Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[ChristineM]

Intuition is a function of the reason, according to me.

Jolly good, guesswork then. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Heyo]

I meant that God has already a power to create everything; ıt doesn’t need He is a power!

The second part doesn't form a syntactically correct sentence in English, so I may misunderstand you.
From the first part a assume you think, contrary to your first statement, that god is not the power but that god is an entity wielding the power to create.
Did I get that right?

 

[Revoltingest]

As you like.

Tis actually "as I'm compelled".
This brain forces some things upon me.

 

[thomas t]

Yes, that is why you end up getting what you call "rude responses"

... which is not my fault.

It is one of the worst arguments ever given. That is why the claim is given by several that you are not arguing rationally. I can use the exact same argument for atheism. It is a pointless test.

I think it's a good argument.
When atheists say I don't argue rationally, it's a ruse maybe. I prefer keeping the debate to the subject level.
I think you can't use the same argument for atheism and the test is not a useless test.

 

[Audie]

Then, you are an atheist.

Jolly good guess work

 

[thomas t]

Any reason why you didn't answer my question? How did you eliminate magical pixies or the possibility that we evolved to appreciate beauty in nature and land on a creator god as the only answer?

Didn't I answer? I answered it for you.

I wrote: if this makes sense to you, explore it.

As to how I deal with the pixies you cite? no, I don't rule out that they exist. I'm just not interested.
I don't rule out many things, since I don't care....

 

[thomas t]

Sometimes I look at things Christians (I don't suppose it's unique to them but it's usually been in my experience) and am just horrified at the degree to which they can ignore horrific actions and injustice just because it's connected to their god.

It's because you ascribe horror to death. I mean natural death (disease that was not inflicted by man...)
For Christians, there is no horror if God takes away earthly life.
He could do it with me right on the spot.
After I finished the message here.
Well, tomorrow I would have had a song recording, but noones cries over spilt milk.

For atheists God taking life back is just horrible. An atrocity, just terrific. Abhorrent. "Unjust".

However, I just don't buy it.
For Christians (natural) death is merely being transferred to an afterlife. No less and no more. Since God is the same there, too, no reason to worry about anything.
This is at least vhow I talk and I know from personal experience that is how my Christian sisters and brothers talk, as well, once they know that they might die soon (of cancer, for instance)
Why not agree to disagree here.

-------------------
I was a bit imprecise when I talked about the LUCA perhaps... so yeah abiogenesis is the gap basically.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's because you ascribe horror to death. I mean natural death (disease that was not inflicted by man...)
For Christians, there is no horror if God takes away earthly life.

It's really not so much the fact of death that's horrifying, it's the accompanying suffering that disease so often brings with it. If you were a god designing a world, why would you make innocent children suffer? How is that not horrifying to you?

You say that for Christians, there is no horror, but would you really watch whoever is closest to you in this life, suffering an agonising death and just think that's fine? If your answer is yes, then I find that horrifying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then you are theist. Are you?

No. Atheist refers to disbelief in deities (supernatural beings) not whether a particular idea or object is called god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The power which created everything.

What's a "power"?

 

[Polymath257]

What's a "power"?

Energy per unit time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

... which is not my fault.

Actually it is your fault. That was the point. If you debate properly it will not happen.

I think it's a good argument.
When atheists say I don't argue rationally, it's a ruse maybe. I prefer keeping the debate to the subject level.
I think you can't use the same argument for atheism and the test is not a useless test.

And that is the problem. At this point since it is a failed test, it supports atheism just as much as it supports a belief in a god, it is indicative of low levels of honesty or intelligence or both. I have a strong feeling that you can do better if you try.

 

[thomas t]

It's really not so much the fact of death that's horrifying, it's the accompanying suffering that disease so often brings with it. If you were a god designing a world, why would you make innocent children suffer? How is that not horrifying to you?

You say that for Christians, there is no horror, but would you really watch whoever is closest to you in this life, suffering an agonising death and just think that's fine? If your answer is yes, then I find that horrifying.

there is much suffering and pain inflicted by man, too. I find that horrifying.
That's enough for me that I can find horrifying.

 

[thomas t]

it supports atheism just as much as it supports a belief in a god, it is indicative of low levels of honesty or intelligence or both. I have a strong feeling that you can do better if you try.

this is where it gets rude. Stop that. Stop speculating about personal traits of mine. I'm not dishonest.

--------
Standard answers as always:
It wasn't a failed test. It does not support atheism.
I debate properly, (so it isn't my fault).... and even if I didn't, don't resort to personal attacks against me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this is where it gets rude. Stop that. Stop speculating about personal traits of mine. I'm not dishonest.

--------
Standard answers as always:
It wasn't a failed test. It does not support atheism.
I debate properly and even if I didn't don't resort to personal attacks against me.

I did use a qualifier there. Plus there was another possible reason that you ignored so it definitely was not a claim that you were dishonest. There could be other reasons too for your inability to debate properly. Continued use of a failed argument is not proper debating. Now if you could justify the use of that argument you might have a point but you cannot even do that. And I am not the only one that has pointed out how you do not debate properly. When multiple users observe the same behavior that is a good sign that they may be correct and the poster they are responding to is guilty of what they are accused of.

And of course your test supports atheism. Why do you think it doesn't? That is one of the reasons that it is a failed test.

 

[ratiocinator]

there is much suffering and pain inflicted by man, too. I find that horrifying.

I agree, but you somehow seem to think it's all right just so long as there is only your god who can possibly be responsible. That's what's frightening about religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If atheism is true then we should by evolution be well adapted to our environment.

And if we are well adapted to our environment it should look beautiful to us. That is our mind saying "This is a good place to live"

I can see beautiful scenery in many places. Therefore atheism is true.

 

[thomas t]

I did use a qualifier there.

You resorted to speculation about my potential dishonesty, stop it!

your inability to debate properly.

this is where it's getting rude. Stop it!

Continued use of a failed argument is not proper debating.

it wasn't a failed argument. Even if you claim it was!

Now if you could justify the use of that argument you might have a point but you cannot even do that.

I justified it all the time.

When multiple users observe the same behavior that is a good sign that they may be correct and the poster they are responding to is guilty of what they are accused of.

they can be all wrong.

And of course your test supports atheism. Why do you think it doesn't? That is one of the reasons that it is a failed test.

You put up the claim (that it would support atheism), you failed to substanciate it, don't shift the onus on me now.

EDIT. ah you just substanciated it claiming finding countrysides beautiful is a sign of being well adapted to the environment, see your newly redacted #357.
You failed to argue how finding things beautiful is an advantage in the evolutionary process.

 

[Valjean]

Revoltingest said: ↑

There isn't even an inkling that gods are likely.
So I've no good reason to believe in any of the
myriad of religions knocking at my door with
their colorful pamphlets.

As you like.

It's not a question of like. It's a simple statement of fact.

Polymath257 said: ↑

I don't believe there was such a thing.

Then, how created all these matter a.s.o. ?

You keep asking the same questions, Frbnsn. If you really want an answer you need to read some physics, but I don't think you do want an answer. I think you're trying to bolster your faith by asking questions that either can't be answered or that have technical answers that this forum can't deal with.

Not knowing something is not evidence that goddidit.
Overwhelming complexity is not evidence that goddidit.
Goddidit answers only who; how remains a mystery, yet that's what you're asking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You resorted to speculation about my potential dishonesty, stop it!

this is where it's getting rude. Stop it!

It was only one of several possibilities. It was not rude. But I will let it drop for now.

it wasn't a failed argument. Even if you claim it was!
I justified it all the time.
they can be all wrong.

Yes it was. I explained to you why it was a failed argument. Others explained to you why it was a failed argument. You could never defend it. At best you could say "It looks okay to me". That only tells us that you cannot see what everyone else can see. Why can't you see that? Oh wait, that leads to "speculation" that you do not like.

You put up the claim (that it would support atheism), you failed to substanciate it, don't shift the onus on me now.

I really did not need to do that since you never substantiated your argument, but as you saw I did do that later.

EDIT. ah you just substanciated it claiming finding countrysides beautiful is a sign of being well adapted to the environment, see your newly redacted #357.
You failed to argue how finding things beautiful is an advantage in the evolutionary process.

There was nothing "redacted" there. You might be thinking of another term. And seriously? You need that explained to you even further? An ability to recognize environments that one can do well in is a clear survival trait. Walking into a stormy ocean because one cannot see the perils there is not a good method to ensure that passing on of one's genes.

By the way, you never supported your argument. At all. Vague handwaving is not support.