OP, convince me that the core of Germanic paganism isn't right and that there aren't 9 known multiverses tied together by what the unknowing ancient Europeans called the world tree or Yggdrasil.
There's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.
Quote from: Strogger on March 04, 2015, 09:57:09 AMThere's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.How are you sure? Because if you're sure, than I want to be sure, too.But so far, no one has given me any evidence that would make me "sure" there's a God. It's just people being raised religiously that gives them a natural inclination towards a diety that makes them sure one exists. Think about it, if you weren't raised religiously, you would have no notion of God and wouldn't even be trying to defend your beliefs because, well, you wouldn't have any.
Quote from: DASIUS B00TICUS SNAKESAR on March 04, 2015, 01:15:32 PMOP, convince me that the core of Germanic paganism isn't right and that there aren't 9 known multiverses tied together by what the unknowing ancient Europeans called the world tree or Yggdrasil.That isn't what I want to do in my thread.Make your own thread if you wish to discuss proving negatives.
Quote from: [Raiden] Snake on March 04, 2015, 01:44:34 PMQuote from: Strogger on March 04, 2015, 09:57:09 AMThere's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.How are you sure? Because if you're sure, than I want to be sure, too.But so far, no one has given me any evidence that would make me "sure" there's a God. It's just people being raised religiously that gives them a natural inclination towards a diety that makes them sure one exists. Think about it, if you weren't raised religiously, you would have no notion of God and wouldn't even be trying to defend your beliefs because, well, you wouldn't have any.You're very right. If I wasn't raised in a religious home, chances are good I wouldn't believe in God. Thankfully, I was. If you weren't, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you'd say it's a good thing, but you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, back to the other question. I'm sure because I've witnessed firsthand the power that prayer has. Of course, maybe that's all chance. I'm not the one to say. I just feel that prayer has swayed what would have happened, had God not been involved.
That's retarded. That isn't the intervention of god, that is me giving you a million dollars to prove a point.
base·lessˈbāsləs/adjective1.without foundation in fact."baseless allegations"
That literally makes no sense.If someone says "All pieces of chocolate are brown." because all they've ever seen is brown chocolate, they are justified in their understanding of chocolate's colour. But as soon as I show them a piece of white chocolate, they should conceit that they were wrong, and that not ALL chocolate is brown. You are seriously trying to justify intentional ignorance which is just another phrase for stupidity. If someone shows you the evidence that contradicts your prior understanding, and you still support your prior understanding, you are daft.
Interpretation means fuck all, I'm looking for factual information.
I'm not claiming that "living a different life than mine" is illogical. I'm claiming that believing anything without evidence is illogical.
1) You can't prove a negative.2) Where's your evidence that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? Do you believe in her until proven that she DOESN'T exist? (Although in this case, there is more evidence of Nessie than God.)3) I believe it was Meta who made a thread about how a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist. But yeah, a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist.
Quote from: Strogger on March 04, 2015, 01:52:14 PMQuote from: [Raiden] Snake on March 04, 2015, 01:44:34 PMQuote from: Strogger on March 04, 2015, 09:57:09 AMThere's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.How are you sure? Because if you're sure, than I want to be sure, too.But so far, no one has given me any evidence that would make me "sure" there's a God. It's just people being raised religiously that gives them a natural inclination towards a diety that makes them sure one exists. Think about it, if you weren't raised religiously, you would have no notion of God and wouldn't even be trying to defend your beliefs because, well, you wouldn't have any.You're very right. If I wasn't raised in a religious home, chances are good I wouldn't believe in God. Thankfully, I was. If you weren't, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you'd say it's a good thing, but you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, back to the other question. I'm sure because I've witnessed firsthand the power that prayer has. Of course, maybe that's all chance. I'm not the one to say. I just feel that prayer has swayed what would have happened, had God not been involved.I was raised religiously, though. Why was it okay for God to show you how he exists through prayer but not me?It just doesn't add up to me. There are too many inconsistencies, division and severe lack of empirical evidence for me to even consider religion a worthwhile philosophy. I wish I could be religious, but it's not like I can just "Choose to believe", belief isn't a choice.
Quote from: DASIUS B00TICUS SNAKESAR on March 04, 2015, 02:04:02 PMYou know damn well why.
Y'know, there's this old joke that goes like this.
Neutrality not canceling out or adding to negatives is not the same as your chocolate metaphor. What you're saying would require for all Muslims to be violent and harassing all the time, which wasn't what the hypothetical was.
Muslims acting neutral isn't the same as white chocolate, because those Muslims might still be violent and harassing but simply not acting that way right then.
You're interpreting factual information as of value and interpretations of events as of no value.
You're looking for repeatable tests, in a sense as evidence, right? That cannot be done here. The so called evidence cannot be repeated because you cannot replicate all the factors.
What else would you want, eye-witness accounts of what people say they experienced? Those have shown to be unreliable in regards to what really might have happened.
But you more or less said that "If you've only had support for god in your life, then you are justified in your belief that god exists. But as soon as I "show you the evidence", and you don't change your beliefs, we have a problem." If you don't have proof that contradicts the belief that god exists, then what was your point?
Pretty sure they've done various expeditions and there's been absolutely no evidence supporting Nessie exists, but okay. The picture of a log doesn't count.
That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y?
Quote from: [Raiden] Snake on March 04, 2015, 02:12:25 PMQuote from: DASIUS B00TICUS SNAKESAR on March 04, 2015, 02:04:02 PMYou know damn well why.Well it's a rather logical hypothesis assuming that black holes function as the roots and branches of the "tree".
It's like when people counter-argue the "God created the universe in 7 days" by saying "God's days are probably longer".
Quote from: [Raiden] Snake on March 04, 2015, 02:38:38 PMIt's like when people counter-argue the "God created the universe in 7 days" by saying "God's days are probably longer".six days, actually.But why would anyone even make that argument? An omnipotent being would be able to make everything in the time frame he so desires, unless we're bringing God down to a level where he is bound by the universe's own laws.
If God can "control" or work through me, that would mean he has power to control people and events in the earthly world, which we know isn't true.
The metaphor you brought up was that one would be justified in believing all muslims to be violent or evil if they had only been experienced to violent and evil muslims.
It is the same as white chocolate, because while brown chocolate still exists (violent muslims), the white chocolate also exists, which contradicts the person understanding that "all chocolate is brown". If there are neutral muslims, then all muslims are not violent and evil.
So then why should I believe you? If God can only prove himself to you, but not to me, it serves no purpose to the argument. I'm looking for you to justify/explain/prove your beliefs to me.
I don't have proof that god doesn't exist, no, because you cannot prove a negative. What I can do is show you the overwhelming evidence that straight up contradicts things written in any religion, not just the Judeo-Christian religion.
But there's no evidence that Nessie DOESN'T exist, right? Why are you okay with saying that Nessie doesn't exist because of the lack of evidence but when you bring God into it under the same principles it's suddenly my job to prove the negative?
"Pretty sure they've done various experiments and tests and there's been absolutely no evidence supporting that God exists, but okay. The bible doesn't count."
Exactly.
Well, it all really just depends on how you look at things.
Correct, but being violent and harassing isn't something that is necessarily always what the possessor of those traits is. I mean, I suppose there theoretically is a way one can violently and harassingly shop for groceries or brush their teeth, but I don't see that realistically.
Being neutral like being violent and harassing(I never said evil) is an act, a (momentary) state of being. However, ones appearance can be judged by how they most commonly act.
If they are predominantly violent, then despite them not being violent occasionally, they will be identified as violent. If anything could be taken from it, then it would more like the chocolate can sometimes have a streak of white, but that doesn't make the chocolate white on the whole.
That's not what I said, I said that how God gave evidence of himself to someone cannot be replicated as that evidence worked because of that time, place, emotional status, person's history, personality, etc. that it was given. It doesn't apply to other situations, it's not a blanket evidence, it works when and how it was given to who it was given.
Then you have evidence against the basis of the faith, which comes before the faith being strengthened. Let's hear some.
Well, there's no documented mythical sea monsters really existing, there's been numerous fakes, there really isn't a sustainable food source in the Loch for a creature that size, and Plesiosaurs died out 66 million years ago. So, there's all that.
Evolution, the age of the earth/universe, contradictions between various books of the bible, morally ambiguous stories and laws, morally wrong stories and laws.
Uh, because you said you had proof of white chocolate(God doesn't exist).
Difference is that it's a lot easier to scientifically analyze a loch and say that a Plesiosaur couldn't be surviving there due to various reasons, than say that we've searched for God where he's supposed to be and couldn't find him so he can't be there and so can't be real.
Exactly what? That doesn't answer anything.
I'd like to interject that basing the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity on the basis of how the Christian Bible portrays him doesn't offer a point against a deity, only against the interpretation of the Christian God.
I fluctuate between a theistic and atheistic view often; not based on any texts, or a gut feeling of belief, but rather what makes for a more exciting narrative at the time.
Here's where logic comes into play.If God has the ability to interfere with earthly people and situations, he is evil and lazy. If he really loves us, than he wouldn't have led me on the path to being an atheist. You claim to believe because of divine intervention, so he saved you essentially, but he hasn't done the same for me, which means that he's damning me to hell because he didn't supply enough evidence.
Of course. But if someone usually acts like an asshole, but is sometimes nice, they aren't 100% asshole.
I feel like this whole part of our discussion is just going to places that aren't relevant. So what if people are identified as violent?
Then why doesn't your God supply me with the same evidence he's given this person? He essentially just proved himself to that person, which takes away any choice the person witnessing has from believing in God. Why can't he do the same for me?
Evolution, the age of the earth/universe,
contradictions between various books of the bible, morally ambiguous stories and laws, morally wrong stories and laws.
There are numourous fakes in Christianity, depending on your denomination. The Protestant side of the religion is hopelessly divided on every little issue, it's absurd. You can't say they are all right. But you can say they are all wrong.
It's the exact same thing. We've searched for God in creation, he isn't there. We've searched for God in our hearts, he isn't there. If there was some evidence that God did exist, than everyone would accept that and there would be no debate. But there is no evidence, so there is no good reason to believe he does.
You said "absence of X is proof of Y". X being evidence and Y being God doesn't exist.If there is no X(evidence), that is proof of Y(That there is no God).
Quote from: Prime Meridia on March 04, 2015, 03:54:25 PMI fluctuate between a theistic and atheistic view often; not based on any texts, or a gut feeling of belief, but rather what makes for a more exciting narrative at the time.So basically, whatever causes the most shit XD
And you are in a position to judge a being infinitely wiser than you, and who has a full picture of the universe and what's best for it, because?
Who's to say that you being on the path of atheist is a bad thing? Saved? I'm sorry when did I say anything about Hell, damnation, saving, Jesus Christ or any of that stuff?
I'd like to clarify, this isn't God coming down bathed in golden light saying, "Sup browski, wanna hang out?".
There isn't any forcing or removing the person's choice from the equation.
Where you saw it as just someone randomly handing out a million dollars, somebody else might attribute the act to happening because of something greater(God).
You seem to think it is being forced by God, through some manner, to start believing in God's existence, when the more reasonable answer would be that it's a different perspective of looking at things.
Expecting to have some grand moment of realization where God makes you change will only guarantee that you stay the same, because you need to actively choose to start believing something.
Evolution is evidence against the faith of the Bible if you were to believe it word-for-word, perhaps. However, that's not how the Old Testament was written to read as(like most mythologies); the beginning of Genesis is a poem, it is not meant as a pure historical record.
Bashing babies/genocide one? Yeah, that was the Israelite peoples thoughts and resolve after having their cities brutally massacred and taken over by another nation that then took many prisoner/slaves.
Yeah, spreading an idea across the world that requires a level of interpretation tends to result in lots of alterations among different cultural groups.Why are we getting so much into Christianity?
Not finding God in your heart would be a personal problem, there's plenty of people that said they have.
I said:That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y?
Because his existence is unlikely.
You didn't. I'm assuming you to be a Christian.
If God can control people to do things like that, it would mean that God has the power to interact with humanity on a physical level, which opens up to a whole bunch of issues. If that's your argument, I'm pretty sure I'll win, mate.
So in other words, you need to have a predisposition to believing in God to believe in God?
There is NO CHOICE involved with belief. You either believe something because it meets your standards of evidence, or you don't believe something because it doesn't meet your standards of evidence. There is no choice involved, that's a common misconception.
If the book of Genesis isn't literal, there is no reason/way for Jesus Christ to wipe away sin, thus pushing the religion into irrelevancy.
That makes it okay? No, it doesn't.
Because like I said, I assumed you were Christian. We can switch to another religion/belief if you want, but since the beginning of our conversation, you've avoided the entire point of the thread and forced me to play devil's advocate.
They are delusional. The fact that I/atheists cannot find God in my/their heart means that no one finds God in their heart.Why would God not be in my heart but be in yours?
Those are the exact same.
Just going to throw out there, I disagree with Assassin on Genesis.Like Snake said; if it's not taken literally then it's not really..........doing anything. It's presence is almost pointless.
Can you justify/explain/prove your religious beliefs?
