#8 Do you believe in God?

as an adult......I find find it the most disgusting human activity ever......the Roman Catholic pope hides the disgusting pedophiles and won't reveal who they are.....every religion has killed,tortured abused countless millions to stay in power .......nuns in Ireland killed babies of single un married mothers by dropping them in cess pits .......what wonderful religious people they are.......... This post was edited by Nice Jugs at April 2, 2017 12:58 PM MDT

Religion----an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

Frequently I find that people who are against a particular religion or all religions like to base their contrarianism by holding on dearly to what it does not do well, rather than what it does well.

People tend to miss a lot when the do that---sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally,what I find to be the most disgusting human activity is when people stop at the first level of inference when they "search" for the truth.

You're touching an interesting angle. I tend to stay out of all discussions around religions. They are very opinionated, and rarely are any open dialogue between tow opposites really interested in reaching a mutual understanding. In that way it reminds a lot about what's going on in politics these days with very polarized standpoints and no in between. Back to the interesting angle, when I stopped smoking I was reading a book helping me to get an insight in my own mind. It operated with two monsters, and a crutch. The monsters were incorporated as the physical urge to have another cigarette (little monster/abstinence), and the far more difficult one to get rid off... habits, all deeply anchored in our minds (big monster/associations). The crutch was the cigarette, we will feel better as soon as we have it close... the next inhalation of another cigarette will make us feel better, we think we get more focused, that we handle stress, that we work harder, that we stay more positive... Hmm. All we do however, is feeding our monsters, our little one and our big one. It's easy to break free of the little monster, it will take two weeks on top to get detoxified. The big monster is still there though, unless we do something to get aware of our associations between situations and cigarettes, how do they work together. We need our crutch to hang on to, or we don't know how to handle a situation... unless, we substitute it and are aware of it. it's here similarities to religion drop into my mind. A lot of us are raised and used to believe, it's our crutch when we don't understand the deeper meaning with life, or when unfairness occur. We find comfort, and what we see as care in our religions. It will be to various degrees. Just like the smokers, some of us go full in, others will be the party smokers. This got way too long, and might also be seen as provocation by some. It's not, it's an insight in my thoughts around this topic. As I have stressed it before, inside this thread too, I do respect people making their free choice, as long as they don't threaten me, as long as they respect me as much as I do them, as long as they live up to our laws of society, and finally as long as they accept my sexuality. Hmm.

Disclaimer: I won't go into any arguing around this topic. It's a stand alone comment from my side. Agree/disagree with me, I'm fine with it. 

Funny, how you describe your feelings towards religious debates is almost exactly how I feel about feminist/anti-feminist debates after having had my fair share of watching them and be over & over again frustrated by them.

To come back to the main point, though; I totally agree! I also feel like people need religion, or more specifically faith, some cannot live without it, it gives them purpose, a meaning out of life and hope. It makes them feel less alone, and I would even add that it's a manifesto of humans' ego and self-centerdness.

I absolutely wouldn't bother a random believing person or demand they prove their god to me or anything like that and I quite dislike atheists who go out of their way to do it, but at the same time, I will, in my own personal space, online or otherwise, speak against homophobia & sexism that have been largely fueled by religion.

There's both poetry and ugliness to religion, but it's a shame that the poetry is almost always over shadowed by the all the ugliness. This post was edited by nobodylair.37 at April 2, 2017 1:00 PM MDT

To me feminism is/should be all about equal rights and opportunities, which also goes for race/religion/politic/sexuality. But again, this rarely ends in healthy discussions, at least not online. Majority of people come online in places like here to tell their opinions, and not so much to listen to what others have to contribute, which tend to make it two people having monologues and not dialogue. I'm far from a saint and at times I jump into these, just to be reminded why I shouldn't. Lol. Discussions outside the questions boards are so much more giving. Thanks replying, and giving my fun question another angle. Loved it. :-)

That can certainly be the case in any discussion of religion.

Just be aware that the existence of God cannot be determined by the winner of a debate or by a majority vote.

I suspect that if He does exist, He is quite amused by the inadequacy of the arguments on both sides of such debates.

Circular reasoning.   You're asking to prove a negative and since a negative hasn't been proven that it's evidence.   That's a logical fallacy and there is no proving negatives.
Having faith is fine and there's nothing wrong with but to say logic and reason says it's a must is BS and neither is on the side of faith.  Not about gods or anything.  Faith is by definition a suspension of logic and reason.

"since a negative hasn't been proven that it's evidence" erm nowhere in my post have I claimed evidence.

If it gives you comfort to put forward and proceed to demolish a strawman, that's up to you. But if you've got a reasonable argument against any of the points in my post I'll consider it.

Uhhhhhh...  No strawman here..Refer to  your A] B] and C].
Or do you not know what you wrote?
 

I don't know what angle you're looking at it from. I have not presented a] b] and c] as evidence that God exists but simply as my reasons for why my answer to the question, “Do you believe that God exists?” has to be yes or leaning towards yes.


This post was edited by CLURT at March 31, 2017 1:35 PM MDT

Which is fine until you say " makes such a possibility look utterly ridiculous"  "the rational answer " .   All three reason are based on faith wich is by definition irrational, illogical, and a suspension of reason.

Not trying to convert you against your faith but when you say not having faith is irrational and ridiculous..   Well now something has to be said.

ermmm.. could you read a] b] and c] again and explain to me how "All three reason are based on faith wich is by definition irrational, illogical, and a suspension of reason."

Yes,  none of those are reasons to believe.   You are twisting the question with spin to say it's asking if one knows there it isn't.  Yet none of those reasons are rational or logical reasons too believe.  To use them as evidence or reason to believe is irrational and illogical.

It would help if you explain in what way "none of those reasons are rational"

I did in my first comment and in all the following replies.

I don't see where you have explained how any of my statements of fact a] b] and c] are irrational.

Until you find a sound counter argument that you can explain clearly I guess we'll have to leave it at that for now.

TY and have a nice day.

I disagree in a, b, and c. Thank you for trying to add another angle on the question, which is one out of a series. It's appreciated although I don't buy in on your argumentative points, and/or the premises laying behind them. :-)

I'm not asking you to think about it. I am furthermore not looking for a debate about religion on a Friday night. I have no issue in adding a few extra words to those I already added in my first comment to you.

a] I disagree that we accept something as lean to be yes, or leaning towards yes based on a negative. There will be other contexts where this won't be accepted.
b] I'd say there are knowledge to rule out the existence of a God. That they might not be accepted by believing people is another thing.
c] It's not a given fact. There is in fact plenty of knowledge and explanation at hand. Again, it might not be accepted by people believing.

I merely used same logic as did you. All your statements for b] and c] are stated as fact, although without you lifting any evidence proving your claim. As for a] I don't have to show any. It's a negative, and as told, there will be other circumstances where a negative won't be accepted in such ways as you try making use of it. I suggest you go back and look up your own original comment as for what you claim me to do.

It's free for you to look at it how you will. I have twice and now for the third time told you I won't use a Friday night discussing such subject. Be a sports, and drop the use of reverse psychology on me. It won't work out for any good for now, or for any eventual future discussions.

Have a lovely day/night. We won' get any further here. 

From what you've posted on this topic so far, I'm sure you're right that "We won' get any further here"

However, here's how to effectively refute my three points which I have reproduced below for convenience. 

My three points were:

a] The fact that there isn’t, and there can never be, any evidence that there is no God anywhere. So it is impossible to join the no-God camp, put one’s feet up with reassurance and relax in that belief

b] The fact that nothing in our ever increasing knowledge so far rules out the possibility of God's existence or makes such a possibility look utterly ridiculous

c] The fact that, at the moment, without God our understanding of how everything came about is incomplete. We need, indeed must have, God if we want a complete picture.

How to prove them wrong

a] simply show that there is, or how we can get, indisputable evidence that there is no God anywhere.

b] simply quote something from our knowledge that conclusively rules out the possibility of God's existence or makes such a possibility look utterly ridiculous

c] simply show that our understanding of how everything came about is fully complete without the need for God [or similar supernatural ultimate cause]

Oh gee. Too hard reading I won't discuss the matter with you? Reverse psychology isn't working, you think patronizing will work? Ciao.