Why do you believe in God?

[Divine_God]

Faith....


Faith is not something that is an admirable trait in people. It is ones willingness to escape from ones logical thinking and to believe in something "greater" then ones self. This is NOT HUMBLING YOURSELF.


Faith, to me, is the convincing of ones self beyond doubt that something exists. By associating ones feelings to a belief they have truly brainwashed themselves.


This is my opinion and holds no fact, get that straight.

 

[Kabal]

So can we all agree that people believe in god for comfort?

 

[malakadang]

So can we all agree that people believe in god for comfort?

Or fear, which is very contrasting to comfort.

 

[m4rsxpk3r]

i only said i believed in him in 7th grade to get my money from the party afterwards

 

[charmander412]

Read the stickies again please.
This is a forum dedicated to members who wish to engaged in intellectual debates and discussions.
Enough said. The rest of your post fails to achieve this simple requirement.

Haha. How typical. I was giving him some advice which I believe is extremely important.
I also find it funny how you shield yourself behind the "fails to achieve this simple requirement" defense because you are simply unable to respond. I'd further like to point out that the second post certainly contains logical reasoning. Try reading it again.

 

[SuF]

Did I ever suggest that I was making an "intellectualized" argument? Your lack of insight shown within this post is astounding. What do you believe I meant by saying what I said about philosophical thinkers? Some sort of "appeal to authority" argument? No. I was saying that one must approach the argument understanding its weight, and secondly, that if one wishes to find a real "intellectualized argument", as you put it, one must turn to the ideas of these thinkers. It is logical idiocy--and yes, that is properly used--because, for example, it is irrational to hold that a god can create something independent of itself, for god is understood to be the whole. Another example is associating human attributes to a god. That is not rational because it limits the capabilities of god. Also, the nature of the god interpreted literally from the bible is one that requires logical and empirical basis which, unfortunately, it does not possess.
Finally, did I ever say that I understand god? To purport to understand god at such a young age (or ever, really) would be terribly boastful and untrue. I am saying that I have become at least aware of its enormity; if one wishes to see something great, one must stand on the shoulders of a great person.

You do not need to have a grand understanding of god to lack belief in him. You simply need to understand what belief is and justification of belief. After that you just need a basic understanding of god to tackle the issue.

 

[raziaex]

Haha. How typical. I was giving him some advice which I believe is extremely important.
I also find it funny how you shield yourself behind the "fails to achieve this simple requirement" defense because you are simply unable to respond. I'd further like to point out that the second post certainly contains logical reasoning. Try reading it again.

Wow; your incompetency is becoming revoltingly pathetic. I am not shielding myself behind any 'requisite' barrier; nor am I unable to respond.
Let's put this simply - there is nothing to respond to. Your points are completely redundant on an intellectual level. In fact, your ideas fail to even constitute a 'point'.
Also, please do not fall under the fallacy of taking 'logic' as 'reasoning'. True; your second post does contain logic. Does this mean it correctly establishes an argument? No. Does it imply that your argument; if existent, is reasonable? No.
Perhaps you should read my previous post again to obtain my underlying messages to you.

 

[charmander412]

You do not need to have a grand understanding of god to lack belief in him. You simply need to understand what belief is and justification of belief. After that you just need a basic understanding of god to tackle the issue.

How can you rightfully refute something without understanding its depth?

Wow; your incompetency is becoming revoltingly pathetic. I am not shielding myself behind any 'requisite' barrier; nor am I unable to respond.
Let's put this simply - there is nothing to respond to. Your points are completely redundant on an intellectual level. In fact, your ideas fail to even constitute a 'point'.
Also, please do not fall under the fallacy of taking 'logic' as 'reasoning'. True; your second post does contain logic. Does this mean it correctly establishes an argument? No. Does it imply that your argument; if existent, is reasonable? No.
Perhaps you should read my previous post again to obtain my underlying messages to you.

You do realize I made explicitly clear the first time you attacked my post that I was not making an argument.
Also, if you're going to start insulting, perhaps I should reciprocate: start reading more so you can begin to use words properly, and go back to grade seven and learn how to use a damn semicolon.

 

[malakadang]

Your staunch dedication to logical thinking throughout all these threads is quite refreshing. However, I'd like to say that the arguments you've so skillfully refuted have barely skimmed the waters of the vast and fascinating notion of god. Do not believe that these undeveloped and often dogmatic assertions represent the field against which you argue. Immerse yourself in the heart of an idea before you make any conclusion. Issues such as these have kept centuries of thinkers bent over their scrolls, absorbing and reveling in the beauties of our being. To believe in a literal god of the bible is logical idiocy. I suggest you read some philosophical views on the matter. Mendelssohn, Spinoza, Aristotle -- there are countless thinkers who have devoted much of their lives to the study.

Is this what you were referring to?
Mendelssohn - Died 1847
Spinoza - Died 1677
Aristotle - Died 332 BC

Now need I tell you what my next point is going to be?


What year was the Big Bang theory, the most common scientifically recognized theory (I'm fairly sure) that tells us how the Universe was created.

Regardless of what it cannot account for, it accounts for much more than a mythical monster creating everything we see around us.

Also, if you ask 'What caused the big bang?', then not only do you assume that the Universe cannot of just existed without creation, but you further contradict yourself by proposing God can.

 

[raziaex]

How can you rightfully refute something without understanding its depth?

How can you assume he is ignorant of it?

 

[raziaex]

Is this what you were referring to?
Mendelssohn - Died 1847
Spinoza - Died 1677
Aristotle - Died 332 BC

Now need I tell you what my next point is going to be?


What year was the Big Bang theory, the most common scientifically recognized theory (I'm fairly sure) that tells us how the Universe was created.

Regardless of what it cannot account for, it accounts for much more than a mythical monster creating everything we see around us.

Also, 'What caused the big bang'. Not only do you assume that the Universe cannot of just existed without creation, but you further contradict yourself by proposing God can.

He does not only contradict himself in that claim; but he also fallaciously refers to those thinkers as proponents of his argumentative basis.

He tells us that we cannot debate 'God' due to our 'lack of understanding' into his 'grandeur, depth and awesomeness'.
What if I were to tell him that 'God' did not exist?
Does that not make his argument completely redundant as it already is?

 

[charmander412]

Is this what you were referring to?
Mendelssohn - Died 1847
Spinoza - Died 1677
Aristotle - Died 332 BC

Now need I tell you what my next point is going to be?


What year was the Big Bang theory, the most common scientifically recognized theory (I'm fairly sure) that tells us how the Universe was created.

Regardless of what it cannot account for, it accounts for much more than a mythical monster creating everything we see around us.

Also, if you ask 'What caused the big bang?', then not only do you assume that the Universe cannot of just existed without creation, but you further contradict yourself by proposing God can.

Did you honestly just say that? The whole point of my post was that a "mythical monster creating everything we see around us" is completely irrational. That is why I suggested he study logical and deep understandings of god.

 

[raziaex]

How can you rightfully refute something without understanding its depth?


You do realize I made explicitly clear the first time you attacked my post that I was not making an argument.
Also, if you're going to start insulting, perhaps I should reciprocate: start reading more so you can begin to use words properly, and go back to grade seven and learn how to use a damn semicolon.

Maybe you should follow your own lines and return to the 7th grade to research on the colon yourself.
You're the second person to try and use punctuation against my arguments.
Firstly, this is completely off-topic and pretty much spam.
Secondly, I suggest you reconsider this claim - research into the semicolon yourself please. You are honestly incompetent...
If you're not making an argument, then what are you trying to say?

 

[raziaex]

Did you honestly just say that? The whole point of my post was that a "mythical monster creating everything we see around us" is completely irrational. That is why I suggested he study logical and deep understandings of god.

Did you honestly just say that?
You have completely contradicted your previous premise.
'...study and deep understandings of god?'
1. This phrase is grammatically incorrect.
2. This phrase is logically incorrect.
You make this statement under the premise that God DOES exist.
However; our position is that he DOES NOT.
Thus, your argument there is INVALID.

 

[charmander412]

He does not only contradict himself in that claim; but he also fallaciously refers to those thinkers as proponents of his argumentative basis.

He tells us that we cannot debate 'God' due to our 'lack of understanding' into his 'grandeur, depth and awesomeness'.
What if I were to tell him that 'God' did not exist?
Does that not make his argument completely redundant as it already is?

It's obvious that my repeated attempts at explaining what I was actually saying to you have failed. I will try to illustrate it with an example:
My friend told me there it has been scientifically proven that ghosts fly through the night. I respond that such a notion is completely irrational, and demonstrate it empirically. I then proceed reject all of science because of this incident.
Thoughts?

Btw, my colon was used correctly and you still fail to understand the rules of the semicolon.

Did you honestly just say that?
You have completely contradicted your previous premise.
'...study and deep understandings of god?'
1. This phrase is grammatically incorrect.
2. This phrase is logically incorrect.
You make this statement under the premise that God DOES exist.
However; our position is that he DOES NOT.
Thus, your argument there is INVALID.

First of all, you quoted it incorrectly, you imbecile -- it is grammatically correct. Secondly, you refuse to accept that I am not making a bloody argument. What I am saying is that it seems to me that in order to refute something rightly, one must first understand the essence of the idea they are refuting.

 

[raziaex]

It's obvious that my repeated attempts at explaining what I was actually saying to you have failed. I will try to illustrate it with an example:
My friend told me there it has been scientifically proven that ghosts fly through the night. I respond that such a notion is completely irrational, and demonstrate it empirically. I then proceed reject all of science because of this incident.
Thoughts?

Define 'scientifically proven'.
My 'thoughts' depend heavily on this.

 

[malakadang]

Did you honestly just say that? The whole point of my post was that a "mythical monster creating everything we see around us" is completely irrational. That is why I suggested he study logical and deep understandings of god.

The mythical monster creating everything we see is around us IS GOD. You just stated that the idea itself is completely irrational, thus in essence you are saying the idea of God is not consistent using reason.

How can you tell someone to 'study logical and deep understandings' of something irrational when you full well know that it is indeed irrational?

 

[charmander412]

The mythical monster creating everything we see is around us IS GOD. You just stated that the idea itself is completely irrational, thus in essence you are saying the idea of God is not consistent using reason.

How can you tell someone to 'study logical and deep understandings' of something irrational when you full well know that it is indeed irrational?

What the hell are you talking about? What makes that understanding god?

 

[SuF]

How can you rightfully refute something without understanding its depth?

Refute? The burden of proof is on believers, not non-believers. Even if this did not apply, there are major points of god that, even without great depth, easily give one enough information to make a decision. Even if you do study philosophy of religion slightly (which I have), you will have way more than enough information to reach a conclusion.

 

[shortperson]

In my opinion hate it or not there is no god. From my point of view religion is a powerful tool used throughout time was used to guide people. For example god "deems" this acceptable so everyone do it now well throughout time Kings have used religion as there spokesperson, or even to the extreme to claim them selfs immortal, and them selfs as gods, it is believed because people have to look up to something. I have a strong opinion on this subject because just to start with why are there so many religions with so many gods with so many rules, but each and everyone of those religions will claim they are the real, the chosen. Not every religion can be the true, and chosen religion.