The rational choice is to believe there’s a God

Too bad that I'm on the side that is actually lacking policy, the side of the poor people who get crapped on with pesticides (it's happened before, with helicopters and everything!) and who has to drink shitty contaminated water.

Of course I said most, not all, because I don't flgrantly generalize like a moron. There are SOME atheists out there which have different opinions, and I do not intend to speak for them.

In the quote which you refer to, it says "They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism."

The problem with this statement? Materialism is not a form of secular faith!! How can you possibly use the writings of this person, when the author is clearly a moron who does not understand what he is speaking about?

To answer your question, YES, I have heard of life beginning as a single cell. If you read my post (which specifically mentions abiogenesis -- or life beginning as a single cell), you would know this.

Truthfully, this is what I think probably happened, but I do not speak for all atheists, only the ones who think this probably happened, so I am not about to say "all," only "most."

(this was in regards to me saying, "Beyond that, do you think we have to prove that there is a God?")

Sorry, cat. What I meant to say was, do you think we have to prove that there ISN'T a God? My bad. I was talking about having to disprove the idea of God, when you haven't proven it to begin with.

Cat, none of these lame little posts of yours that you linked to show any proof whatsoever of God's existance.

If God's existance was proven, it would be a national uproar. I wouldn't need to post rebuttals, I wouldn't need to read selected articles about God, because it would be in the news, it would be in the streets.

And yet, sadly,it's not proven.

The key word in what you said?

CLAIM to have the proof.

They don't actually have the proof. If they did, they wouldn't need to sell the books in those links in order to make money, they'd be filthy rich from all of the news interviews, from all of the publicity.

I have read many "proofs" using reason of God's existance, and found problems in every single one. I've read books about it, and plenty of articles claiming to have proof of God. None of them were even remotely close to complete, let alone close to good arguments.

Oh so, if there are 100 people in the Ku Klux Klan, and then 20 of those people go into town, burn down buildings, blow up hotels, destroy places where black people work, all while crying out the name of the Ku Klux Klan and wearing white hoods ...

Then by your logic, the Ku Klux Klan is not responsible for what those followers did!

THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD THING I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE, CAT.

You are insisting that stupid people who are a part of the group, who do stupid things ... should not be considered a part of the group, when they clearly are a part of it?

If you do not want stupid, murderous, sinful people in your religion, then don't let them into it in the first place!

YOU ARE NOT RESPECTING THE GUIDELINES HERE, CAT!

That is my point! THIS ENTIRE POST is an attack on non-believers of ALL sorts, but especially atheists and agnostics such as myself! Why do you think I responded to this thread when I haven't responded to your others?

Cat, believe me man, you have every right to free speech, on this and every other forum. But not only are you spamming for the sake of pissing people off, but your posts are belligerent, aimed attacks at non-believers!

Keep your anti-non-believer shit on your Islam boards, where it is relevant!

Oh and also -- I damn well do have a right to ask you privately to stop spamming the hip forums, when you are spamming the hip forums with propaganda and violating the terms of service!

Here, let me post part of the guidelines for you, cat ...

"Flaming/Trolling: Flames are posts intended to insult and provoke. Posters who speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude will be banned. Repeated posts directed with hostility at a particular person or group of people or their beliefs will be cause for banning. Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned."

Cat stevens, IN YOUR PM REPLY you stated that the reason you were flooding the Christianity boards was because they were "flooding" the Islam boards!

Now, I went to the Islam boards to check it out, and I found a total of two threads that were started to question or attack Islamic beliefs. That is hardly flooding.

And yet, when I was last on the Christianity boards ... I counted a total of SEVEN threads that were outright attacks on Christian beliefs, started by you. They weren't even started by others on the Islam boards, YOU are the only one bringing the "fight" over to the Christianity boards.

According to the guidelines, YOU CAN BE BANNED FOR THIS.

Now, cat, I don't want to see you banned, personally I think most of your posts have good points (minus this one, which pissed me off).

However, you are clearly in violation of the terms of using the hip forums. Before you talk about being within acceptable limits, you should actually READ the guidelines first.

I meant in size. And yeah, I'd call it vastly insane, when humans quite literally can't even really fathom how big it is. Perhaps insane wasn't the best choice of words, though ...

An attack on the beliefs of non-believers? Yeah, I'd call it that. In your post, you said:

"If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them. But, as my example shows, they are hostile to people who disagree with them. "

Insinuating that all ahteists and non-believers are hostile towards others all of the time.

"The war between materialists and people of faith has gone on for millennia. It is going on today. There are very important philosophical differences between the two camps. The materialist believes he has no responsibility to take care of others. That’s why Darwinism and its survival-of-the-fittest claim were seized upon by the materialists as a perfect rationalization of their selfishness. People of faith, however, feel a God-given responsibility to help their fellow human beings."

Calling us all materialists, and and then saying we have no responsibility to take care of others -- that our claims are "perfect rationalizaitons of our selfishness."

"People who claim there is no God intend to play God themselves, with us as their subjects."

And then insisting that we are trying to play God with everyone else, in some sort of malicious or spiteful way.

Yes, Cat, I would call that an attack on both non-theists, and their beliefs.

You can roll around laughing and post smilies rolling around laughing all you want -- it just goes to show how BELLIGERENT and spiteful your posting is.

No, you don't! That's why you didn't even respond to any of my plausible arguments in my original post, because they completely and utterly destroyed what you call your "rationality" and "logical proofs." Your "proofs" are some of the most illogical attempts to prove God that I have ever seen!

A good thing to mention, Meagain.

Not that he's fanatically shouting because he believes.

He's fanatically shouting because he's trying to anger others because he feels that the couple of posts on the Islam boards are spam and wants to share his wrath with the rest of the Hip Forums.

-- at least, that's what I got out of what he said in his PM.

 

I don't beleive in Hell. Life is Hell, and life is my test. So what if there is a God, is it fair he has put me on this Earth and put me through the things he has done, maybe not, but I still understand everything happens for a reason. If I have faith in something greater than me, which I do, then why should I need to label God by putting him in a religion where my ideals don't coincide?

Religion is nothing more then mass conformity. The temple is you, inside your mind, and in your mind is where you will find God, because he is part of us all. Just because I don't give complete submission to God by putting my hands, feet, and head on the ground that doesn't mean I'm going to hell. I praise the lord by living a moral and healthy life, and giving God recognition everyday by knowing this Earth wasn't made by humans, it was made by something more advanced we can't fathom it.

As for Hell, pfshh, Hell is nothing more than a scare tactic. It is a completely ridiculous to think God made this special pit where everyone will burn in hellfire and brimstone if they don't praise him. I will continue living my life beleiving in something greater until the day I die and receive the ultimate wisdom once I am granted passage into the after life.

Life is paradise, Life is Hell. Death is my savior, because death is God.

As for proving his existence, well I think the universe should be proof enough. I mean such intricate laws of gravity, the complexity of organisms, the design of the human genome, and the human brain. I don't think it all came down to mere chance. If anything, the universe was chaos, but it happened for a reason. There was a drive or force behind it designed by a greater power.

The only thing I worship is the sun. It generates warmth, it produces life, and it is the most amazing and wonderful thing I have yet to see in my life. This is the only thing outside our atmosphere that seems to do anything for us, so why don't more people worship it? Seeing as how the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten decided to become monotheistic and worship the sun because all the religions were fighting and killing over different deities, just like today with the conflicting the religions.

I am not saying the sun is God, rather a composite of the allmighty's greatness and supremacy.

 

Just a quick comment, as I have not and probably will not read the whole thread: Since when does faith come from reason? I don't think there has ever been anyone who became religious because it was the rational thing to do. Don't confuse emotional with rational. Rationally, you wouldn't be worried about saving your soul, because there's no logical evidence that a soul exists. It's an emotional belief.

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

I have faith that when something bad happens to me, the reason is that it makes me stronger is because I know I'll be gaining something by having it teach me a lesson and give me strength for other situations. That's all.

 

Hikaru Zero
​

​

Again isn't me who wrote this article, + if you found or read about an evidence of that maybe the writer doesn't consider it evidence, maybe he read a rebuttal or something concerning that theory, and don't forget there are many theories not only one! So the writer is referring to one of these theories which says: There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don’t. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.
​

​

You said: we è (mankind by our brain) have controlled the evolution of plants… Sweet corn wasn't sweet corn until we took maize and bred it to evolve into sweet corn. Q: do you think that things can be evolved by itself and giving us amazing results!! Oh Come on!
​

*If you will spill three different colors in a white paper you will never have a picture for Wales' flowers! Or a picture of London's street! Even if you will leave it for zillions centuries! Take for example the Puzzle or the Jigsaw puzzle [a picture cut up into many pieces] would you believe me if I will tell you that a wind or something fitted these pieces together? Something which doesn't have a brain to think where it should put each piece!! Impossible, there is someone who arranged your body's organs and nerves and gave them their functions.*Look to your self and body it is too complicated and there are countless nerves in your body each nerve is linked to an organ and have its function! Is that happened by evolution? if we will assume that the human was the first being for example who suited his teeth to eat? Who linked each nerve with a specific organ? Who? the nothingness or the randomness which cannot think of the purpose of doing such things like teeth to eat, ears to hear etc. when the human has two holes in his nose to breath, it is happened by chance?, why human have digestive system, it was this by chance or evolution??? Why there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by evolution? Why there is a pipe which delivers what you ate to your stomach by chance? Why you have teeth, was it a decoration? Impossible, there must be someone who formed each creature, who made this magnificent system in the creatures of eating, breathing etc
​

​

Who created these species! Where did they come from?
​

Quraan: were they created from nothing or did they create themselves. Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief.
​

Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist. If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc. And CN means that it has no beginning. Consequently, C1 cannot exist. In other words, if human existence is preceded by an infinite amount of causes requiring an infinite amount of time to take place, it is the same as saying that they will never take place. Human existence thus becomes impossible. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued similarly that the infinite regression of the cause and effect chain was impossible.
​

​

Ten thousands books, I am not sure how many books on rebuttal are there? =)
​

​

Outdated hahaha NO, I won't face this, because it isn't true at all =) did you read Quraan! I really don't know, but if you didn't read it, then it is stupid to say something about something which you have no idea about,
​

Allah proved in Quraan that there is God , it is he the only true God the creator he in Quraan is talking to atheists, believers, Christians, Jews, pagans etc all people, Some People at Jesus' time, miracles were enough proof for them to his existence! But nowadays many people don't accept such a proof? That's why Allah put so many different types of proofs, like miracles, prophecies, etc in Quraan besides that he put proofs in the Quraan which even the Arab at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn't understand it as we do today, Allah stated: "And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while.", but because other type of proofs was enough to them they accepted that proofs as well, this type of proofs are the scientific proofs The difference between miracles of the previous Messengers, which proved their veracity, and those of the messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, is that their previous miracles were effective during the lifetime of everyone of them, whereas the miracle of the Quraan remains effective, everlasting and unchallenged until the Day of Judgment. How does the miracle of the Quraan remain effective? The Quraan which was revealed 14 centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists, '' We will show them our signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quraan) is the truth' this proves without doubt that the Quraan must be the literal word of God, revealed by him to the prophet Muhammad and it was not authored by any human being even Muhammad didn't claim so, Allah has sent prophets to show people his religion and how to worship him, Every prophet had something special from God to be a proof that he is the messenger of God and that God is existed. And that special thing called '' Miracle'' Allah has supported his last prophet Muhammad with many miracles and many evidences which prove that he is a true prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone 14 hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophistical scientific methods, you can check them here and Watch scientists’ comments on the scientific miracles in Quranè Science confirms Quraan is from Allah and here is another website after visiting the websites or before, I ask, How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?
​

Why did Allah choose Muhammad?
​

Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) was raised illiterate, unable to read or write, and remained like that till his death. Among all his people, he was known as being truthful and trustworthy. Before receiving revelation, he had no prior knowledge of Religion or any previously sent Message. He remained like that till the Revelation came to him with the Quraan.
​

Allah stated: ''Neither did you (O Muhammad) read any book before it (this Quraan), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed the followers of falsehood might have doubted'' This is a proof that the Quraan is from God Because although the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was illiterate in both (reading & writing), he brought such a book Quraan which is one his miracles,'' In that case, indeed the followers of falsehood might have doubted'' that if Muhammad (PBUH) was reading or writing then disbelievers will be in doubt and they will say '' perhaps Muhammad learned that or read it in some where! But they didn't say that because they know that Muhammad was orphan (both father &mother), Poor and illiterate in both (reading & writing) and he was living between them. Consequently, how could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, Surely, Allah told him.
​

Quraan: Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of (his own) desire, it is only a Revelation revealed. He has been taught (this Quraan) by one mighty in power…So Allah revealed to His slave (Muhammad) whatever He revealed…And that to your Lord (Allah) is the End (Return of everything)….(then he started to talk about the creation and that he created us and everything) etc very nice chapter
​

'' And this Quraan is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth)'' Allah created everything that why Allah knows about all these facts which ARE known recently and he put such facts in Quraan as a proof.
​

Quraan: Do they not then think deeply in the Quran, or are their hearts locked up (from understanding it)?
​

Quraan: What ! Did you then think that WE had created you without purpose, and that you would not be brought back to US ?
​

Quraan: Do they then wait for anything other than that the angels should come to them, or that your Lord should come, or that some of the Signs of your Lord should come (i.e. portents of the Hour)! The day that some of the Signs of your Lord do come, no good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good (by performing deeds of righteousness) through his Faith. Say: "Wait you! we (too) are waiting."
​

Quraan: This (Qur'ân) is a clear insight and evidence for mankind, and a guidance and a mercy for people who have Faith with certainty. Or do those who earn evil deeds think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, in their present life and after their death? Worst is the judgment that they make…
​

Peace and love
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

Cat Stevens' latest threads
​

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style losers' fate , ask yourself: will you write such a response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!
​

 

No, you didn't write the article, but you are the one posting it, in all of its anti-atheist remarks.

You, cat, are the one supporting these claims. You're the one who posted the article, so take some responsiblity for what you post.

He didn't read a rebuttal because the journal was just posted yesterday.

There are many theories, yes. However, the theory that "there is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species," has been PROVEN to be incorrect, time and time again. It is no longer a theory -- rather, at this point, it is merely an old myth that is being constantly regurgitated by the religious folk of the world for decades now.

The truth of the matter is, it's entirely incorrect.

Let me tell you a sad story for a second, cat.

Off the coast of California, there are now fish with both male and female organs. They are hermaphrodites. What did this to them? The increased presence of estrogen from feminine waste that was dumped into the sea by our government.

Despite the fact that now, we have hermaphroditic fish, and that's probably not a good thing, it's important to note that this was NOT a controlled or even attempted evolution. This happened on its own.

Something as incredible as turning fish into hermaphrodites happened only because a larger presence of a single chemical was introduced!

"Oh come on!" yourself, cat. Evolution is happening all around you, and you fail to even notice it. Sweet corn is an example of human-controlled evolution. However, it was not human-induced. All we did was replant it in more fertile soil, and replant the seeds that came out the best.

Given more time, the maize would have eventually turned into sweet corn anyway -- along with various other evolutions, probably everything from bitter corn to salty corn (these are just examples, I'm not a biologist so I couldn't tell you exactly what else might have arisen, other than that other things would have).

That's because Wales' flowers and London's streets contain more than three different colours.

Besides that, RANDOMNESS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT, cat! When are you going to get this through that thick head of yours!

Things don't got right from "random" to "complex." London's streets weren't built in a day! It took many years, even when controlled, to build London's streets.

The argument isn't one of "complexity created instantaneously out of randomness," the argument is one of "simple structures created over a probablility, which then were able to prolong their existance and facilitate their own development."

You mistake the real argument for one that nobody believes in.

Don't you think for a second, cat, that it's possible for your body to have had a role in the development of those organs and nerves?

Our bodies, as complex as they are, are designed to grow and repair themselves. They are designed to adapt to their environment! They are designed to facilitate the process of evolution! Evolution is certainly not the only force that leads to complex structures.

Guess what, cat! All of those nerves have the same function! They don't each have their own. Nor are they countless.

Teeth arose out of necessity! Those creatures which needed to eat foods which were difficult to consume, and required chewing, would have certainly developed simple things such as callouses in their mouths from chewing, and eventually, over many generations, those callouses (which are predominantly calcium) would have eventually become simple enamel structures (which are also predominantly calcium), and over the millions of years that animals have had teeth, eventually turned into the teeth that we have now!

RANDOMNESS DOES NOT THINK, but this does not mean that things that arise out of randomness do not have a purpose!

The things that are suited to tasks survive (because the tasks can be done), and the things that are not suited to tasks do not survive (because the tasks do not get done)!

Why do you think that humans hiccup, cat? Hiccupping is the exact same mechanism that gills use to draw in oxygen! That is why, when you hiccup, you are pulling air into your lungs! But why do we not hiccup all the time, then? Because humans do not have gills! Gills were great for water organisms, but when organisms began the movement onto land, we needed something that could breathe air, so the gills that had exposure to the air gradually became more used to it, until they eventually turned into primitive lungs.

And yet, the lungs we have today were once gills -- that is why we hiccup -- because the gill behaviour is still latent inside our bodies.

Digestion is a simple process involving acid! You could pour acid over anything, and call that "digestion"!

That which doesn't get used after digestion has to go somewhere, cat, or else we'd all be fat! Duh.

The same reason that unused digested food goes somewhere else! It has to come from somewhere too. Input and output.

It was a necessity to eat large structures.

They came from those species before them!

YOUR RELIGIOUS DOGMA IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THIS PROBLEM OF LOGIC!

What does it matter if humans were created from other organisms, or if humans were created by God?

Those other organisms had to come from somewhere.

And God had to come from somewhere?

What's that you say, God just popped into existance one day, in all of his infinite perfection that is beyond that of even a human??

GUESS THE FUCK WHAT, CAT, YOU JUST RUINED YOUR ARGUMENT. What is the difference between "God just came into existance" and "A single-celled organism just came into existance"? God is far more complex and perfect than a single-celled organism! Believing that God just came from nowhere or has always existed, is even less plausible than believing that a protocell just came from nowhere or has always existed (which has already been pretty much proven, btw -- we have created protocells from what scientists believe was a simulation of a primitive Earth environment).

Tons upon tons.

And yet, those theories that haven't been successfully rebuttled, are still having books written about them today.

Do you think that if Darwin's Theory of Evolution made absolutely no sense, that people would still be proving the links today?

Edit: I don't see Allah, in all his infinite wisdom, disproving the rebuttals and contradictions that have been found in the Quran. Maybe that's because he doesn't exist? Or maybe he thinks his Holy Book is so outdated that it's not worth revising?

Absolutely.

In fact, I tend not to write such a response to Muslims, because they are generall thick-headed and don't listen to begin with.

I thought maybe you'd listen to reason, but perhaps I was wrong about that one too ...

 

Because that's an action. Actions cannot be fossilized.

New ones arise.

That's a hell of an assertion.

If albinism provided an advantage, such as protection from predators, or allowing it to find more food, it would. There are many arctic animals that are white. Polar bears, foxes, rabbits...If the world were to suddenly get cold and covered with snow all the time, that squirrel would go a long way towards making all squirreldom white. And eventually, yeah, all squirrels (unless they adopted new behavior) would be white. ​

​

Evolution is nothing like that. In the world, there is a constant influx of energy from the sun, the below-crust earth, and sometimes even meteors and stuff from space. It would be more like if you had a machine that put random paint markings on a canvas. But lets not forget that natural selection does away with the genomes that aren't up to par, so this machine makes random paint lines/spatters/whatever, but when it see something that looks bad, it covers it up with a new line/spatter/whatever, and the bad part is dropped from the painting (i.e. Gene pool). Eventually, given enough time, and enough random paint lines/spatters/whatever, the machine would produce what it(evolution) would consider the perfect painting, with nothing wrong with it...evolutionary ideal. But it would still keep going, making the painting better and better.

Sea anemones have no brains, but they eat and reproduce. Same with corals, sponges, and plenty of other animals. Bacteria can align with each other and exchange DNA, and they have no brains. How do they orchestrate that? Plants have no brains, yet they can change the shape of their growth to maximize sunlight. Flowers close at night, HIV has done a good job of reproducing. A brain is not needed, and often not used for organization. All that is needed is a simple function of what works and what doesn't, and I think it's safe to say that every living thing and many nonliving forces have that function.

Who's assuming the human was the first being besides you? The ENTIRE POINT of human evolution is that that's not the case. The fact is, the human wasn't the first being, and teeth have been used for eating for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe more. Each nerve isn't always linked the way it's supposed to be. That organism usually dies, or doesn't reproduce, and that doesn't happen again until another random circumstance. Does god just not love blind people? Nerves are linked to organs because that's what has worked best throughout earth's history.

Is there a link between digestive and urinary? The blood, I guess, but then everything is linked to everything, and how intelligent is that? It's not by chance. Evolution is not chance. Mutation is chance. If the mutation in that tiny organism all those millions of year ago resulted in an esophagus that went out the back of it's head, it would not pass on that gene, because it would not give an advantage, and probably would give a disadvantage. If a full esophagus never evolved, we would not be here, because large organisms require it for nutrition. ​

​

If anything, creationism is illustrated by that. C1 is humans, C2 is god, C3? C4? You can apply that to anything if you really stretch. C1 is I am here. C2 is I was down the road a mile. C3 is I was down the road two miles. CN is I was at school. Since I could not have BEGUN down the road, does that mean I'm not here? How did I begin that trip? It defies all logic. I must be back at school. Man, I wish I were here. Just because YOU don't understand the theories for how life started doesn't mean they are wrong. Give them more than just a reading. Go somewhere besides some highschool students science project website.
​

​

No they aren't. Even if they deal with a scientific subject matter, that doesn't make them scientific. You know how I know they aren't scientific proofs? THERE'S NO SUCH THING. Science doesn't prove things, math does. Measure doesn't equal prove. Science can measure. Science gives evidence. There is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for global warming. There is evidence for the law of universal gravitation.

No matter how many times you say it, a book cannot prove itself true. The validity of the book is in question whether or not "prophesies" and "miracles" occur. Let's say, just for example, that the koran predicted that in the year 2001, two 747's would crash into two large towers in NYC and the pentagon in Washington DC. That all happened. So yes, that part of the book was accurate. But the next sentence says and objects of large mass fall faster than objects of little mass in a vaccuum. That's just false. One sentence being true doesn't make the false sentence true, and that's just the way it is.
​

 

True. But progress from those actions can be fossilized.

By the way, I like the quote in your signature.

 

Hehe, thanks.

 

Ops! I forgot this thread where did I stop! However, mmm not in mood, Ok, quickly, few glances​

​

​

​

God is existed, Hell and paradise too, face it or accept it, know the truth before it is too late​

you can't prove ''There is no God''​

​

​

And all these books (ten thousands) have the same opinions /theories or different, some contradicts other theories, if so, what does this mean, today they prove something tomorrow they change their mind, Even so, let's imagine they proved whatever they think, it doesn't mean God isn't there, Nobody can prove ''there is no God'' ^^​

I'll be back someday =)​

Peace and love​

Yours Sincerely,​

​

Cat Stevens​

​

​

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' stylelosers' fate , ask yourself: will you write such a response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!​

 

I think it's funny how you make the opposite claim that I make, and say "face it" right after I did.

The only reason I even said that is to be just as dogmatic as you. Honestly, I could care less about proving a God -- I don't have to disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with.

Very few of those books discredit evolution, the those that do are generally founded on an "uncertainty" that comes with the idea that "evolution hasn't been proven." While this is true, that doesn't mean that 99% of the evidence suggests that evolution is correct.

Those books with differing theories or different accounts of what happened are trying to close that last 1% gap. For example, recently, there was an article about a new dinosaur that was discovered -- as large as the T-Rex, except it hunted in packs. Apparently, this is yet another one of those "missing links" that was found and connects a few pieces of the puzzle of evolution.

But yeah, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. But, there is also no evidence that God does exist, and there IS evidence that YOUR God (YHWH/ the Christo-Judean/Islamic God) doesn't exist, or at least that the Bible is not His word and that the accounts of what happened are at least recorded incorrectly.

 

You're wrong Hikaru. You have to see it for yourself. Anyway, I want you to know that until I saw evidence, I said the same thing.

 

you summed up your entire religious views in the statement that if you were correct in the existence of a God that you win everything and if you were wrong you lose everything. People believe in god as a retirement vehicle. You, or nobody else truly believes in a god. they all just say that they do just in case there is.

 

Let me clarify that -- no objective evidence. People say there is subjective evidence all the time, but subjective evidence can never be proven.

Objective evidence can be verified, and used as proof. Subjective can't. That is why there is no "proof" of God's existance.

 

Couldn't subjective evidence be indicative on objective evidence? Just like Darwin, when he went to the Gallapagos Islands. He saw species (objective evidence) and subjectively came to the conclusion that it was due to evolution. I could probably think of a better metaphor but I the point I'm trying to make is that if someone can come up with subjective evidence and have it relate to you, is that any lesser than objective evidence? I guess it would have to come down to experiencing the same mind changing event for it to have any effect.

 

rational choice? so i should abandon my beliefs in favor of one that is safer to go along with just because theres a chance god will smite my ass if i dont believe in him. im sorry but this is a load of crap to me

 

btw the idea of god isnt one that ive pushed out of my mind or anything its just that the reasoning given here to believe in god is ridiculous

 

I think god is probably the most misunderstood concept in the history of man. Most people won't believe in god if there's all this fire and brimstone, heaven and hell stuff attatched to it, and rightly so imo.. but that doesn't mean "god" doesn't exist, just that we've incorrectly defined it. When people say "god is all", I think that's the statement that is closest to the truth. God = life, and life = all. Yeah... a pen's not alive but neither are the atoms and quarks that you're made of, right?

I think the reason people believe in gods, attach themselves to religions etc, even if it is "outdated" , is that science (the answer, apparently) has no explaination for LIFE... and it won't ever find one if its roots are based in logic and math. Science is a way of using two or more abstract concepts to prove another. In other words, speed and distance and time.... energy and the velocity of light.. beginning and end... chicken and egg... these are human concepts which all only exist in relation to each other. God only exists in relation to everything, and we don't even have an answer for where or why life and consciousness came to be, therefore it's obvious that science CAN'T answer these questions. To dismiss the possibility of god simply because there's no scientific explaination is imo very wrong. The first step to 'understanding god' is to realise that any something can also be *something else*.

 

The short answer? No.

The long answer? Subjective evidence is called that because only some people are capable of having this sort of "evidence." Subjective evidence includes things that one must experience, such as a sensation of a deity existing, or an experience of talking with such a deity.

However, modern science has shown that such subjective experiences are common and possible with various psychoactive substances, and modern science has also shown that even the air we breathe (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide) is highly psychoactive, and such experiences are not only possible, but somewhat common, in a "normal" frame of mind.

Because these experiences can be often explained by science (or by an accusation such as lying), and because there is no way to verify the validity of such an experience, it's subjective evidence, and can't be considered universal (as only universal evidence can prove a universal truth such as God).

There is no subjectiveness involved. He made an observation, which is something that can be verified and performed again. It was all objective evidence.

It would have to relate to everyone past, present, and future, and be both confirmable and testable, to be objective evidence.

That's exactly right. Because not every single person has the same experiences, it can't be considered "universally true".

Especially when that deity is responsible for countless murders, slaughters, crusades, for rousing his followers to take up sword and spear to all who oppose his doctrine, etc.

That's an absurd statement to make.

Life is both subjective and objective. The more we understand about it, the more of it we can consider objective.

Centuries ago we didn't know much about life. Now we know how life is created, and we have a pretty solid idea of how life came to be.

Haven't you ever heard of the theory of evolution? That's a pretty good explaination for life ... observable and testable.

Now this is just obviously wrong. Science does not use abstract concepts anymore than math does. A fairly large part of science relies on observation, description, and interaction between physical parts of the world -- in fact, the scientific method is based off of this.

The only "abstract concepts" that get involved is when you are dealing with things that are abstract to the human mind -- things like supernovae and black holes, things like quarks and electrons and gravity.

But science isn't just about these abstract things. Observation -- using non-abstract concepts -- is the reason why we know that gravity exists. It's the reason we know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, etc.

Just because you can't pole-vault over a cliff the first few times you try, doesn't mean that you will never be able to.

Similarly, just because science can't answer every single question that Mankind has, doesn't mean that it will never have that capacity.

In the past, science wasn't able to explain the stars. It couldn't explain why we got sick. Or hungry. Or sleepy. Science was very premature back then -- maybe 2 or 3 years old. Can you expect a 3 year old to jump across a cliff? Of course not.

Yet science is only now beginning to mature, with the invention of computers, a worldwide information network, etc. Maybe science still cannot jump that cliff. But give it more time, and I'm sure it will eventually figure out how to pole-vault across.