Current Events > There is literally no reason NOT to believe in God.

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2
Psycho_Poodle
04/08/17 7:24:47 AM
#51:


Rika_Furude posted...
Heres one valid reason that stands above all others for not believing in god:

Common sense

Ahh, but is common sense truly "common"?

Barista, another latte please! And don't screw it up this time! Remember, I want THREE shots of espresso!
---
../|,-``\(o)_\,----,,,_..
( `\(o),,_/` : o : : :o `-, ...I'm watching you... scum.
... Copied to Clipboard!
KobeSystem
04/08/17 7:28:07 AM
#52:


Psycho_Poodle posted...
I remember Pascal's Wager from college philosophy class! Boy am I smart! Of course I am! I voted for Hillary didn't I?

By the way, my favorite is Ockham's Razor, "the simplest solution is usually the best!". Always got a kick outta that one! Boy I feel like Socrates! I'm going to Starbucks and getting me a latte (served to me by a barista with a masters degree in philosophy)!


what the fuck

you dont need a mast-

nvm you do you buddy
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
RaptorLC
04/08/17 9:00:00 AM
#53:


Ah, Pascal's Wager, wherein people think they can fool a purportedly omniscient being by feigning belief because it's the convenient thing to do.
---
Never trust a snake.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Guardian-Sloth
04/08/17 10:55:54 AM
#54:


I see no reason why anyone with any sense at all wouldn't believe in intelligent design. By this logic, it's more likely that a library was the result of an explosion at a printing shop than someone building it.
... Copied to Clipboard!
mvillanueva88
04/08/17 11:52:11 AM
#55:


Guardian-Sloth posted...
I see no reason why anyone with any sense at all wouldn't believe in intelligent design. By this logic, it's more likely that a library was the result of an explosion at a printing shop than someone building it.


Then who built God? And why aren't we worshiping that being?
---
Sam and Robert are the hitch-hikers on the road.
--Necronomicon incantation (The Evil Dead)
... Copied to Clipboard!
#56
Post #56 was unavailable or deleted.
Lightsasori
04/08/17 2:17:50 PM
#57:


-Gavirulax- posted...
mvillanueva88 posted...
Guardian-Sloth posted...
I see no reason why anyone with any sense at all wouldn't believe in intelligent design. By this logic, it's more likely that a library was the result of an explosion at a printing shop than someone building it.


Then who built God? And why aren't we worshiping that being?



It goes like this.

I made god, and I made the Universe, the pre-universe was my old hair, when I lost it everything exploded and thus mans best friend is dog, which is god backward.


Sir you just blew my mind.
---
"Yare yare daze" ~ Jotaro Kujo
"Children are pure, they know who's the strongest." ~ MaskDeSmith
... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89
04/08/17 2:21:20 PM
#58:


Sure there is. You'd think we'd start growing out of this mystical nonsense any millennium now.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi
04/08/17 2:23:21 PM
#59:


buddhamonster posted...
I see your Pascal's wager, and raise you an Epicurus quote:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Check. Your move.


To be fair, that's a human's judgement of God, and with God theoretically being the end-all, be-all in all of those cases, our judgement of him should be irrelevant.
---
I have nothing else to say
... Copied to Clipboard!
Feline_Heart
04/08/17 2:23:38 PM
#60:


Omnislasher posted...
that's called pascal's wager and it's moronic
... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl
04/08/17 2:25:04 PM
#61:


gmanthebest posted...
You're right. We should all rejoice in Odin, the All-Father's, light.

I worship Freyja. But I'll give the all-father his dues, of course. And Thor on his day.
---
Pokemon Moon FC: 1994-2190-5020
IGN: Vanessa
... Copied to Clipboard!
slothica
04/08/17 2:25:22 PM
#62:


au_gold posted...
As long as you're doing what's right in His eyes, you're in the clear.


Well then those who don't believe in God but who still lead good and honorable lives are in the clear. By admitting that, you refuted your original statement.

/endshittytopic
---
I'm the devil, and I'm here to do the devil's work.
3DS FC: 2079-7127-4943 (Pokemon IGN: Zombie, Sage)
... Copied to Clipboard!
au_gold
04/08/17 9:16:33 PM
#63:


Logos posted...
What is your evidence for the existence of a deity?

What is your evidence against the existence of a deity?

glitteringfairy posted...
Then by that logic there is literally no reason not to believe in Bigfoot

Except Bigfoot isn't credited as being the creator of mankind in The Bible.

Psycho_Poodle posted...
I remember Pascal's Wager from college philosophy class! Boy am I smart! Of course I am! I voted for Hillary didn't I?

By the way, my favorite is Ockham's Razor, "the simplest solution is usually the best!". Always got a kick outta that one! Boy I feel like Socrates! I'm going to Starbucks and getting me a latte (served to me by a barista with a masters degree in philosophy)!

Sounds like projection or displacement ITP. I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before this topic; it just seems illogical to deny the existence of an all-powerful being when there's absolutely no evidence to prove that one doesn't exist. Why not be on the safe side just in case?

mvillanueva88 posted...
Then who built God? And why aren't we worshiping that being?

God has always existed. Technically, He exists as a 10-dimensional being so the concept of time for Him is incomprehensible to us.
---
Let me talk to your mother. Get your mother please.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber
04/08/17 10:29:48 PM
#64:


au_gold posted...

What is your evidence against the existence of a deity?


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, stating the existence of something is the claim, and disagreeing with that claim is not a claim in itself. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with thousands of years of philosophy on discourse.

au_gold posted...

Except Bigfoot isn't credited as being the creator of mankind in The Bible.


Well then, there is literally no reason to not believe in Krishna, or Odin, or Zeus, or Baron Samedi, or Amon Ra, or any of the other deities. What makes that God so uniquely deserving of belief? The belief in that god is mutually exclusive with many of the other ones, so why pick him only? Also, importantly, which interpretation of him do you choose? There are three main ones, and hundreds of different versions of those ones.

au_gold posted...
Sounds like projection or displacement ITP. I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before this topic; it just seems illogical to deny the existence of an all-powerful being when there's absolutely no evidence to prove that one doesn't exist.


Again, look up burden of proof.

au_gold posted...
Why not be on the safe side just in case?


Because in all likelhood, that God wouldn't appreciate you lying about your belief in him to hedge your bets anyway.

au_gold posted...

God has always existed. Technically, He exists as a 10-dimensional being so the concept of time for Him is incomprehensible to us.


According to you, about one interpretation. Why do you only choose that intrepretation of that god?
... Copied to Clipboard!
au_gold
04/08/17 11:31:03 PM
#65:


Dash_Harber posted...
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, stating the existence of something is the claim, and disagreeing with that claim is not a claim in itself. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with thousands of years of philosophy on discourse.

I'm not claiming that God exists for certain, though. I'm saying that it's better to have faith and be rewarded if you're right rather than not having faith and getting screwed if you're wrong.

Dash_Harber posted...
Well then, there is literally no reason to not believe in Krishna, or Odin, or Zeus, or Baron Samedi, or Amon Ra, or any of the other deities. What makes that God so uniquely deserving of belief? The belief in that god is mutually exclusive with many of the other ones, so why pick him only? Also, importantly, which interpretation of him do you choose? There are three main ones, and hundreds of different versions of those ones.


Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - "Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

The King James Version uses LORD in place of Yahweh or Jehovah (His Hebrew name) for some reason. There are countless other scriptures referring to only one almighty God.

Dash_Harber posted...
Because in all likelhood, that God wouldn't appreciate you lying about your belief in him to hedge your bets anyway.

Well, if you choose to believe in Him only for the potential upside in the afterlife, that's not the same thing as actually having faith, which is what He looks for.

Dash_Harber posted...
According to you, about one interpretation. Why do you only choose that intrepretation of that god?

There is only one interpretation as stated above. Unless you're referring to the Holy Trinity which is a whole other story.
---
Let me talk to your mother. Get your mother please.
... Copied to Clipboard!
StrongAmerica
04/08/17 11:32:18 PM
#66:


High-level theology is more intellectually stimulating than atheism
... Copied to Clipboard!
RaptorLC
04/09/17 12:43:36 AM
#67:


So which flavor of the Abrahamic god is right? Judiasm, Christianity, or Islam?
---
Never trust a snake.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer
04/09/17 1:05:30 AM
#68:


Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - "Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

The King James Version uses LORD in place of Yahweh or Jehovah (His Hebrew name) for some reason. There are countless other scriptures referring to only one almighty God.


This is circular logic.
---
Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses.
http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!)
... Copied to Clipboard!
buddhamonster
04/09/17 4:41:15 AM
#69:


RaptorLC posted...
So which flavor of the Abrahamic god is right? Judiasm, Christianity, or Islam?


Not too sure. Which flavor is Jupiter? Because he seems like a good strong God worthy of being followed.
---
Hey Trashcan Man! What did old lady Semple say when you burned her pension check?
Boston Bruins - 2011 Stanley Cup Champs!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Gamer99z
04/09/17 4:43:43 AM
#70:


I'm pretty sure honest atheists would probably be in the better graces of [insert random God here] than all those people that say they believe but really don't.
---
"You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus
... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber
04/09/17 5:53:29 AM
#71:


au_gold posted...
I'm not claiming that God exists for certain, though. I'm saying that it's better to have faith and be rewarded if you're right rather than not having faith and getting screwed if you're wrong.


Again, you can't fake faith. That's just lying.

au_gold posted...
Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - "Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

The King James Version uses LORD in place of Yahweh or Jehovah (His Hebrew name) for some reason. There are countless other scriptures referring to only one almighty God.


But there are passages in all the other God's holy books and theology that says the same thing. What makes the Bible saying it any different than the Hindu vedas stating that all are from the Brahman?

In addition it is circular logic; it's a logical fallacy. If your proof that God exists in the form you think is that the book describing that initial forms says so, it is literally 'begging the question' and completely ruins your argument.

au_gold posted...

Well, if you choose to believe in Him only for the potential upside in the afterlife, that's not the same thing as actually having faith, which is what He looks for.


Exactly. What you described in the initial post is not faith at all. I don't believe in your God; saying "there is no reason not to believe in God just in case he exists and rewards you for your belief" is ridiculous.

au_gold posted...
There is only one interpretation as stated above. Unless you're referring to the Holy Trinity which is a whole other story.


That is not true. If we are looking purely at the Abrahamic God, there is three main branches; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Now each one is completely different in interpretation. Then you have hundreds of smaller interpretations that differ beyond that. For example, Catholicism is radically different from Baptist. And you still have answered me as to why we can only talk about the Abrahamic faiths.
... Copied to Clipboard!
au_gold
04/09/17 7:32:23 PM
#72:


RaptorLC posted...
So which flavor of the Abrahamic god is right? Judiasm, Christianity, or Islam?

Dash_Harber posted...
If we are looking purely at the Abrahamic God, there is three main branches; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Now each one is completely different in interpretation. Then you have hundreds of smaller interpretations that differ beyond that. For example, Catholicism is radically different from Baptist. And you still have answered me as to why we can only talk about the Abrahamic faiths.

This is one of the reasons I don't follow a particular faith. Religions instill their own interpretations of God and His teachings to their followers so many of them don't bother to read and interpret the Bible themselves.

One thing that is for certain is that Jesus existed on Earth. Everything surrounding that fact is subject to interpretation.
---
Let me talk to your mother. Get your mother please.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01
04/09/17 8:45:05 PM
#73:


In all seriousness, the fundamental problem with Pascal's Wager and arguments like it is that it assumes a false dichotomy that fails to do any sort of appropriate risk analysis beyond the most superficial.
---
PSN: kazukifafner
... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber
04/09/17 9:01:11 PM
#74:


au_gold posted...
This is one of the reasons I don't follow a particular faith. Religions instill their own interpretations of God and His teachings to their followers so many of them don't bother to read and interpret the Bible themselves.


That is fine, but what makes the Abrahamic God any better than Brahman or Odin? More importantly, and to the point, believing in God just to hedge your bets isn't going to get you any rewards because you are essentially lying to a god.

au_gold posted...

One thing that is for certain is that Jesus existed on Earth. Everything surrounding that fact is subject to interpretation.


That is sort of the point, though. Jesus existed, sure. But his mere existence doesn't prove the validity of Christianity. Even other religions admit he existed, but without his miracles and divine heritage, he is pretty much just another historical religious founder.

To illustrate, one of my favourite books is Romance of the Three Kingdoms. All the characters in the novel existed and are heavily documented. All historians pretty much agree that guys like Guan Yu, Cao Cao, and Sun Ce existed and battled it out in medieval China. However, that doesn't mean the book's description is accurate; in fact, a large amount of the novel's events and narratives are based on Operas and other works of cultural fiction. For example, I know Dian Wei existed and worked for the warlord/prime minister Cao Cao; but I don't believe that he broke his sword on an attacking soldier during an attack and then grabbed two dead soldiers and used them to bludgeon the rest of the invaders to death as makeshift meat-clubs. Or, another example, I know that the entire events of the warring states period came about because warlords distrusted the court eunuchs who held a large amount of power; but I don't believe that their downfall was foretold by a feathered snake dragon showing up and having a seat on the Emperor's throne.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Sabram
04/09/17 11:56:55 PM
#75:


Dash_Harber posted...
au_gold posted...
This is one of the reasons I don't follow a particular faith. Religions instill their own interpretations of God and His teachings to their followers so many of them don't bother to read and interpret the Bible themselves.


That is fine, but what makes the Abrahamic God any better than Brahman or Odin? More importantly, and to the point, believing in God just to hedge your bets isn't going to get you any rewards because you are essentially lying to a god.

au_gold posted...

One thing that is for certain is that Jesus existed on Earth. Everything surrounding that fact is subject to interpretation.


That is sort of the point, though. Jesus existed, sure. But his mere existence doesn't prove the validity of Christianity. Even other religions admit he existed, but without his miracles and divine heritage, he is pretty much just another historical religious founder.

To illustrate, one of my favourite books is Romance of the Three Kingdoms. All the characters in the novel existed and are heavily documented. All historians pretty much agree that guys like Guan Yu, Cao Cao, and Sun Ce existed and battled it out in medieval China. However, that doesn't mean the book's description is accurate; in fact, a large amount of the novel's events and narratives are based on Operas and other works of cultural fiction. For example, I know Dian Wei existed and worked for the warlord/prime minister Cao Cao; but I don't believe that he broke his sword on an attacking soldier during an attack and then grabbed two dead soldiers and used them to bludgeon the rest of the invaders to death as makeshift meat-clubs. Or, another example, I know that the entire events of the warring states period came about because warlords distrusted the court eunuchs who held a large amount of power; but I don't believe that their downfall was foretold by a feathered snake dragon showing up and having a seat on the Emperor's throne.

I love your example, and I want to build on it.

Let's say, that the actual events of the time in the Warring States period is the truth, and the complete truth, since they actually happened. let's equate that to the creation of the world.

We then get into the plays and operas about that time period. Those would be created after the actual event, likely hundreds on years after. Since the Warring States period took place between 453-221 BC let's assume the earliest plays were written and took place between 170 BC and 1 AD.

We then jump to the publication of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms book, which was first published in the 14th century, which would be in the 1300s. This is about the same time when John Wycliffe translated the old and New Testament into English for the first time, an occurrence that was still, by that time, discouraged heavily by the church.

Now, considering how many different tellings, revisions, and controversy revolved around the written bible, it stands to reason that many of the events in it would be told incorrectly.

In fact, considering that the New Testament was written at approximately the same time as the earliest plays and operas about the Warring States period, any interpretation of those events, or the writings of them from that time that is done now would likely be woefully inaccurate.

In other words, any interpretation of the original events that led to the writing of the bible now, would basically be as valid as saying the Dynasty Warriors games are an accurate representation of the Warring States period, although even worse, due to some of the earliest events in the Old Testament having happened (as they were accounted in writing) thousands of years before even Moses.
---
Finally completed the Platinum for Hyperdimension Neptunia Re;Birth 1 on Vita.
PSN: Sabram - NNID: Lord.Sabram
... Copied to Clipboard!
DawkinsNumber4
04/12/17 4:15:00 AM
#76:


au_gold posted...
Logos posted...
What is your evidence for the existence of a deity?

What is your evidence against the existence of a deity?

glitteringfairy posted...
Then by that logic there is literally no reason not to believe in Bigfoot

Except Bigfoot isn't credited as being the creator of mankind in The Bible.

Psycho_Poodle posted...
I remember Pascal's Wager from college philosophy class! Boy am I smart! Of course I am! I voted for Hillary didn't I?

By the way, my favorite is Ockham's Razor, "the simplest solution is usually the best!". Always got a kick outta that one! Boy I feel like Socrates! I'm going to Starbucks and getting me a latte (served to me by a barista with a masters degree in philosophy)!

Sounds like projection or displacement ITP. I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before this topic; it just seems illogical to deny the existence of an all-powerful being when there's absolutely no evidence to prove that one doesn't exist. Why not be on the safe side just in case?

mvillanueva88 posted...
Then who built God? And why aren't we worshiping that being?

God has always existed. Technically, He exists as a 10-dimensional being so the concept of time for Him is incomprehensible to us.




here is the issue at hand. There are unfathomable numbers of scenarios behind the root of existence and they are just as likely God as not God based on current knowledge so assuming either way makes one closed-minded and willfully ignorant by default.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2