower" in some areas?

Until

A) Another hyptohisis is proven.

or

B) Your hypothisis is disproven.

It's just as likely as any other outcome scientifically.

 

That is NOT science. Scientific theories must be disprovable. Since it is not possible to disprove God, God is not a valid scientific hypothesis. "The absence of a God" IS disprovable, for example if a God appeared.

Dark Matter / Dark Energy aren't good science either, since they aren't disprovable. An example of a sound theory is evolution: a single fossil in the wrong place or a single mechanism that couldn't eveolve gradually could disprove it - but no  one has successfully found one.

And no, again you are confusing "no evidence either way" with "50% probablity". We can make judgements about fairies despite the fact we can't prove they don't exist - i.e. that it is unlikely they do.

 

 

Disagree. By it's very nature you can't disprove evolution, as you can't have a fossil in the wrong place, people will just say it evolved from something else, and there's a few links missing. Also, any mechanism could be evolved if you believed in improbability enough.