Do you believe in religion?

[Dawido]

Do you actually thinks that God is real?
I'm not sure actually, because we don't know if these religion stories about ♥♥♥♥♥, Buddha or Jahwe are real or maybe they are just some imaginate stories made by people to explain why they were made.
There are many religions in the world, and we didn't actually get a prof that there is some power who made all of existence, watching us in the heaven.
I'm just pretty confused , and kinda scared that there is nothing after dead.
We should believe or maybe not?

[Tsubame ⭐]

Different question but similar answer: get a number of people from different religions. Can each prove or provide a reasonable argument that their beliefs exist while the beliefs of another religion do not? And that does not even include well known or past religions - i.e. paganism, Roman or Greek mythology.

Religion is just a powerful tool that was used to explain things that people could not figure out before. Eventually, it was used to control people, to great effect.

If you find someone nowadays that claim they are the son or daughter of God, what do you personally think they are?

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Cool, then demonstrate your evidencee of why UI'm wrong and why Matt Dillahunty in that cvideo is wrong and why dictionaries and philsophy is wrong.

I just told you to consult any dictionary, you don't get to turn that around. Go ahead, look up the word. Paste your supporting definition and link below.

I already gave you ample evidence. The video and the gumball analogy.

The default position in this claim is the LACK of belief.

The theist claims there is some god. The response of I don't belive YOUR claim is saying YOU ARE NOT taking the opposing position. You are maknig NO claim. You just don't believe theirs.

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ⭐ Tsubame:

Different question but similar answer: get a number of people from different religions. Can each prove or provide a reasonable argument that their beliefs exist while the beliefs of another religion do not? And that does not even include well known or past religions - i.e. paganism, Roman or Greek mythology.

Religion is just a powerful tool that was used to explain things that people could not figure out before. Eventually, it was used to control people, to great effect.

If you find someone nowadays that claim they are the son or daughter of God, what do you personally think they are?

That's the old maxim.

ANot all religion can possibly be true (as many are contradicting).

But they CAN all be wrong.

[Vinz Clortho]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Liu Roll:

That's fair enough, but then you are comparing God to an anthropomorphic talking unicorn, we all know that's made up and likely not in your closet. Someone who believes in God might say that it has two thousand years history of other people who believed the same thing and over 1 billion people today who believe the same thing also. You can't really say there isn't some precedent for belief in a God rather than a unicorn in the closet.

1. Age doesn't make a fictional story true.

2. The Hebrew and Greek Bibles are A LOT different than their English forms. Especially in Hebrew, many of the words have meanings that are not at all carried over to the English, and indeed often perverted by English translation to mean something it doesn't. i.e. Nesphesh>Soul

3. I do indeed find belief in the divine as outrageous as claiming I have a unicorn in my closet. What all Gods claim to be goes against everything we can demonstrate as true. The 'Recession of God' is evidence of this: God causes sickness, no that's germs. God causes lightning, no that's electric charge. God raises The Sun, no the Earth goes round. The more knowledge we gain, the more God recedes.

Well I'm not saying that the age itself matters, I just said 2000 years of history. That includes all the books, buildings, martyrs etc throughout history who were motivated to do those things because of a belief in a god. There aren't any demonstrations of such devotion to a unicorn in the closet. That was just my point, that you can't compare the two.

I agree with you about the Bibles. From the little I know, a lot has been lost in translation. I'm not a believer myself

You are basically using the flying spaghetti monster argument but saying it's in the closet. I get that and I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that I don't think someone who believes in God is as ignorant as someone who believes you when you tell them there's a unicorn in the closet. It's not a fair comparison.

[KalGimpa]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ⭐ Tsubame:

Different question but similar answer: get a number of people from different religions. Can each prove or provide a reasonable argument that their beliefs exist while the beliefs of another religion do not? And that does not even include well known or past religions - i.e. paganism, Roman or Greek mythology.

Religion is just a powerful tool that was used to explain things that people could not figure out before. Eventually, it was used to control people, to great effect.

If you find someone nowadays that claim they are the son or daughter of God, what do you personally think they are?

hell, get 10 people from the same flippin religion in the same room and you will still get 10 different answers to what it all means.

i told my friends mom that when all of the christian faiths can get together and decide what the bible means, then you can come to me and try and convince me it is all real.

i won't believe it, but at leas they will all have one common belief

[Fajita Jim]

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

I just told you to consult any dictionary, you don't get to turn that around. Go ahead, look up the word. Paste your supporting definition and link below.

I already gave you ample evidence. The video and the gumball analogy.

The default position in this claim is the LACK of belief.

The theist claims there is some god. The response of I don't belive YOUR claim is saying YOU ARE NOT taking the opposing position. You are maknig NO claim. You just don't believe theirs.

Atheists believe there is no God because a divine being would be illogical. That is a claim. We refute the supernatural and declare physical reality as the only truth.

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

I already gave you ample evidence. The video and the gumball analogy.

The default position in this claim is the LACK of belief.

The theist claims there is some god. The response of I don't belive YOUR claim is saying YOU ARE NOT taking the opposing position. You are maknig NO claim. You just don't believe theirs.

Atheists believe there is no God because a divine being would be illogical. That is a claim. We refute the supernatural and declare physical reality as the only truth.

That IS a claim and if it's made then it DOES have a burden of proof.

But it NOT the default postion as I demonstrated.

Again, I've provided evidence to prove this.

So what do you have to show that the default position is the CONTRARY Position?

[Adversary]

I'm irreligious, but that doesn't mean I deny the gods. If anything, I'm that one kind of nutcase who can view things through both science and spirituality. I just so happen to see organized religion unhelpful for those who seek truth.

Probably doesn't help that both history and current events keep proving me right about all manner of collectivism being carcinogenic, regardless of whether it's got a religious bent to it or not. That sort of top-down authoritarian shtick should stay the ♥♥♥♥ back in the Dark Ages, regardless of whether it's the monarchy, the ecclesiarchy, or the unions guilds who unwittingly do the bidding of both.

[Fajita Jim]

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

Atheists believe there is no God because a divine being would be illogical. That is a claim. We refute the supernatural and declare physical reality as the only truth.

That IS a claim and if it's made then it DOES have a burden of proof.

But it NOT the default postion as I demonstrated.

Again, I've provided evidence to prove this.

So what do you have to show that the default position is the CONTRARY Position?

The default position is the one that acquires the least assumptions (Occam's Razor).

How many assumptions must be made to assume a divine being is true? You need make no assumptions to believe the opposite.

[sotaponi]

It's this type of thread again. I'll just copy & paste:

In face of this universe displaying such cosmic order (e.g. Heraclitus' Logos), with it even "choosing" a systematic molecular-genetic structure which allows for DNA, neuronal clusters, and then lucid perception...

It's akin to a ring-structure forming, allowing for a lucid gemstone to be place-able into a socket (the brain) a relative billions of years later. The framework of which is seemingly "laid out" before the construction of the ring even begins.

The odds are literally 0% for any of this to exist in the way it does. Unless you want to argue along the lines of "there are infinite multiverses and chaos simply created this one by chance." In which case... This simply invokes a form of Goedel's Proof of God. And the old Greek already believed for Goodness to have come from Chaos:

• it's a property of dimensions to coincide illusionary relative perspective (think of houses shrinking in distant space or aging slower in dilated time)
  
• this universe has at least 4 dimensions in form of space and time (or 5 dimensions if you consider uncertain waveforms a relative dimensional illusion; unless you consider them the first or second dimension)
  
• a Godlike intellect would be defined as 6-dimensional (it can measure and/or create this then symmetric spacetime, resulting in dimensionally relative black hole + white hole pairs, or some other illusionary 6-dimensional gravitational logic, making it a thing than which greater we cannot conceive)
  
• if chaos created 5 dimensions, then categorically, it can create dimensions
  
• it is therefore possible for chaos to also create 6 dimensions
  
• if chaos creates an infinite number of worlds (as per multiverse theory), it will eventually create a 6-dimensional world (black holes and the conservation of energy might be a subjective illusion by categorical necessity)
  
• necessarily, if there are infinite universes, a 6-dimensional intellect exists
  
• a 6-dimensional world would contain all 5-dimensional universes
  
• if such an intellect exists, the principle of sufficient reason makes it plausible to assume that only sensical universes exist (multiverse theory is wrong and the concept of "fine-tuning vs its absence" is a strawman dichotomy to begin with)

And we can imagine this, too. We can imagine this universe being both a black hole and a white hole, for example, especially in face of the omnipresence of dark energy. Whereas death, dualistically, splits body and mind, from a relative dimensional perspective, as we gain an illusionary (relative) view on our own body. Hence why such logic can exist. And multiverse type of chaos can thus create it, when judged from our point of reasoning. Unless you want to cherry-pick extremely specific logic only to suit your dogmatic agenda.

At which point there's only the counter-argument of "there is only this universe and it has always existed." Which is an argument from ignorance -- a logical fallacy. And it's also extremely improbable, as displayed with the ring analogy earlier. Aside of it being very reminiscent of beliefs such as heliocentrism.

Believing yourself to be the greatest intelligence is just the human ego tbh. It's egocentrism. Personally, I would rather accept my current place in the dimensionally evolving order of the cosmos. And look at what actual science may or may not find out in the future. Especially in regards to phenomena such as gravity, dark energy, black holes, near-death experiences, remote viewing, consciousness itself, etc. (With "actual science" not referencing the corruptly propped up characters of today's MSM, of course.)

The plausibility of deism, at least, is an easy case to make. And of course the fact that we understand the illusions of dimensional perspective (it's why General Relativity exists) implies certain ethics contra purely animalistic behaviour.

[Thermal Lance]

God might exist in some form or another… maybe. But, religion is a fraud.

[Vinz Clortho]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fajita Jim:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

That IS a claim and if it's made then it DOES have a burden of proof.

But it NOT the default postion as I demonstrated.

Again, I've provided evidence to prove this.

So what do you have to show that the default position is the CONTRARY Position?

The default position is the one that acquires the least assumptions (Occam's Razor).

How many assumptions must be made to assume a divine being is true? You need make no assumptions to believe the opposite.

Well you would need to make some.
You would have to assume that every human being in history who believed in a divine being was wrong.
You would need to assume that ultimately science will answer every question we have (because otherwise the answer could always be a god)
You would need to assume that there is no knowledge unknowable to us (because otherwise a god could exist but just in a place we can never perceive it).

[Fajita Jim]

Diposting pertama kali oleh sotaponi:

It's this type of thread again. I'll just copy & paste:

In face of this universe displaying such cosmic order (e.g. Heraclitus' Logos), with it even "choosing" a systematic molecular-genetic structure which allows for DNA, neuronal clusters, and then lucid perception...

I'll just leave this here:

https://scitechdaily.com/new-insight-into-possible-origins-of-life-for-the-first-time-researchers-create-an-rna-molecule-that-replicates/?utm_source=DamnInteresting

...and lo and behold those little chains of RNA start evolving immediately.

[TwisterCat]

I do, Christianity would be the one, but I don't have much to say on the matter, not here at least. There will always be people trying prove or disprove things, and maybe they'll make progress. Me, though? I'll just eat my oranges and play more poker.

[trompa]

I belive in God, but not in any kind of religion!