Is there a GOD?

[Happy]

Did anybody change view because of this thread?

 

[stu192]

Hey Happy,

I'll have a guess and say that no one has changed their mind due to this thread. But really, how do you change people's minds either one way or the other.

The church (all types) have been pretty successful at changing peoples minds over the years (mostly using fear tactics)...or just getting people so young that they have no choice other than to believe. The church has had a long time to refine it's argument....and can probably come up with an answer for any question (anything unexplained can be attributed to god of course).
Atheists like Richard Dawkins have been using science to disprove god....and I think he's been pretty unsuccessful so far.

I like to have an open mind.....and so don't believe. However, here's a better question.
Q. What would it take to change your mind?

Being a non-believer....there are many things that could change my mind about god. It just takes a little proof.
However, ask a theist what it would take to change their mind. They have no answer (at least no theist I have ever asked has an answer). So the next question is...how do you open a closed mind?

Stu

 

[noirua]

There is a god for the Human race, but not for animals, or indeed, some would say "other animals".
Not for animals? Not for animals as they have not the brain power to invent one, some might say, indeed, indeed.

 

[bullsvsbears]

We would all agree that there are only two possible answers to the question "Is there a God?"
It's either 'Yes' or 'No"

According to some September 11 didn't occur but was in fact orchastrated by the US government for political gain. All subsequent terrorist acts that have occured since still haven't changed their view but this doesn't change the fact that September 11 was in fact a terrorist act.

My point is: Just because we weren't around when the bible was written doesn't mean it isn't true.
You must all agree that one must stand up and take note of any historical text that has stood the test of time for thousands of years despite many attempts to smear its credibility. Why would so many people including great biblical leaders/figures give up their life for a myth? You don’t see Bin Laden dying for his belief.

Of those that have made up their minds that God doesn’t exist I have another question:
Have any of you taken the time to actually study the bible in an attempt to make an informed decision?

Don't get hung up on worrying about what Churches or the likes of Dawkins
think but explore the truth for yourself and I am sure you will find the anwer to the question.

 

[Mr J]

We would all agree that there are only two possible answers to the question "Is there a God?"

I don't. We will vary in our definitions of "god".

My point is: Just because we weren't around when the bible was written doesn't mean it isn't true.

And it doesn't mean it is true either.

You must all agree that one must stand up and take note of any historical text that has stood the test of time for thousands of years despite many attempts to smear its credibility.

It doesn't make it any more credible as a religion considering that the books of other religions have done so as well.

Why would so many people including great biblical leaders/figures give up their life for a myth?

Power. The higher ups in the religions have a lot of it. Religion is a great tool for manipulation and wealth.

You don’t see Bin Laden dying for his belief

No, typically higher ups brainwash others into sacrificing themselves.

Have any of you taken the time to actually study the bible in an attempt to make an informed decision?

Studying the Bible is actually irrelevant, as nothing in it makes it any more likely. An informed decision comes from analysing why we think a god may exist, looking at why religion exists, why people believe in it, and recognising that there's much we don't know (far, far more than what we do know).

I beleive the only properly rational conclusion is to be quite uncertain. My own view is that it is unlikely a god exists, and extremely unlikely that one exists as we perceive. I do not believe people that subscribe to organised religion to be rational people. I am not opposed to spirituality, as that allows for far more flexible interpretation (e.g. the belief in something greater rather than some man in a cloud).

 

[nunthewiser]

YES

he lives in geraldton

with elvis

amen

 

[Donga]

And having a great laugh over this thread, "just a slob like one of us"...

 

[whereu]

Burden of proof.

A question on the existence of God is where does the burden of proof lie? Is the answer that theists need to prove that God exists or is it that atheists need to prove that God does not exist? To prove that something does not exist is often more difficult to prove than it does. A simple example. Hypothesis: space is occupied by little green men. If you find them, great. If you don't... maybe you are looking in the wrong place, or they become invisible when you look at them. For money its up to theists to prove their assumption to be true.

 

[wayneL]

YES

he lives in geraldton

That's proof he doesn't live on a cloud, because he'd end up in Meekatharra by four o'clock.

And if that happened, he would have done something about that place.

 

[explod]

YES

he lives in geraldton

with elvis

amen

I think he's all over the bloo.y place, only got to see the drivers of the 4x4 and my own ravings on this forum sometimes.

We all got the spirit comrades.

What a dopey thread. I try to avoid it but love being amazed at how far crap can go.

When he appears in person on the news or does a good miracle like increase the planet a few dozen times so that we can all be saved then I will certaqinly start to pray

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I beleive the only properly rational conclusion is to be quite uncertain. My own view is that it is unlikely a god exists, and extremely unlikely that one exists as we perceive. I do not believe people that subscribe to organised religion to be rational people. I am not opposed to spirituality, as that allows for far more flexible interpretation (e.g. the belief in something greater rather than some man in a cloud).

Your other points are fine, but I suspect you're seriously misconstruing what it means to be rational. The irony is that your belief about the nature of rationality may be rational, even if incorrect.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Imagine how clean this planet would be if all the god worshipping people worshipped nature. Instead, they too contribute to the pollution and destruction of nature with blatant flaunting of wealth and power. Just typical humans really.

Maybe we need a `god is nature` implant.

 

[Mr J]

Your other points are fine, but I suspect you're seriously misconstruing what it means to be rational.

How so?

 

[wayneL]

Imagine how clean this planet would be if all the god worshipping people worshipped nature. Instead, they too contribute to the pollution and destruction of nature with blatant flaunting of wealth and power. Just typical humans really.

Maybe we need a `god is nature` implant.

Yep,

I've noticed with a lot of religious folk an arrogant disregard for nature... the Earth was created for us to exploit, we're the reason for creation type nonsense. They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.

It ignores some explicit passages in the Bible... nothing unusual there either, they ignore at least half of it.

I like the "God IS nature" idea. It means "God" is totally natural, rather than the ludicrous idea of a supernatural "dude in the sky" model. It also means that a belief in such a "God" (or whatever word you want to use) is contemporaneous with science.

There is some discussion of this concept way back in this thread where many scientists have this type of view.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

How so?

I said "suspect". What do you think it means to be rational?

 

[glenn_r]

YES

he lives in geraldton

with elvis

amen

You forgot "whacko Jacko"

 

[nunthewiser]

You forgot "whacko Jacko"

LOL no way !

he living in south australia where he belongs!

 

[Mr J]

I said "suspect". What do you think it means to be rational?

I know, and I thought that's what you meant, but I was unsure. I think it means to analyse what data we have on hand to come up with an objective judgement.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I've noticed with a lot of religious folk an arrogant disregard for nature... the Earth was created for us to exploit, we're the reason for creation type nonsense. They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.

Yes, this is lamentable and on a broader scale, what about other kinds of exploitation that are commonplace and of which the majority of us are consumers? ie. battery farm chickens, the destruction of nearly all male chickens not long after hatching, and so on. This is all justified in the name of money. Ethical consideration for nature goes far beyond things like pollution.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Yep,

They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.

That programming is one of the real clinchers in the deal.