Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

this is so sad

Mourn not that it is gone, but rejoice that it was here.

[The Grims]

this is so sad

Mourn not that it is gone, but rejoice that it was here.

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

[Thuzbekistan]

Mourn not that it is gone, but rejoice that it was here.

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

I mean, do you need complex reasons to believe or not believe something? Religion is mostly emotional, so "I feel him interacting with me" is just as valid to that person as "there is no evidence to convince me" is to an atheist. One can reinforce their beliefs with complex reasoning, but, generally, people are predisposed to belief or non belief based on their own experiences.

[Australian rePublic]

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

I mean, do you need complex reasons to believe or not believe something? Religion is mostly emotional, so "I feel him interacting with me" is just as valid to that person as "there is no evidence to convince me" is to an atheist. One can reinforce their beliefs with complex reasoning, but, generally, people are predisposed to belief or non belief based on their own experiences.

What do you think I was trying to say this whole time?

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Australian rePublic]

Mourn not that it is gone, but rejoice that it was here.

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

The only thing that this thread did is prove that I'm a total and utter moron

[Neanderthaland]

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

I mean, do you need complex reasons to believe or not believe something? Religion is mostly emotional, so "I feel him interacting with me" is just as valid to that person as "there is no evidence to convince me" is to an atheist. One can reinforce their beliefs with complex reasoning, but, generally, people are predisposed to belief or non belief based on their own experiences.

I've always held that beliefs are an obligate condition. Generally speaking if your reasons are good enough, I will helplessly believe you. Even if I don't like what you're saying, or want it to be true.

Doing otherwise feels dishonest.

[Thuzbekistan]

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

The only thing that this thread did is prove that I'm a total and utter moron

You're not a moron by any means. I think you bit off more than you could chew taking on a mostly liberal, irreligious community on your own. You were trying to make points made in philosophical arguments without really knowing those arguments. If you do some reading and research, you'll be in a much better position to debate this again.

Debate.org is a great place to read good debates and learn arguing skills as well. You aren't dumb, and dont think that. Read, learn, and come back for round 2. The internet will be just as toxic as always

[Thuzbekistan]

I mean, do you need complex reasons to believe or not believe something? Religion is mostly emotional, so "I feel him interacting with me" is just as valid to that person as "there is no evidence to convince me" is to an atheist. One can reinforce their beliefs with complex reasoning, but, generally, people are predisposed to belief or non belief based on their own experiences.

What do you think I was trying to say this whole time?

A belief being a valid reason to that person is not a good case of ammo to bring to a debate, though.

[Australian rePublic]

The only thing that this thread did is prove that I'm a total and utter moron

You're not a moron by any means. I think you bit off more than you could chew taking on a mostly liberal, irreligious community on your own. You were trying to make points made in philosophical arguments without really knowing those arguments. If you do some reading and research, you'll be in a much better position to debate this again.

Debate.org is a great place to read good debates and learn arguing skills as well. You aren't dumb, and dont think that. Read, learn, and come back for round 2. The internet will be just as toxic as always

Ironically, when I Googeld "debate.org" God and ironically, they had similar arguments to me

[Page]

You're not a moron by any means. I think you bit off more than you could chew taking on a mostly liberal, irreligious community on your own. You were trying to make points made in philosophical arguments without really knowing those arguments. If you do some reading and research, you'll be in a much better position to debate this again.

Debate.org is a great place to read good debates and learn arguing skills as well. You aren't dumb, and dont think that. Read, learn, and come back for round 2. The internet will be just as toxic as always

Ironically, when I Googeld "debate.org" God and ironically, they had similar arguments to me

Christian apologetics have not really changed for hundreds of years.

[Australian rePublic]

Ironically, when I Googeld "debate.org" God and ironically, they had similar arguments to me

Christian apologetics have not really changed for hundreds of years.

What's wrong with being an appologist anyway? At least I can math better than them. According to the website, 50% said "yes" and 51% said "no"

[Salandriagado]

Christian apologetics have not really changed for hundreds of years.

What's wrong with being an appologist anyway? At least I can math better than them. According to the website, 50% said "yes" and 51% said "no"

Broadly, the issue is that those arguments were bad several hundred years ago, and haven't improved with age.

[Page]

Christian apologetics have not really changed for hundreds of years.

What's wrong with being an appologist anyway? At least I can math better than them. According to the website, 50% said "yes" and 51% said "no"

I'm just letting you know that you've been given dull, rusty tools to work with. It doesn't matter how intelligent one is or how eloquently one can speak because when you take up Christian apologetics, you have no choice but to use centuries' old arguments that have had holes poked in them for centuries, and those holes have never been filled.

[Australian rePublic]

(Image)
What's wrong with being an appologist anyway? At least I can math better than them. According to the website, 50% said "yes" and 51% said "no"

Broadly, the issue is that those arguments were bad several hundred years ago, and haven't improved with age.

No. They just got louder kinda like the SJWs, but without theaccusations of discrimination

[Australian rePublic]

Mourn not that it is gone, but rejoice that it was here.

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

20% is 1 in 5, that's a pretty big chunch...

[Thuzbekistan]

You're not a moron by any means. I think you bit off more than you could chew taking on a mostly liberal, irreligious community on your own. You were trying to make points made in philosophical arguments without really knowing those arguments. If you do some reading and research, you'll be in a much better position to debate this again.

Debate.org is a great place to read good debates and learn arguing skills as well. You aren't dumb, and dont think that. Read, learn, and come back for round 2. The internet will be just as toxic as always

Ironically, when I Googeld "debate.org" God and ironically, they had similar arguments to me

Yip. But they also provide sources as well. You should read those sources.

[Korhal IVV]

Why ? This thread showed us that a significant part of NSG has very shallow reasons to believe what they believe or not believe, very little knowledge about their own belief system, almost zero about others and neglible desire to learn.

And this is NSG. A forum only accessible to people who had enough education to write in English and use a computer, so about the top 20 percent of the worlds population education wise.

It is simply sad
Though it did lead to some selfreflection, since I was just as guilty.

The only thing that this thread did is prove that I'm a total and utter moron

And that apologists and skeptics will always be arguing over the same things over and over again. XD Based from experience, neither side is willing to concede, and probably never will until the Second Coming or the heat death of the universe, depending on who is actually correct.

As a side note, my own religious experience (or should I say, spiritual experience) was lacking in emotion and “I feel these and that”. It would be along the lines of, “You know what, this all makes sense.” when I reverted from being irreligous.

And now, my teachers in theology are stressing that Christian living is not really about emotion, after all. It is ironic given that most of the faithful are emotionally based... which reflects on how ignorant many people are on their own faith.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Nah, it's more like "you don't change their mind, they change their mind". I've been secretly planting rationalist seeds by showing my religious friends/teachers atheist sites, presenting them as "evil", and then (as they got real triggered) encourage them to find ways to 'debunk' the arguments scientifically. Way more efficient to insert information than a peasant's debate.

[Korhal IVV]

Nah, it's more like "you don't change their mind, they change their mind". I've been secretly planting rationalist seeds by showing my religious friends/teachers atheist sites, presenting them as "evil", and then (as they got real triggered) encourage them to find ways to 'debunk' the arguments scientifically. Way more efficient to insert information than a peasant's debate.

... it is completely possible to be a rationalist and logical Christian, though. And I believe it has already been stated so many times that one cannot physically measure a metaphysical being.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Nah, it's more like "you don't change their mind, they change their mind". I've been secretly planting rationalist seeds by showing my religious friends/teachers atheist sites, presenting them as "evil", and then (as they got real triggered) encourage them to find ways to 'debunk' the arguments scientifically. Way more efficient to insert information than a peasant's debate.

... it is completely possible to be a rationalist and logical Christian, though. And I believe it has already been stated so many times that one cannot physically measure a metaphysical being.

Rationalist ≠ atheist, but getting rid of dogmatic culture is one of the big big progress the world had experienced. Good for you if you're Christian because of (reasons), instead of because Papa also is.

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

I do believe in a higher power. The source of all matter and energy and order.
If there's a clock, there must be a clock maker.
And It, for lack of a better denonym, must therefore be all powerful.
The fact that we (read "science") don't know the Creator doesn't mean that It doesn't. Science tells us that there is a cause for every consequence.
Well, go back in the history of the universe...and you'll find it. The All and Nothing before everything appeared.

[Alvecia]

If there's a clock, there must be a clock maker.

Following logically, if there is a clock maker, then there must be a clock maker maker.

Science tells us that there is a cause for every consequence.

In the universe. Laws of the universe don't necessarily apply before the universe was

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

The fact that we (read "science") don't know the Creator doesn't mean that It doesn't. Science tells us that there is a cause for every consequence.
Well, go back in the history of the universe...and you'll find it. The All and Nothing before everything appeared.

So... "I don't know therefore God"? Oh - and says you. The statement "everything has cause and come from one thing" is debatable, because no comprehensive evidence has been put forward to prove that.

If there's a clock, there must be a clock maker.

Following logically, if there is a clock maker, then there must be a clock maker maker.

And before everyone started spamming "clock maker maker", I'll end it with "clock maker¹²¹³"

[Dogmeat]

Nah, it's more like "you don't change their mind, they change their mind". I've been secretly planting rationalist seeds by showing my religious friends/teachers atheist sites, presenting them as "evil", and then (as they got real triggered) encourage them to find ways to 'debunk' the arguments scientifically. Way more efficient to insert information than a peasant's debate.

... it is completely possible to be a rationalist and logical Christian, though. And I believe it has already been stated so many times that one cannot physically measure a metaphysical being.

No. It is possible to only suspend your rationality and logic when it comes to Christianity, and to be rationalist and logical in all other contexts.

But you can't get to Christianity by way of rationality and logic, and Christianity makes a large number of assertions that aren't supported by rationality or logic. Like the existence of "metaphysical beings."