• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Not walking is the outcome of a belief that you don't want to walk
Not collecting stamps is a belief that you don't want that type of hobby
Walking barefoot :D is actually skin shoe. :D
Having the TV (on the old TV's) was actually along with the channels :D



Nice play on words when you want it to say what you want it to say.


Your belief on not going to the doctor:
  1. is a result of the belief that you are not sick
  2. Is a ridiculous decision because you could have a cancer that a checkup would have discovered
If you do not believe a fist is swing toward your nose:
  1. You have made up a absurd example because you don't know what you are talking about
  2. You are about to be sucker punched
  3. You belief, if it is coming, will cause you to be on the floor (action/reaction)

If you want examples of plays on words, you should read the nonsense you just wrote there above.
And you're not even good at it.

"not collecting stamps is a belief".

Clearly, you are resorting to the utterly absurd now, just to avoid having to admit that you are clearly mistaken here about this whole thing.

Isn't "pride" a sin in your religion?




Whenever you are ready to try and give an actual example of an ACTION that is a direct result of NOT believing something.....

"not dodging" = doing nothing; not an action
"not going to the hospital" = doing nothing; not an action

If I believe a fist is coming my way - I ACT by dodging.
If I don't believe a fist is coming my way - I DO NOT ACT by NOT dodging.

derp di derp derp derp.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No... what I see is an effort of people trying to construct a construct that is so ridiculous and then destroy what they constructed ;)

As subduction said,

If you don't believe there is a God... then say so.
If you don't believe at this time because you don't have enough evidence - say you are an agnostic.
if you are against God, and what He stands for, then "say you are anti-God" (my addition)

Don't mince words and don't play with false analogies.

I'm an agnostic athiest.

Agnostics - because gods are defined in unfalsifiable ways, meaning that it's by definition unknowable
Atheist - because I don't believe the claim "god exists".

Neither of which is a belief.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you've reached conclusions which is by definition not what scientists do.
Actually it is what they do every day. The form hypotheses and then they test them. Those tests can never prove those hypotheses to be right, but they can prove them to be wrong. That is the purpose of the tests.

You once again have shown that you do not understand the scientific method itself. If you do not want to go over this with me you should at least learn from someone else.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Actually it is what they do every day. The form hypotheses and then they test them.

It's like you don't even read your own posts.

A good scientist never reaches a conclusion. He can neither prove nor disprove anything except he can certainly "disprove" theory. But then "theory" is no a conclusion, it is the current interpretation of experiment hence disproving theory is really just "proving" the interpretation to be in error.

Why should I have to keep repeating the same things?

Over and over believers in science keep reaching conclusions and implying they have answers. Scientists normally don't do this.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's like you don't even read your own posts.

A good scientist never reaches a conclusion. He can neither prove nor disprove anything except he can certainly "disprove" theory. But then "theory" is no a conclusion, it is the current interpretation of experiment hence disproving theory is really just "proving" the interpretation to be in error.

Why should I have to keep repeating the same things?

Over and over believers in science keep reaching conclusions and implying they have answers. Scientists normally don't do this.
Because what you post is pretty much nonsense. It is not how science works. You are trying to make it all about interpretation and that is what the scientific method strives to avoid. It is why we have a scientific method in the first place. It is why there is a clear definition of what qualifies as evidence.

People arising at a reasonable, even if tentative conclusion is far better than entertaining fantasies that have no reliable evidence for them at all.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
"Corn shoe". "Skin shoe". "Birthday shoes". "Slipper fillers". "Double amputee devices". "Horse shoe". "Shoe footed". "Foot shoed".

Perhaps the problem is the question.

Anybody can make a semantical argument and that's what's going on when "agnostic" and "atheist" have the same meaning.
So no actual shoes, just jokes about feet that have no shoes.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No... what I see is an effort of people trying to construct a construct that is so ridiculous and then destroy what they constructed ;)
You don't really make a coherent argument here.

Many of your comments against what atheists say seem to have a bias because you are operating with an assumption that religious belief is a necessary axiom and atheists operate without this, thus have a fundamental flaw. Of course it's an assumption that isn't a flaw at all. To assume a God or a supernatural is a flaw in logic and reason.

As subduction said,

If you don't believe there is a God... then say so.
If you don't believe at this time because you don't have enough evidence - say you are an agnostic.
if you are against God, and what He stands for, then "say you are anti-God" (my addition)

Don't mince words and don't play with false analogies.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Easily. Curiously I did just that recently with an 8 year old.

I don't believe that you explained the Pythagorean theorem to a child with no knowledge of algebra or geometry. At a minimum, the child would need to know what a right triangle and a hypotenuse are, and what a2 +b2 = c2 or some similar algebraic formulation means. But it evades the point that there are concepts too difficult to explain to an unprepared mind, making incorrect your claim that if you can't explain it to a child, you don't understand it.

Induction is language. Language is not logical. One can invent hypothesis with induction or even use it to help in experiment design but it is never science.

No, induction is not language, and yes induction is logical, just like deduction. My dogs do it. They hear a sound or see a sight and eventually understand it's implications by induction, and make successful predictions using that information. When they see the harnesses come out, they now know that we are going to the park for a walk, they show their expectation with their enthusiasm, and then they discover that the prediction they made was accurate as their expectations manifest as a ride to the park then a walk in it. No language involved.

In fact, they don't even have to see or hear anything to have valid expectations based on prior experience. Somehow, they know when it's dinner time. They get fed at the same time every day. If we lose track of the time, they just stare at us to remind us. I don't know how they tell time, but they apparently can and have learned to correctly anticipate when feeding time has arrived by induction.

Induction is a integral process to science. F=ma is an induction derived from measuring force, mass, and acceleration, and inducing a general rule that relates them. It is confirmed by demonstrating that when two of these are known, the third can be deduced from the rule generated by induction.

Again, I repeat, all beliefs are wrong beliefs and scientists don't reach conclusions so should have no beliefs (per se).

Do you think that all of your beliefs are wrong? How is it you are unaware that scientists reach conclusions, and these become some of their beliefs? So do nonscientists. So do you. Why do you think otherwise?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As a living being I use common sense not science.

I'm living. I observe I'm living. Always two humans not my life have sex babies continue life.

Why science is fake it's about the past exact to the first thesis.

Where men thought in star gas fall brain changed learnt visionary science by converting.

Where he lived no comments existed. No converting either.

Pretty basic terms.

I live in the exact light moment that any other type of body does.

Billions in that one moment exact.

Living I can poke my self yep physical. I can poke any other body...physical.

I don't self idolise a bible warning so I don't idolise any of you either.

Were all humans. Equal.

You false preach in life the warning.

If I said my adult memory first parent owned. We are all sperm.ovary consciousness showed me visionary memories then it owns stories

About natural human versus human machine built science causes.

Not bodily in first vision converting.

That had ended was cooled equalled living conditions. No life in that recording.

My parents showed me all living spirit came personally spirit body owned each self direct out of the eternal.

So I'm asked how did God cause it.

God named by man the planet and then it's cooling amassing heavens.

So I tell you a thin space plane burnt out removed the eternal support of the many gods ooooo. All variable sound mass. O and o.

Separated.

God filled in empty spatial plane so dense gases made it bulge.

As it bulged it hit upon the eternal body creation had separated from.

So O hit resounded into the eternal.

Cause effect returned.

Ooooovibrated into the eternal. Spirit left and went into every place itself instant. Via oooooooO. A cause. God did it.

Why instant life lives altogether owning it's own body living dying by its owned body life span. Right in the exact same moment.

My story I know is true.

The creator is in the heavens taught holy men.
 

Daniel Nicholson

Blasphemous Pryme
QUOTE="Wildswanderer, post: 7589334, member: 72372"]Wrong. Jesus said to love your enemies. He said to bring the children to him...he healed and never killed anyone. He said he came to set the captives free...He died for every single person. He's a loving God who doesn't endorse any of the things you said.[/QUOTE]
genocide and infanticide:

Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

Genesis 19: 24,25
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Number 21: 2,3
And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Deuteronomy 20: 12-15
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
16,17
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee

Joshua 6
2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

9 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.

1 Samuel 15:
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Have you read the old testament? The Father has done and commanded genocide.
The OT is shadows and types...it doesn't give us the whole nature of God...yes God allowed killing in the OT...he even wiped out humanity once...But what did he desire?
He created man for communion with him and men rejected him completely, except for a handful of them.
His ultimate plan was to become human like those who hated him to save them from what they deserved. But people don't read that far apparently. They get stuck on God getting rid of people who hated him. Only God has the right to judge who lives and who doesn't.
We all deserve death but he offers mercy.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
The OT is shadows and types...it doesn't give us the whole nature of God...yes God allowed killing in the OT...he even wiped out humanity once...But what did he desire?
He created man for communion with him and men rejected him completely, except for a handful of them.
His ultimate plan was to become human like those who hated him to save them from what they deserved. But people don't read that far apparently. They get stuck on God getting rid of people who hated him. Only God has the right to judge who lives and who doesn't.
We all deserve death but he offers mercy.
Why should we care what god desires?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Because it's the only thing that ultimately matters. Otherwise it's just:
" Shadows and dust Maximus, shadows and dust!"
That is not a why. That nothing but a rephrasing of your previous assertion that we should care what God desires. So again. Why should I what your God desires?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science is egotism by a cult group rich man's domination of our united family humanity.

Not your slaves but forced to behave accept your slavery by order or I'll murder you otherwise.

Is historic human mad men's behaviours. Rich men brothers whose minds were first changed by stars fall.

Just as taught. Your changed behaviour uncontrollable.

The church founded by holy rich men
Outlawed the scientists owned the church to aid humanities irradiated life bodies. The church taught human healing.

Hypocrites in person. Asked for father's forgiveness for sciences sin...sink holes. Not natural man's sexual sin hurt baby inherited life mind bodies. Knew they were wrong. Chose to control bad men behaviours.

Served the poor. Fed the poor. Kept segregated so that rich tax men couldn't stop them defending the poor serving the poor.

As rich man taxed out humans ability to lead a normal life fed housed and be self supported by trade. You owned it all you said.

Origin of the church replaced sciences temples.

Or do you ignore the history of man's choice nuclear sciences?

Do you ignore why the church was founded?

And do you ignore rich men tried to control every aspect of organisation?

Do you ignore that wealth in human life a lifestyle not life's continuance was founded on man's human life murdered?

Why do you think science made a thesis about energy gain by the murder sacrifice of human life.

When science is cosmic direct to a machine that first doesn't even exist!!!
 
Top