If you don't believe in God..

you lost.

sorry.

if you believe that everything has to be explained by a logical theory, you're lost. it ain't like that.

 

Tell us what it's like little man.

 

i cant, i can only hope you one day figure it out for yourself.

 

Which drug are we supposed to take to figure "that which cannot be explained by logical theory", is it the drug called Christianity, Islam, or any of the other generic drugs, masquerading under the guise of "religion"?

 

whats funny is that if you cant explain it logically, then its you who is lost.

 

for you to say that current logic and rationale determines one thing or another, is kind of stupid.. particularly because science changes constantly and this is a more scientific question than a lot of others

its dumb to rely on whats current as the final word because its going to change MANY TIMES before we all die off, which wont be as soon as all the fatalists think. we thought the world was flat, we thought atoms were the smallest unit of composition, we constantly think terribly wrong shit. its arrogant and misguided to assume what we know now as the final word

that at least leaves for the possibility of the existence of something else, i mean it's dumb to deny the possibilty of damn near anything science related. no, that doesnt mean im saying if you put a water bottle in the freezer it wont freeze

i never said to throw away logic and rationale because it's quite useful on a daily basis..

then, at least for ME, this is what makes ME believe in god, given numerous cases of anecdotal evidence, albeit invalid statistically, these are people that are trustworthy telling me stories about this that and the other, which i wont get into, but which certainly seems to lead to something way beyond luck or a certain set of circumstances

 

religion fought hard against every new knowledge
we thought the earth was flat, the 1st to say no its rounfd was put to death, the 1st to say were not the center of the universe..also death, we learn more and more constsntly about the nature of life and the universe, and religion was always right there denying every fact
and feeeding us impossible to believe stories instead

logicly, do burning bushes talk?
logicly is there enough water on earth to covedr the highest mountains?

you say u cant trust scinetific evidence because it channges with new discoveries, but youd trust stories told by fools who refuse to believe whats right before theyre eyes?


lets examine christianity, and the adam and eve story
suposedly that was 4000 years ago right?
a lil simple math would show u that to reach the billions of peoplke wer have on earth today that every generation between adam and eve would have had to have hundreds or more children

 

You expect me to believe, some guy hopped off a cloud, made earth, planted some trees and made life? Just like you stated about the earth being flat, the bible has MANY MANY faults.

Yeah anyone can tell a story, but do you have any evidence? NO.
Does science have evidence? Hell yeah it does.

You're in the wrong section my man, head out. You came here asking for trouble.


Genesis 1:26.. "Then God said, "Let us make a man- someone like ourselves, to be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas.""
::I have a problem with when it says "let US make a man, someone like OURSELVES..." which indicates that there is more than one god. This happens again in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22.. "Then the lord said "Now that the man has become as we are, knowing good from bad, what if he eats the fruit of the tree of life and lives forever?""
::Again i have a problem with "...become as WE are...". Another problem i have is that god is supposed to be all knowing and such, yet he seems to be quite ignorant to what is going on. He should have known that the tree was going to be eaten from, and he shouldnt have had to ask Adam why he was hiding.

Genesis 4:14-15.. "For you have banished me from my farm and from you, and made me a fugitive and a tramp; and everyone who sees me will try to kill me. The lord replied "They wont kill you, for i will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does." Then the lord put an identifying mark on cain as a warning not to kill him""
:: My problem with this text lies in the part that says "...fugitive and a tramp; and EVERYONE that sees me will try to kill me" The lord replied "THEY wont kill you, for i will give seven times your punishment to ANYONE who does." Then the lord..." supposedly adam and eve were the first people on earth, and gave birth to cain and abel. Cain kills abel, and fears that EVERYONE else will kill him, and god says that NO ONE ELSE will kill him... there shouldnt be anyone else to kill him, as they are the only people on the earth at this time.

My last problem thusfar does not lie within the text, but the whole bible up to this point seems to be very gender biased. Women are treated as the possession of a man. it is always the mans wife or wives... Animals were not suitable to help adam, so a woman was created to serve adam. This concept is not very godlike if you ask me...

Feel free to argue any of the points i have made, or correct me on anything i may have made a mistake on. I would almost like to see this topic used as a psuedo-debate... i would love to hear others thoughts and feelings, and different takes and views on the problems i have found.

 

why are you guys feeding the troll?

 

I have never believed in god; the prospect of an all powerful being creating everything is just bogus. All the rules that state that you will perish in the flames of hell if you do this and this, just doesn't sound right. It sounds more like someone wanted to scare people into leading the perfect life and people over the centuries have questioned this theory.

You cannot tell someone that they are wrong or "lost" just because they don't neseccarily believe in the same thing as you. You have no buisness being here if you're going to be closed minded and not see things from all perspectives.

 

That's for sure! Quantum mechanics, relativity, Big Bang, quarks, black holes, dark matter & energy, curved space, Superstring-
-logic doesn't exactly cover it. Oppenheimer's definition of science as "uncommon sense" is an understatement! But we got transistors, lasers, & A-bombs out of the deal, so it's good for something--right?

 

this is all good and fun when standing around in groups of logical thinkers who snicker and smile behind there breath 'hah but we have logic and therefore we all know'

But the resounding truth of the matter is, that only works in circles who have subjectively agreed to the validity of logic and you have absolutely no evidence that logic is the ideal way to utilize the human brain. Aw yes, I see it made the computers we type on, the cars we drive. But if thats all you see, I would vouche you need to take a step back. Logic and rationality, a wonderful tool for making fancy toys? Yes. But the holy grail of how to operate the human brain? Hah. Don't be delusional.

Your notion of logic, or rationality, is nothing more than a Dogma in itself, no different than even Scientology.

"In order to be correct and fit in with society I must use my brain in this way because thats how they all use their brain"

Me personally, I have seen pure irrationality aid a humans survival and happiness just as much, arguably more so, than I have seen pure rationality do the same.

 

Well, I haven't seen that, but I have seen a lot of dingbats stumbling through life with their heads cluttered up with irrational claptrap, leaving a mess for others to clean up. If you reject logic entirely, why do you waste your time (and ours) on a discussion site that presupposes a degree of rational thought?

 

reject logic entirely? oh no definantely not. Every function of the brain is good to use.

 

I don't know exactly what that means, but I can see problems posting "If you don't believe in God, you lose" as a topic on an atheist/agnostic forum. I guess it's better than a topic on gardening or interior decorating, and at least he didn't say "Sinners, repent or you're going to hell." Also, I suppose it will soon turn into "If you don't believe in God, you win." Ozone also gave us the "God doesn't believe in atheists" topic, which eventually turned into a decent discussion. But there must be something wrong with it. Otherwise, what do these forum designations mean? As a Christian, I come to this site a lot, but feel some constraint to respect the purpose of the forum.

 

what I mean is that the OP is so overly ridiculous that he doesn't deserve to be recognized.

He obviously just wants to stir things up, let everyone make their rounds, present the same old arguments, and then everyone walks away thinking the same exact thing that they thought before this thread (that they are 100% right)

I can see if maybe he had presented some kind of material. but, alas, he is just a troll.


BTW

Im a theist, and I was raised christian, but you are a brave man to give yourself that label in this day and age my friend. our religion has been led astray.

 

The problem in using logic and rationale to reason is that it is subjective.. two people can disagree whether something is rational or not.

What rationale and logic do is show that God cannot exist and that humans birth is not work of creationism.

People use intuition and emotion to rationalize, and the problem is that some peoples intuition is brainwashed by religion.

 

Two people can disagree about whether 2+2=4, too, but one is right and the other is wrong. Deductive logic and math,which is the same thing, lead to precise answers by processes that are not in the least subjective. Obviously people can make mistakes in their calculations, but that's because they've done it wrong and their errors can be pointed out and corrected. Rationalization and intuition, on the other hand, are subjective. The former is pseudo-logic and the latter is based on judgment and experience which vary from one person to another. People can be "brainwashed" by religion, irreligion, or just plain wishful thinking. Logic doesn't "show or not show that God cannot exist and that human birth is not work of creationism." Logic can enter into a reasoning process, along with evidence and intuition, by which people can try to convince themselves and each other that those inferences are warranted on the basis of logic, evidence and intuition. It's the evidence and intuition that are the weak links in the chain, and the fact that, as you say, emotions and biases color the process.

 

Wait, wait.. I thought inductive reasoning deals with facts, and deductive reasoning deals with general principles

 

Inductive reasoning deals with making inferences from observed facts. The validity of the inference depends on the number and representativeness of the facts observed. e.g., if no known pigs have wings, we can infer that no pigs have wings. But induction is a looser process than deduction, because there is always a possibility that a winged pig will turn up. Deductive reasoning deals with deriving valid conclusions from general premises. If the premises are correct, the conclusion is certain to be true. No pigs have wings. No creatures without wings can fly. Therefore, pigs can't fly. The big "if" about the premises is the weak link there. Ordinarily, the premises are supplied by induction.