where did I say otherwise? Where are you trying to go with this?
That's right! Empirically observable! Unlike god.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Are we allowed to discuss religion yet?
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
- Status
where did I say otherwise? Where are you trying to go with this?
That's right! Empirically observable! Unlike god.
that was implied in what i said... nothing i just said is contradictory to this, and I agree 100%
:)
to the people saying god doesn't exist because you can't see him: you can't see air, but you can see is effects.
you don't need to prove god exists, it is mathematically impossible to prove that this whole universe was based on the "big bang". i mean, from nothing comes something?
I'm a muslim too, we believe in Jesus as a messenger, we have commandments also, we have a holy book, but we do have some differences. we don't, for example, believe that God sacrificed his son for the sake of his own creation. it's... absurd, to be polite. shoot some questions up my way, and i'll answer them if i can.
you don't need to prove god exists, it is mathematically impossible to prove that this whole universe was based on the "big bang". i mean, from nothing comes something?
I'm a muslim too, we believe in Jesus as a messenger, we have commandments also, we have a holy book, but we do have some differences. we don't, for example, believe that God sacrificed his son for the sake of his own creation. it's... absurd, to be polite. shoot some questions up my way, and i'll answer them if i can.
.................................... air is matter, it is PHYSICAL, you can even FEEL the air by blowing a fan or breathing or even throwing a piece of paper. And no, you can't feel god without first making yourself believe you feel it so don't go there.
That's right, I don't need to prove god exists. You do. Also, you all argue god came from nothing. Before you say "he existed for all eternity" or something silly like that, I guess the universe could have done that too. 'sides how would you know that anyway...
to quote one of my favorite atheists, Matt Dillahunty:
"absolute certainty is a red herring. 'oh I can't know for sure', well of course, you can't know anything for sure...I'm not claiming absolute certainty, I'm claiming in the context of reality that is useful, that is a matter of common discussion, that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief for me...Now I believe that there is no god, but I don't claim this as an absolute certainty because I think that absolute certainty is useless. Now to the degree that we CAN know anything, I think it is pretty close to knowledge, at least for me"
"absolute certainty is a red herring. 'oh I can't know for sure', well of course, you can't know anything for sure...I'm not claiming absolute certainty, I'm claiming in the context of reality that is useful, that is a matter of common discussion, that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief for me...Now I believe that there is no god, but I don't claim this as an absolute certainty because I think that absolute certainty is useless. Now to the degree that we CAN know anything, I think it is pretty close to knowledge, at least for me"
i'm talking about atheism using science as their de facto religion in order to 'disprove' religion. science does not necessarily prohibit the existence of a deity or a higher power of sorts.. however, when internet atheists cite science they don't fully understand in order to refute a religious/spiritual argument it points to an eventuality where scientists are the new prophets.
Science does not, and does not claim to prohibit the existence of a god or god-like power, but it certainly does provide just about as much evidence as possible to make that possibility seem non-existent
Wether one can have a view or not isn't dependent on faith.
If I have a view that says shorts are comfy and easy to wear that doesn't mean I have faith in shorts, just that I enjoy wearing them.
I personally have faith in hard, conclusive facts. That doesn't mean I'm here to tell everyone that science is bullshit or that Jesus didn't exist - science is based in facts, as is the existence of Jesus and the prophets of other religions, for that matter.
Did you just call science a religion? I'll do as if I actually hadn't heard that.
yeah, it actually doesn't.
what
well you see here's the problem with that argument; a prophet doesn't HAVE to be religious. Even though that's the first idea people get when they hear it, it's not exclusive to being some sort of religious preacher.
while i agree that the existence of a christian god-esque supersentient entity does seem implausible, the idea of a central governing force, a nervous system of the universe per se, is a possibility. i'm not sure whether that would be a religious concept or not, but seeing the implications of the existence of such a system i tend to regard it spiritually (in fact if you look at some of the finer points of quantum entanglement you'll see that a lot of the stuff that can't be explained by current scientific methods does lead to such a premise.)
i called it a "de facto religion" because i was reaching for an analogy
my bad i meant preacher
:)
So what you're trying to say is, whenever someone disputes religion, they're somehow magically inventing a new religion. They turn into preachers because apparently, sharing an opinion or an idea immediately makes you "profet" of sort.
Do you even know what you're trying to say? This is by far the silliest thing said in this thread.
you're ignoring the actual content of my argument and instead jumping at a comparison made purely for the irony. it was an offhand remark.
oh sorry what was the content of your argument. this?
cuz yeah you just made another imaginary entity. what do you want me to say about this? I can present you to my imaginary god-devouring dinosaur I guess???
I dunno I don't want you to sidetrack from that silly argument you made. Something about being "religious prophet/preacher" for voicing out stuff.
an argument in the form of a syllogism is not invalid, contrary to popular belief.
(this is especially hilarious coming from a user whose excuse for on argument is:
)
Something tells me the answer to the thread is "no"
Largely indifferent, although earlier my answer would probably closer to agnostic.
Largely indifferent, although earlier my answer would probably closer to agnostic.
Nah, it's simple. The fact that something hasn't been proven to exist yet isn't proof that it does not exist.
And guys, please stop arguing about who's right or wrong. I'd be more interested in just reading what your particular beliefs are.
I used to be deeply religious. Then I started noticing that a lot of it really didn't make any sense. The final straw was really when I started taking biology and anthropology in high school, and I realized that the scientific explanation for humans and why we are the way we are is much more elegant than religion could ever be.
My primary disconnect with religion was due to the fact that a lot of what God supposedly wants us to do is either stupid, unnecessarily inconvenient, or flat out immoral. Combined with the scientific inaccuracy of most religious texts, I just had a difficult time believing that it was inspired by a omnipotent being.
I recognize that there is a lot of good in religions around the world, but I could not and cannot reconcile the bad parts with the good parts. To me, if a religion were really God-inspired, it should be all "good parts". And I know someone will claim "humans corrupted it etc", but if God is willing to sit back and let incorrect information determine the fate of a human's immortal soul, well, that's kind of not very benevolent.
I will say that I have no problem with people who believe in God, as long as they do it in a quiet way with charity and kindness. Some of the best people I've met have belonged to religions I think are frankly cultish (the best girl I've ever known was a mormon), so I always hesitate to judge someone based on what I view as irrational beliefs. This is why being even deeply religious is not an issue for me, either in friendships or relationships (plus religious girls are absolutely amazing in bed).
However, I do have a major problem who want to enforce "God's will" on the country through legislation or social pressure. I also have a major problem with people who limit the reach of science based on religion. Unfortunately, these two categories encompass the majority of religious individuals, and until it doesn't I will probably have a problem with the institution of any religion as a whole.
My primary disconnect with religion was due to the fact that a lot of what God supposedly wants us to do is either stupid, unnecessarily inconvenient, or flat out immoral. Combined with the scientific inaccuracy of most religious texts, I just had a difficult time believing that it was inspired by a omnipotent being.
I recognize that there is a lot of good in religions around the world, but I could not and cannot reconcile the bad parts with the good parts. To me, if a religion were really God-inspired, it should be all "good parts". And I know someone will claim "humans corrupted it etc", but if God is willing to sit back and let incorrect information determine the fate of a human's immortal soul, well, that's kind of not very benevolent.
I will say that I have no problem with people who believe in God, as long as they do it in a quiet way with charity and kindness. Some of the best people I've met have belonged to religions I think are frankly cultish (the best girl I've ever known was a mormon), so I always hesitate to judge someone based on what I view as irrational beliefs. This is why being even deeply religious is not an issue for me, either in friendships or relationships (plus religious girls are absolutely amazing in bed).
However, I do have a major problem who want to enforce "God's will" on the country through legislation or social pressure. I also have a major problem with people who limit the reach of science based on religion. Unfortunately, these two categories encompass the majority of religious individuals, and until it doesn't I will probably have a problem with the institution of any religion as a whole.
I prefer to believe in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy analogy:
The only real God is the concept of probability. If something can happen, it will happen at some point in time because probability has a one dimensional axis.
The book basically makes fun of God. The last thing that God said to its creation: "sorry for the inconvenience.”
I'm sure you guys know. Also, 42.
The only real God is the concept of probability. If something can happen, it will happen at some point in time because probability has a one dimensional axis.
The book basically makes fun of God. The last thing that God said to its creation: "sorry for the inconvenience.”
I'm sure you guys know. Also, 42.
I am not religious, as in I don't believe in God. However, the idea of a central body isn't unrealistic to me. Not a deity, but something. I like xenu's description of a nervous system, so I will also use it for lack of a better term. I think of it as something that connects the Universe, rather than something that created it or rules.
a·the·ism -n
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god(s).
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
3.
a religion based on definite and indefinite articles
an atheist (literally meaning "no god") is a person who agrees with the statement "no god exists". i'm sorry, but if you do not have absolute certainty, then you are not an atheist. you are agnostic.
and yeah phantasia what tobes said
- Status