Is god real?

[Grave_n_idle]

The Moon is a rock that orbits the Earth. "God" is a mythological fabrication, and not half as good of one as Zeus or Odin.

Zeus ect. knew how to have a good time.

Dude loved his golden showers.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Moon is a rock that orbits the Earth. "God" is a mythological fabrication, and not half as good of one as Zeus or Odin.

Zeus ect. knew how to have a good time.

Got laid a lot more than once, that's for sure.

[The Parkus Empire]

Zeus ect. knew how to have a good time.

Dude loved his golden showers.

[The Parkus Empire]

I remember seeing ghosts when I was kid. Obviously I should believe in them.

I don't personally believe those were ghosts. But your senses picked up on something, so you must believe that you saw something.

Yeah, and it got all cold.

[Gagatron]

Can we, as imperfect as we are, relate to a deity that is pictured as perfect or to a deity that has defects (Zeus), like we do?

Yes, why yes we can.

[Ellara (Ancient)]

My issue is with so-called agnostics and theists who try to pretend there is a good, rational reason to believe in God. There is none.

And Aristotle can be excused for thinking some kind of creator existed. He had next to no understanding of the universe. Anyone living in a western country in the 21st century does not have that excuse.

Sorry, but you really come off as sounding like someone who has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Do you know why I'm an atheist, because Anthony Flew made some fantastic, probably the best arguments against the existence of God I have ever seen, and basically every argument I ever see on these forums are shitty rehashes of his early arguments (falsification, death of a thousand qualifications, presumption of atheism, null hypothesis of no God etc...), and Russell's tea cup. He was a Cambridge professor, and probably had a better understanding of cosmology than anyone on this forum, nevertheless, he became a theist after studying cosmology for many decades, and while I disagree with him, I don't have the pompous arrogance to assume he's an idiot and that he is necessarily irrational, he would absolutely decimate me, were he still alive, in any logical debate on cosmology.

I think you've got this. Much better than I do, anyway.

[The Theban Legion]

Blindly?
I'm blind?
I dispute that.

Blind in this context tends to refer to the the ability to either ignore contrary evidence, or to 'believe' based on nothing concrete. Theoretically, Christians should relish the blind-ness of their faith - scripturally, it's the best kind.

And I support this

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Yeah, I'm gonna let you believe that if you want to.

I'm simultaneously confused and enthralled by the prospect of people who (claim they) can believe what they want.

The idea that 'belief' is a matter of choice has always confused me - how can you 'believe' in something you tailor to your own preference? Doesn't your own involvement invalidate your ability to attribute 'truth' to it?

It invalidates your ability to attribute truth to it. However truth is irrelevant to your belief anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

how come? have you seen him? Or do you just believe what priests say and read from a book written by men.

No, in a more basic sense. In that the idea of God exists and therefore God exists, at least as an idea, because thats the very definition of existence. He exists in books and words and in everyday conversations for sure.

The idea of god existing is not the same as god existing.

You know that right?

Beyond that yes I believe in the scripture and what the priests say. Not that I have any evidence to prove what they say.

Then "I believe he exists without a doubt" seems either ridiculously optimistic... or hinged on an irregular understanding of what 'without a doubt' means.

[Innsmothe]

Can we, as imperfect as we are, relate to a deity that is pictured as perfect or to a deity that has defects (Zeus), like we do?

Yes, why yes we can.

Not really, no deity is perfect.
Even the creation argument fails to explain vestigial organs and physical deformities.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Can we, as imperfect as we are, relate to a deity that is pictured as perfect or to a deity that has defects (Zeus), like we do?

Yes, why yes we can.

Obviously many people do not relate to a perfect deity, if you've been reading this thread.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Blindly?
I'm blind?
I dispute that.

Blind in this context tends to refer to the the ability to either ignore contrary evidence, or to 'believe' based on nothing concrete. Theoretically, Christians should relish the blind-ness of their faith - scripturally, it's the best kind.

This logic makes all humans blind. Not just Christians. It's true though.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm simultaneously confused and enthralled by the prospect of people who (claim they) can believe what they want.

The idea that 'belief' is a matter of choice has always confused me - how can you 'believe' in something you tailor to your own preference? Doesn't your own involvement invalidate your ability to attribute 'truth' to it?

It invalidates your ability to attribute truth to it. However truth is irrelevant to your belief anyway.

Truth is irrelevant to my belief... or to belief in general?

Shouldn't belief reflect truth? At least, ideally?

[Gagatron]

I don't personally believe those were ghosts. But your senses picked up on something, so you must believe that you saw something.

Yeah, and it got all cold.

You have experienced something extremely dangerous, and yet you are not open to the fact that it was real.

It is in light of this that I regret to say, I am not the "blind" one.

[The Parkus Empire]

Blind in this context tends to refer to the the ability to either ignore contrary evidence, or to 'believe' based on nothing concrete. Theoretically, Christians should relish the blind-ness of their faith - scripturally, it's the best kind.

And I support this

Which is the main problem with religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, and it got all cold.

You have experienced something extremely dangerous, and yet you are not open to the fact that it was real.

It is in light of this that I regret to say, I am not the "blind" one.

Minor temperature changes are 'extremely dangerous'? That's not really about belief, my friend - what you're selling now is just hysteria.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

It invalidates your ability to attribute truth to it. However truth is irrelevant to your belief anyway.

Truth is irrelevant to my belief... or to belief in general?

Shouldn't belief reflect truth? At least, ideally?

Truth is irrelevant to belief in general. And yes belief should reflect truth. Ideally. Ideally is a joke,

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It invalidates your ability to attribute truth to it. However truth is irrelevant to your belief anyway.

Truth is irrelevant to my belief... or to belief in general?

Shouldn't belief reflect truth? At least, ideally?

It should, especially the way Christians sell it. Jehovah's Witnesses call their belief 'The Truth'. However, the reality is quite different.

[Lauchlin]

Sorry, but you really come off as sounding like someone who has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Do you know why I'm an atheist, because Anthony Flew made some fantastic, probably the best arguments against the existence of God I have ever seen, and basically every argument I ever see on these forums are shitty rehashes of his early arguments (falsification, death of a thousand qualifications, presumption of atheism, null hypothesis of no God etc...), and Russell's tea cup. He was a Cambridge professor, and probably had a better understanding of cosmology than anyone on this forum, nevertheless, he became a theist after studying cosmology for many decades, and while I disagree with him, I don't have the pompous arrogance to assume he's an idiot and that he is necessarily irrational, he would absolutely decimate me, were he still alive, in any logical debate on cosmology.

I was under the impression that Antony Flew became a deist, not a theist. Regardless of how much he knew about cosmology, it is entirely irrational to attribute the characteristics of the universe to any of the religious gods, and meaningless to use a deist god as an explanatory method for the universe.

That's fine. They have their reasons to believe what they want to believe, and most of them don't try to pretend it's reasonable. The whole point of faith is believing something you have no good reason to believe. I disagree with those people, but I can respect them.

My issue is with so-called agnostics and theists who try to pretend there is a good, rational reason to believe in God. There is none.

And Aristotle can be excused for thinking some kind of creator existed. He had next to no understanding of the universe. Anyone living in a western country in the 21st century does not have that excuse.

...So, if you believe in a creator or WANT to believe in a creator, you're stupid?
Because science explains everything?

Look, there are a lot of things we don't know. Is it stupid to try to fill in those gaps with something to believe in?
Your point is rational, but that's all it is. Besides, going around calling people (and what they believe) dumb doesn't make your point any more realistic.

I didn't call anyone stupid.

[Gagatron]

You have experienced something extremely dangerous, and yet you are not open to the fact that it was real.

It is in light of this that I regret to say, I am not the "blind" one.

Minor temperature changes are 'extremely dangerous'? That's not really about belief, my friend - what you're selling now is just hysteria.

Have you read his post? He saw a being with the power to change the surrounding temperature. This is very supernatural.

[The Parkus Empire]

Truth is irrelevant to my belief... or to belief in general?

Shouldn't belief reflect truth? At least, ideally?

Truth is irrelevant to belief in general. And yes belief should reflect truth. Ideally. Ideally is a joke,

Truth, for all intensive purposes, is provable, objective and quite possible to base one's beliefs upon. Gravity doesn't exist because we think it's groovy.

[Ellara (Ancient)]

Truth is irrelevant to my belief... or to belief in general?

Shouldn't belief reflect truth? At least, ideally?

It should, especially the way Christians sell it. Jehovah's Witnesses call their belief 'The Truth'. However, the reality is quite different.

Truth isn't a pure thing, though. If you honestly believe in something, it is true to you, and you can call it the truth. You're right, though; 'The Truth' implies a universal truth, which is not necessarily (or statistically) real.

[The Theban Legion]

I'm simultaneously confused and enthralled by the prospect of people who (claim they) can believe what they want.

The idea that 'belief' is a matter of choice has always confused me - how can you 'believe' in something you tailor to your own preference? Doesn't your own involvement invalidate your ability to attribute 'truth' to it?

It invalidates your ability to attribute truth to it. However truth is irrelevant to your belief anyway.

Does it? I would think we would first have to define truth...which definition are you using? Truth in my book is the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality. Therefore we could merely construct our belief to fit our reality and that implicitly applies a state of being in accord with a particular factor reality to the set of beliefs. Though I'm sure most religions aren't completely truthful or in accordance with anyone's reality.

[Yoneyistan]

I am not sure if this topic belongs to such a site.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I didn't call anyone stupid.

No, but did call some of us dihonest. Some would that is worse.