Is god real?

[Azaca]

true but it was started by a drug addict who else thinks of a talking snake

You know the guy who wrote Genisis?

actually yes he's my neighbor down here in hell he said he was wicked stoned on some blueberry kush and he doesn't even remember making it

[New Heliopolis]

To be fair, at least Christianity wasn't made up by a science fiction author who once said this:

How do you know?

I propose that religious people are so dismissive of Scientology because they feel threatened by the implications for their own religions of the obviously human-constructed nature of Scientology.

I've never had a problem with it, even when I was more religious than I am now. Hell, there are aspects I find somewhat interesting.

Though honestly, I can understand people having problems with it. If you leaf through one of their booklets, a whole lot of time is spent describing how the point of the religion is to benefit the worshiper, and I do rather dislike that in a religion.

And also, as to the pyramid scheme, what if the person who has problems with Scientology also has problems with Catholicism?

[Greater Tezdrian]

IMO, yes. I believe that deities exist.

[Meridiani Planum]

and a God is definitely supernatural (or, if you prefer, metaphysical: greek, meta+physis: beyond nature).

Language quibble:

Metaphysics does NOT mean "beyond nature". It means "after physics".

Wikipedia: It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "Metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy." The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

There is nothing intrinsic to metaphysics as a branch of philosophy that means that it is "beyond nature", so this meaning should be dropped, even if some scholars had misread it to mean that.

[Syvorji]

In my humble opinion, God is both real and imaginary. How so? God exists in different forms and names, like Allah, for example, and Jesus can exist in many other forms, like for example, Muhammad in Islam, Buddha in Buddhism and so on and so forth. There is more than one religion on earth, even shamanism exists. As so, there are many different sects of one religion, so even if you are a Christian, you could be a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and so on, and same goes with Islam, Shi'a, Sunni and etc... And even then, you can believe in any religion, because how would you feel if everyone, even you were forced to attend Mass? (I am looking at you, Queen Mary of England) And if you didn't, you got sent to the Tower? That could oppress, and yet, atheists say there is no God, and agnostics haven't decided yet. God is just that. He is god, in different names, different functions and so on. It is easy to convert, but not everyone is Christian. In the end, it is up to the person, whether if s/he wants to follow a religion, or not, and if so, which one.

To sum it up, I'm neutral, or in your terms, undecided.

[Demen]

In my humble opinion, God is both real and imaginary. How so? God exists in different forms and names, like Allah, for example, and Jesus can exist in many other forms, like for example, Muhammad in Islam, Buddha in Buddhism and so on and so forth. There is more than one religion on earth, even shamanism exists. As so, there are many different sects of one religion, so even if you are a Christian, you could be a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and so on, and same goes with Islam, Shi'a, Sunni and etc... And even then, you can believe in any religion, because how would you feel if everyone, even you were forced to attend Mass? (I am looking at you, Queen Mary of England) And if you didn't, you got sent to the Tower? That could oppress, and yet, atheists say there is no God, and agnostics haven't decided yet. God is just that. He is god, in different names, different functions and so on. It is easy to convert, but not everyone is Christian. In the end, it is up to the person, whether if s/he wants to follow a religion, or not, and if so, which one.

To sum it up, I'm neutral, or in your terms, undecided.

So, you're a skeptic?


Cool beans.

[Unhealthy2]

If we're using statistical probability, which I believe doesn't apply here (as I've said, you're essentially totally ignorant). In fact, from the inordinate amount of reading I've begun, statistical hypothesis testing doesn't really work here, as one would have to figure out the null hypothesis' standards, which there's little way of determining accurately, as again, the conductor of testing or data gatherer has no way of knowing whether a thing that is or isn't perceived is actually there. So to determine the correctness of someone else's perception, one must determine first the correctness of their own.

But anyway, that means the same conclusion can be drawn. Obviously, among the myriad differing perceptions that possibly exist, one could easily be right.

Also, though I'm going to have to look something up briefly, I have some suspicions that Bayesian analysis can be played with rather easily...

Hm. Well, I'll throw it out there, for anyone to solve. By Bayesian probability, what would be the probability of the existence of a specific god that does not go against other understandings of the universe?

Statistical inference is based ENTIRELY on being in a state of ignorance.

[New Heliopolis]

If we're using statistical probability, which I believe doesn't apply here (as I've said, you're essentially totally ignorant). In fact, from the inordinate amount of reading I've begun, statistical hypothesis testing doesn't really work here, as one would have to figure out the null hypothesis' standards, which there's little way of determining accurately, as again, the conductor of testing or data gatherer has no way of knowing whether a thing that is or isn't perceived is actually there. So to determine the correctness of someone else's perception, one must determine first the correctness of their own.

But anyway, that means the same conclusion can be drawn. Obviously, among the myriad differing perceptions that possibly exist, one could easily be right.

Also, though I'm going to have to look something up briefly, I have some suspicions that Bayesian analysis can be played with rather easily...

Hm. Well, I'll throw it out there, for anyone to solve. By Bayesian probability, what would be the probability of the existence of a specific god that does not go against other understandings of the universe?

Statistical inference is based ENTIRELY on being in a state of ignorance.

But it also requires randomness. For anything that isn't necessarily random, but unknown, Bayesian Inference comes in.

Or were you questioning my use of "state of ignorance"?

[Bawantu]

This is why I hate philosophy class.

[Unhealthy2]

But it also requires randomness. For anything that isn't necessarily random, but unknown, Bayesian Inference comes in.

Or were you questioning my use of "state of ignorance"?

Bayesian inference IS A FORM OF statistical inference.

[Varazhdin]

Is god real?

It's spelled with a G.....

[Dyakovo]

Is god real?

It's spelled with a G.....

What letter do you think that is?

[Genivar]

Define *god*

[Luciratus]

In my humble opinion, God is both real and imaginary. How so? God exists in different forms and names, like Allah, for example, and Jesus can exist in many other forms, like for example, Muhammad in Islam, Buddha in Buddhism and so on and so forth. There is more than one religion on earth, even shamanism exists. As so, there are many different sects of one religion, so even if you are a Christian, you could be a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and so on, and same goes with Islam, Shi'a, Sunni and etc... And even then, you can believe in any religion, because how would you feel if everyone, even you were forced to attend Mass? (I am looking at you, Queen Mary of England) And if you didn't, you got sent to the Tower? That could oppress, and yet, atheists say there is no God, and agnostics haven't decided yet. God is just that. He is god, in different names, different functions and so on. It is easy to convert, but not everyone is Christian. In the end, it is up to the person, whether if s/he wants to follow a religion, or not, and if so, which one.

To sum it up, I'm neutral, or in your terms, undecided.

Jesus, Muhammed, and Sidartha Guatama were all historical people. They cannot be the same individual if they are the distinct founders of different religions. However, I agree with your statement that there are multiple views on what deity or deities exists, but one few must be correct. Objectivism is a bitch like that.

[Luciratus]

It's spelled with a G.....

What letter do you think that is?

Politically correct religious individual refering to the fact that there is a single "God". However, that is a German word which was originally applied to pagan gods. All real Christians call him Yhwh!

[New Kereptica]

Politically correct religious individual refering to the fact that there is a single "God".

Rather mistaken, he is.

[Luciratus]

I will conceed that I have never actually met a Scinetologist, but I highly doubt that they are more down to Earth than the majority of the U.S. population.

Then you're wrong. Their outlook is much more akin to Buddhists than to members of any of the Abrahamic religions. They tend to be much more pleasant and accepting of other faiths and lifestyles than your average Christian, even if, like all of us, they have their own blind spots.

I must likewise disagree with the statement that it is more crazy to believe an established religion based on the philosophical principles of the past and sporting some amount of authority than a recent attempt to procure capital. After all, the Vatican's intial purposes were not to rake in the dow, but merely practice their religion. Similarly, most religious people have attempted merely to practice their religion.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. Scientologists only believe things that are silly, not things that are impossible. Again, like Buddhism, the bulk of their religious practice is about self-improvement, and that's all most Scientologists are concerned about. There are people ripping them off, but there are people ripping practicing Christians off everyday.

I'm not a Scientologist, but one of the things I hate most about Internet culture is the ignorant, bigoted hatred of Scientology that's spread by the bored teenagers of 4chan. I don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can believe it, but I don't understand how anyone can believe Christianity or Islam or Buddhism either. In some ways it's less destructive than Christianity, and in some ways it's more, but expressing disdain for one while condoning the other is either bigotry or insanity.

It is alright to despise the faults you see in a religion. However, I shall demonstrate respect to all individuals regardless of their faith and demonstrate some regard to their religion. Buddhism is relatively interesting. I still cannot agree with the "down to Earth" part, as I believe that is on a personal basis. There is also the possiblity that they are correct in their assumptions about the universe. The last part is true as well. All ideologies contain some destructive qualities. I would challenge any individual to find one that carries no possibility for destruction.

[New Kereptica]

All ideologies contain some destructive qualities. I would challenge any individual to find one that carries no possibility for destruction.

A possibility for destruction is not the same as a destructive quality. Any idea can be construed as supporting destruction; those that actually do so are less numerous.

[New Heliopolis]

But it also requires randomness. For anything that isn't necessarily random, but unknown, Bayesian Inference comes in.

Or were you questioning my use of "state of ignorance"?

Bayesian inference IS A FORM OF statistical inference.

It is indeed. Specifically, the form that can apply in such nonrandom cases.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_Inference

The primary foundation of Bayesian inference is the Bayesian interpretation of probability, which is distinct from other interpretations of probability in that it permits the attribution of probabilities to the truth and falsehood of events that are not random, but rather the truth or untruth of which is simply unknown.

And yes, I'm the inference and the interpretation are different, but the inference is, from what I"ve read, the only form of inference that follows that interpretation.

[Jagalonia]

Of course I'm real, what makes you think I'm not?

Pfft....Stupid mortals...

[Unhealthy2]

Bayesian inference IS A FORM OF statistical inference.

It is indeed. Specifically, the form that can apply in such nonrandom cases.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_Inference

The primary foundation of Bayesian inference is the Bayesian interpretation of probability, which is distinct from other interpretations of probability in that it permits the attribution of probabilities to the truth and falsehood of events that are not random, but rather the truth or untruth of which is simply unknown.

And yes, I'm the inference and the interpretation are different, but the inference is, from what I"ve read, the only form of inference that follows that interpretation.

So what's your argument?

[Luciratus]

All ideologies contain some destructive qualities. I would challenge any individual to find one that carries no possibility for destruction.

A possibility for destruction is not the same as a destructive quality. Any idea can be construed as supporting destruction; those that actually do so are less numerous.

Yes, it is. The various interpretations will always be able to contribute some form of destruction when the definition is construed incorrectly. It is simply a matter of emphasis. Communism, Democracy, Epicureanism, Nationalism, Buddhism, Islam, Christanity, Darwinism, Fascism, Socialism, Sikhism, Taoism, and various other ideologies contain a degree of duality and destructive qualities. I require an example if you would like to validate your point.

[Luciratus]

Of course I'm real, what makes you think I'm not?

Pfft....Stupid mortals...

Indeed, how moronic of them. Is that you Allah? I haven't seen you in years!

[Unhealthy2]

Yes, it is. The various interpretations will always be able to contribute some form of destruction when the definition is construed incorrectly. It is simply a matter of emphasis. Communism, Democracy, Epicureanism, Nationalism, Buddhism, Islam, Christanity, Darwinism, Fascism, Socialism, Sikhism, Taoism, and various other ideologies contain a degree of duality and destructive qualities. I require an example if you would like to validate your point.

"Darwinism" is not a real ideology. It's a bullshit strawman by creationists in an attempt to paint the science of evolution as some kind of social movement or ideology centered around the worship of Charles Darwin.

[Gelgisith]

There's a few gods i'm willing to believe are real, most notably the Great Dragon, but the Christian god is most definitively not one of them.

On what grounds? If you declare excistence of one god, there must be eason why others don't exist

I have not declared the existence of any god, or gods. I have merely stated my belief in the potential reality of a few gods: i find the Great Dragon most realistic, mostly because i created xir/her/him/it myself, and i find the Christian god most unrealistic, mostly because i cannot believe a omnipotent, benevolent god would allow misery to exist.

Personally, I do believe the god of monotheistic religions exists.

Well, that's where you & i disagree...

However, it's been proven impossible to prove that He does/doesn't exist, and thus I consider His existence simply a matter of faith. If someone chooses to believe differently (but do note that there is a difference between believing and knowing) I understand, because his/hers faith is, well, faith, and thus as unreasonable as mine.

...however, here we agree.

I do not, however, aprove if someone tries to prove something like this, or makes this matter something else than just a matter of faith. Atheism isn't supposed to be religion, which it pretty much seems to be to some of us, but on the other hand, some of the stuff I've heard from Fundamentalists, and other such groups is pretty much against the bible and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I really hope this isn't directed at my statements of (dis)belief, because if it is, you just negated the previous paragraph (the one i agree with).

Atheism is the absence of belief, and therefore cannot be a religion, which is an organisation of like-minded believers.