The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[Decyferon]

^^ don't put that sort of shit down to god, I would have put it down to my own awesomeness!! Fuck giving anyone else credit for your player skills!!

[.hopeless.]

i think that all depends on how much of a looker nsmbfan is hahah.

[nsmbfan]

haha, i'm decent. just a broke pimp.

 

she was a down ass chick too, a keeper if she wasn't such a bitch. it's ok though, a few natty light 24oz'ers and a little shit talking to keep her ass in check, and she was smitten with me.

 

she hopped in the ride and didn't shit on it, which is the normal reaction to my ride. she goes "your window don't roll down..." and i'm like "....yeah...." and she goes "if you get the parts, I can fix it" - wait, wut? LOL wow this chick is kinda cool, I thought.

 

then we went and picked up a fat sack of herb. she notices the rusto can in the back and goes "let's go paint something"... so we did.

 

i was in awe.

 

but she's 19 and a rude bitchy slut. and she used to do dope when she stripped, which would explain her sluttiness. but god damn she had some big ass perky tits. i tore that shit up. her words exactly "you can do anything you want, my safe word is kittens" - wow.

we had some rough drunken sex, she woke up and her puss was hurting LOL.

 

but theres no shame in my game, i had whiskey dick the first half of the night (LOL!) and couldn't break her off proper until i sobered up a little. stilled smashed until my pelvis was sore. fucking win.

[.hopeless.]

i give you about a week before the rash starts to appear...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jk.

[nsmbfan]

Why would you want to talk people down for believing in what they believe in? That's just an act of ignorance and arrogance. You're an atheist, I get it. I think we all get it, but it seems that you're wanting to portray your simple-mindedness to the rest of 12oz.

 

If you are bitching about theists wanting to disprove your idea of a God that you don't think exists, then why regurgitate what they're doing and forcing it upon them?

 

It makes no sense, it's just a circle that never completes itself.

Religion and science will always be head on with each other, and like I said to Ski Mask in a PM, science will always win. I hate to admit it, but the truth is the truth.

 

Theists cannot visually prove the existence of God but science can disprove it just for the fact that there is no manifestation of a visible human being.

 

My faith in God is up high, all though I don't follow some of the beliefs of my own religion, I still believe that he exists. The replication of a miniature Big Bang through CERN's technology furthers my trust that yes, God exists.

 

Notice how I used science to semi-prove and get across a point. If man can recreate the beginning of the universe, then why couldn't another being from another vast universe do the same?

 

The universe is ENORMOUS in size and we have yet to know if we are the only universe out there. Nobody knows how many of "us" there are. We cannot be that selfish that we think that we are the only beings in this world. It's just simply ignorant.

 

With that said I will answer your question, nsmb, to why I believe in the existance of God.

 

I just simply believe. I have found within myself that I have chosen the correct path to go on. I at anytime can stray from this path, but it's not what I want to do. Faith is exactly that, faith. And it's what I have, it's what helps me be close to the God I believe in.

 

I have many, many, influences from the atheist point of view due to many of my friends not believing in a higher power or wanting proof that one exists. We have had intellectual discussions as to why we believe and vice versa. Most of their responses are either it's just to absurd to believe in something like that or I need proof.

 

One's beliefs are personal and no one should interfere or bring them down.

 

Religion will never be expelled from humanity, it's impossible.

 

Welcome to the new age of living.

 

well, you make the most sense. props if i weren't 24'd.

 

i am not an athiest. but I do believe that religion is a form of control. and I dislike that. but considering the alternative (no religion, no control) I think that's why it was created by Charlemagne in the first place. it makes perfect sense if you want people to live amongst each other in a functioning society. but religion generally uses fear.

 

fear as a motivator is not good for me. for anyone. it will only make you do just enough to NOT incure the wrath of that which you consider holy. ie. i'd kill my neighbor for his land if Im hungry... then fuck his wife - if religion didn't tell me that this selfish behavior will lead to my wicked enternal damnation, what the fuck keeps me from being all Ghengis Kahn in this mother?

 

i've dabbled in numerous schools of thought on religion and existence, and like a buffet, I sample from them all. what I learned is that it all leads to one thing: the golden rule. do unto others as you would have done unto you. and you'll lead a happy life.

 

but with all religions, they justify war and killing "in the name of". be nice, live a good life, but this guys gotta die because god said so. just doesn't compute with me. hypocrisy runs rampant as is, it doesn't need to be in religion.

 

as to the vicious circle and me mocking others faith, you're right. this was really never my intention. it was sort of a joke. truth is i'm open to new ideas. i'd love to understand how you can blindly believe something. i would. ignorance is bliss, no?

 

it seems as though most people believe whatever's convenient, in order to be at peace with themselves. everybody asks the question. religion is an easy answer for those not ready to draw up their own conclusions.

 

now spiritualism - i am very spiritual. that's an entirely different thread. and spiritualism has been removed from organized religion. the idea that we are ALL connected somehow, in ways we don't fully understand, has been silenced by most religions of the world. my 70 yr old grandmother believes that all the nice buddhists living peacefully in the mountains will go to hell for not believing the word of Christ - even though some haven't had the luxury of hearing it. seems unfair.

[nsmbfan]

i give you about a week before the rash starts to appear...

 

 

 

 

 

jk.

 

...yeah....

hopefully it's the curable one though. thanks for the vote of confidence.

[nsmbfan]

The only thing that bothers me about this atheist/religious debate is the need for both sides to convert the other. It seems pointless.

 

but they do it for completely different reasons.

 

religious folks try and convert to "save your soul", because it's their mission from the almighty. (see: missionaries)

 

athiests try to convert for numerous reasons. but i think least of all is to diminish your hopes and dreams of their being a creator. i think it takes just as much conviction to be an athiest - or for that ridiculous matter, satanist. it's the other side of the same coin.

 

now agnostic is what i'd closely consider myself. not saying there is, not saying there isn't. just an impartial bystander observing and reporting. mocking idiots from both sides.

 

bottom line: you don't know. regardless of what is you think you know. can't we just coexist?

 

in the future religion will be looked upon as a primitive means of comforting the soul and controlling the stupid masses. and if the robots hadn't killed us all after the zombie invasion, the world will be a better place - or at least we won't wage holy wars, we'll think of something new to kill ourselves over.

[nsmbfan]

There is always going to be a certain disconnect between historic cultures and our own analyses of them.

 

I think it's fine that you have speculations about the creation, purpose and use of these structures, but just as you are claiming that we and science can say little on them, you should keep that in mind yourself.

 

I think all Ski Mask and I were saying is that speculative commentary is not going to get you anywhere in a scientific argument. That's all.

 

I too have somewhat out there views on these things, but I'm not gonna put them out there because it doesn't have dick to do with anything really. It's best to leave what you can't speak with some validity or certainty on out of arguments where there is more than enough to speak about aptly.

 

what i heard after reading that twice is:

 

speak on what you know, because what you theorize won't hold water in a real argument.

 

problem is i don't know much. i'm asking questions, not discerning facts. and that's all Van Daniken does in his book. which is revolutionary because they haven't been fully explored and disproven - yet. it's neat to think outside the box and promote discussion in forums.

 

but if that's not welcome, we can all regurgitate our pre-fabricated stories of existence. but that's what church is for. affirmation in ones beliefs. well i aim to make people think. and if i've accomplished that, even with one person, my post wasn't in vain.

[nsmbfan]

I think the reason the people don't believe in God, is because they have never been in a position where they needed to believe in God. Live has been to easy for them.

 

My Logic:

 

There is no such thing as an Atheist in a foxhole.

 

this is the same reason people don't buy health insurance :) why buy health insurance, I'm not sick. LOL.

 

and you're absulutely right about athiests in foxholes. makes sense seeing how our country is always at war. it does strengthen ones belief in god when you're getting shot at.

 

nowadays, the guy shooting back is only doing it because his god told him to LOL. and it's hot in the desert, it makes people irritable.

[.hopeless.]

thats the same reason that my father became a christian..again.he was a wiccan for a while.then after he spent a few years at war he decided to become a catholic...

[nsmbfan]

wiccan is interesting. this girl i know claims to be a witch and that she has magical powers.

 

a big lolwut on all that.

[Decyferon]

I think the reason the people don't believe in God, is because they have never been in a position where they needed to believe in God. Live has been to easy for them.

 

My Logic:

 

There is no such thing as an Atheist in a foxhole.

 

I have been in a lot of bad situations and God has never helped me, this is why I dont believe

[Port-A-John Enthusiest]

I think St. Thomas Aquinas is right in his logic.

 

So you dont believe in God because he never helped you while you were in a hard time? How do you know he never helped you? I dont think God is to blame for humans lack of ability to understand the vastness of his divine will.

[Decyferon]

Well for me the logic of god just isn't there, my mind isn't programmed to believe in a god or gods, I just am unable to sit down and convince myself of it. I don't mind people having faith, I don't like the preachy ones, but also I don't push my atheism on people, unless they start pushing their religious views on me.

[nsmbfan]

I think St. Thomas Aquinas is right in his logic.

 

So you dont believe in God because he never helped you while you were in a hard time? How do you know he never helped you? I dont think God is to blame for humans lack of ability to understand the vastness of his divine will.

 

PORT A JOHN!

 

where ya been bro?

 

good input too. but i don't believe in divine will, or fate. there is no plan, and if there were, life would be meaningless. we would all be cogs in a machine, driving towards some grand purpose. but we're not. we have free will to do as we please and that is the spice of life my friend.

 

when the truth is I could end my life if I wanted to. I can end several lives, and get on the news. the possibilities are endless to ever seriously consider that there is a solitary plan for EVERYONE, and that how we interact each day with each other is in accordance with that plan. meaning everything i do is according to plan, and the effects of my actions were pre-determined to coinside with your plan, regardless of the outcome.

 

it's just not plausible.

[nsmbfan]

Who says God is supposed to help you. He has a whole universe in his hands. What are you? Who says you should even be alive right now? THere are children getting raped and murdered and here youare, "oh my life sucks, nobody helps me." I think some one on the level of being able to create a universe and maintain its wheels in motion, would be smart enough to know that not everyone can be helped.(and sometimes not being helped is being helped, what doesnt kill you can only make you stronger) And I would also think that God would be smart enough to allow the world to have mixed beliefs about him.

 

 

 

no.

[Cracked Ass]

"No" cosigned.

Your starting point is outlandish, so atheists will seldom engage you on specifics.

I'm what I guess you could call a five-senses atheist. I'm reluctant to use the term atheist at all, because it presupposes a majority belief in god followed by a minority reaction. But a five-senses atheist believes only what his five senses tell him, and (via the scientific method) the testable knowledge accumulated by the five senses of previous observers.

To us, your story of gods and creators and whatnot is bizarre. We don't have any evidence for these crazy stories, and they aren't even sufficiently down to earth to rate as testable hypotheses. (We have some evidence for a Big Bang, although I don't "believe" in that either and suspect it was not an actual event but is a limit on our ability to observe or detect meaningful data in the "before" direction.)

I've heard many of the crazy stories: God as a sort of glorified Santa Claus, God as "everything" (whatever that means), God as the sum total of all that has not yet been explained by science - but none of these are things I can investigate using my five senses. (I do have a great deal of evidence that humans are gullible, brainwashable, superstitious, and frequently wrong about stuff, and the rational answer to that is very consistent: observe what's observable, test what's testable, and leave the crazy stories for the crazy people, or at least fiction readings.)

[Cracked Ass]

I didn't really wrap up my main point, which is this: The first time this "god" topic came up in my life was from rehashes (oral and written) of really old books whose authenticity cannot be verified (the authenticity of what those books' writers saw, if anything). I never saw, heard, smelled, touched, or tasted any god or read about him in a science book. ALL I'VE EVER HEARD is these same stories over and over that sound suspiciously like unimaginative fiction written by superstitious authors. Not only do I have no reason to believe in a god, I have no reason to investigate your crazy claims. There's not enough there for an empiricist to say "Hmm, we better look into this." The fact that five and a half billion lemmings all want to jump off the same cliff doesn't impress me at all. (Other than being a plausible brainwashability rate.)

It's not like there was auto-belief in god first, followed by a handful of people trying to break away or not conform. We are OUTSIDE your whole bubble. For us, there never was any god, and still isn't - just your stories, and no evidence. As is ALWAYS the case for five-sensers, you show me scientific evidence (raw, not cooked) to back up any of your claims and then I will take an interest in investigating. Until then, I wish you luck with your "faith".

[Chubbs]

I think St. Thomas Aquinas is right in his logic.

 

So you dont believe in God because he never helped you while you were in a hard time? How do you know he never helped you? I dont think God is to blame for humans lack of ability to understand the vastness of his divine will.

 

how could he NOT be blamed for our lack of ability to understand? Or moreover, how could we as animals, only governed by the known laws of the universe, claim to understand an entity that would clearly lay beyond our comprehension?

 

I do agree there are singularities we have yet to scratch the surface on understanding..but in no way can the Christian rendition, or anything similar to it be stated as even logical for starters.

[Mainframe]

God as "everything" (whatever that means)

 

I think perhaps you're glossing over this one too much. What about god as "everything" experienced through your own sensory input and, if you like, information gleaned from science? The concept of god doesn't have to have any concrete explanatory power. Many, if not most, religious stories are allegorical. The god of the visionary is the infinite perceived in the ordinary. It doesn't fill any psychological holes, it is simply a humble recognition, perhaps reverence, of the conditions (known and unknown) of our existence. Some people say that they don't need the idea of god (and nobody has to call it by that name), but I think what they mean to say is that they don't need the institution of the church, or religious codes. I think it's ironic that intellectual abstraction from the idea of god can lead people to miss the point entirely.

[Cracked Ass]

I'm gonna give one more perspective, and then go to bed:

I said earlier I couldn't believe in a god if I tried.

Think about that carefully.

If you don't really grasp that statement, TRY "BELIEVING" IN FRODO BAGGINS.

[Cracked Ass]

Im just saying that some people are not so lucky. Some people are born with mental retardation. Your not. Why? I dont know. If you know tell me. Otherwise, I think you should be thanking somebody that you didn't.

 

Who should I thank? Set up a meeting, I'd like to thank him in person. No other way will do.

[Mainframe]

...

[Cracked Ass]

I think perhaps you're glossing over this one too much. What about god as "everything" experienced through your own sensory input and, if you like, information gleaned from science? The concept of god doesn't have to have any concrete explanatory power. Many, if not most, religious stories are allegorical. The god of the visionary is the infinite perceived in the ordinary. It doesn't fill any psychological holes, it is simply a humble recognition, perhaps reverence, of the conditions (known and unknown) of our existence. Some people say that they don't need the idea of god (and nobody has to call it by that name), but I think what they mean to say is that they don't need the institution of the church, or religious codes. I think it's ironic that intellectual abstraction from the idea of god can lead people to miss the point entirely.

 

You have backed so far away from the definition of "god" that I was thinking of that you lost all steam.

What ABOUT 'god as "everything" experienced through your own sensory input and, if you like, information gleaned from science?' For the set <everything experienced through my own sensory input and information gleaned from science> I prefer the title "everything experienced through my own sensory input and information gleaned from science", not "god". Why would I call that set of stuff "god"? I use that term for deities, beings, creators, etc.

[Cracked Ass]

I know, I lied about going to bed. Maybe I'll make some coffee.

[Cracked Ass]

Mainframe, if you were at all interested in whether I have any sort of spiritual feelings about the universe, the answer is yes and can be summed up by this one Bloom County cartoon, I'll see if I can find it.

[Cracked Ass]

I can't find a copy, but it's the one where Oliver Wendell Jones is on the roof with his telescope and gets freaked out by the vastness of the cosmos and the final scene punchline is "Later, he wallows in the welcome mundanity of a chocolate-chip cookie."

[Mainframe]

Mainframe, if you were at all interested in whether I have any sort of spiritual feelings about the universe, the answer is yes

 

Well that's what I was getting at. You're right that I am getting pretty far from conventional definitions of "god", but I think these definitions are up for debate anyway. The idea of "god" as defined by many religious institutions, popular superstition, Richard Dawkins, etc, meaning basically an omnipotent deity, bores me. I don't even think it's necessarily what "god" is fundamentally about. To me the idea of a religious visionary or prophet doesn't conjure up visions of some deranged lunatic raving about an imagined power in the sky. There is a Greek word anamnesis (literally "loss of forgetfulness) that I like to apply when considering the religious experience. I think visionaries - upon whom a great deal of religious tradition is based - might have simply had moments of deep spiritual feeling and ego-less clarity, in which they caught a glimpse of the infinite ineffability of sheer existence, which is yet contained within its own totality. I'll stop before I go rocketing off into the cosmos here, but hopefully you get my drift. I don't think it's a new or complex idea, really, everyone can relate to it in some way. Also I think some of Einstein's writings on the subject were very good: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Mainframe]

Oh yeah I got the word anamnesis from "The Religious Experience of Philip K. Dick," check it out...

 

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/weirdo/weirdo1.htm

[Cracked Ass]

Well we're on the same wavelength. You probably get now that the boring definition of god is the one whose plausibility, testability, etc. I'm arguing against.

As for that "big mystery" feeling I get when looking at the stars or even through a microscope or just a landscape-sized panorama of singular beauty or ugliness, I would go so far as to call it spiritual, but I would not use the word god at all. I'll buy 'anamnesis' if your definition is accurate. And I would quibble with Einstein's quote, agreeing only if it began "science without spirituality" rather than "religion".

I also suspect that what I am content to call spirituality in this context is probably no more than another complex human emotion or emotive reaction, like deja vu, dreaming, etc. that will eventually be explained by future generations of neuroscientists.