Does God Exist?

[Stigmata66]

God is an attention whore. Abraham had a son he loved very much and God couldn't stand that Abe wasn't on his knees praying for mercy every hour on the hour; that is greed. Abraham, the little sheep that he was, was going to kill his son because God told him to. I think we need to draw the line here alittle bit, loved ones then God but no God must have it all. In a way God asked Abe a trick question, break my 10 commandments to appease or don't do it and face my wrath. That's something some asshole dictator would make you do. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, if thats how God works then I'm with Satan. Good thing neither of them are real.

[theophysics]

Ok, for all of you that are stating that God is jealous of Abraham's son Isaac:

You obviously haven't read the Old Testament lately, because if you had, you would have read that God was testing Abraham to see how strong he was in his faith and how much he loved him. God had amazing plans for the line of Abraham and his descendants. It was never God's intention for little Isaac to be killed. In Genesis 22:13- it clearly states that there was a ram caught in a thicket by his horns that was used for the offering. GOD did this.
God is not responsible for our own sinning and hipocrisy. He created the universe perfect... It was not his fault that Adam and Eve sinned against him, and now we all sin. He gave us free will.
To those of you that are trying to say that God is somehow bound by laws, HE, the CREATOR, is not bound by anything, for who would He answer to? God is PERFECT, LOVING, and does not sin because it would go against the perfect and divine nature that He has given to himself.
For all of you that are too scared of God to spell His name out correctly, I will be keeping you in my thoughts and prayers. "I would much rather believe in God and be wrong than to deny His existence and be wrong."
Chew on that a little bit.
Lastly, for those of you that are attacking the 10 COMMANDMENTS, think about why you are doing so... They don't HURT anyone at all. It would make life so much easier if we would abide by God's laws. We would receive so many more blessings in life if we would just take the time to follow Him. What is so bad about taking a day to rest? We all need that. God stuck that in for us, not just for His worship. Also, anyone that knows ANYTHING about Christianity would also know that Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with "idol-worshipping." We are not supposed to pray to graven images. We are just supposed to have faith.
Seriously, what is so bad about believing that someone is so deeply in love with us that He sent His very own Son, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to die for us? He died for the things that we sin about everyday. He died because all of you people wanted to talk blasphemous about Him and His Father. So, all of you need to realize that we are not alone, that someone is in love with you, and that you should be thankful for everything that GOD has done for you today and in the days to come.

[Pooeypants]

I'm content with my life without having to believe in an invisible sky fairy, so thanks for the offer but I'll pass, I've gone out of having imaginary friends.

[m5lange1]

In my opinion just seeing how everything works together to make up our ecology, our bodily functiions and the durability of such seeming fragile life makes me believe in God.

Is the invisible guy in the sky a sretch? Yea a bit but for me it is less of a stretch than the random theories.

I believe in evolution but I believe the evolution was begun and planed by an intelligence so far beyond our own that it is a god whether it actually fits our image of God or not.

I am non-denominational, and I know to some that means athiest, but I do not consider myself so.

To me religious beliefs are very private and personal. By that I do not mean secret, I just mean no one elses business if I choose to follow my own path. I respect anyones right to believe what they will. I do object to overt behaviors that affect me whether they are religious in nature or not
(so if someone tries to slaughter a goat in my back yard while I am doing a Bar.B.Q we will have some words)
but I still respect everyone's right to belive what they will.

When you KNOW something that is you have solid evidence of it as fact.

When you BELIEVE something you think it is true without factual evidence.

By its very nature I see religion as somewhat individualized.

These are my beliefs. May you find spiritual joy in your religion or lack thereof.

[libertyminded]

The logical problem I see in this thing of God rests with something many previous posters have touched on and I will try to describe more clearly.
That being the burden of proof.

If you are able to put aside your bias and start with a clean slate, saying 'God may exist and God also may not exist' and start from there I think that everyone with even the most simplistic critical thinking abilities would have to come to a conclusion that there is not enough evidence to make definite conclusion either way.

Personally I'm am athiest just because I'm the type that must have incontrivirtable proof that something's existence in order to submit to it, which is not availible in regard to God.

A question I have for Christians is whether you know the genesis of the Bible (which is afterall, the thing upon which you base your beliefs)?
The Bible that modern Protestants use comes from the Councel of Nicea after the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. The Councel (a bunch of Roman Catholic high priests), at the time wasn't finnished deciding what God wanted to tell everyone. However, Constantine was quite enamored with his new found faith and insisted upon having a book to read and govern by. When the Emperor asks for something, you defy him at your own peril, so the Councel cannonized a version of the book against their better judgement and that's where we get the current version of the Bible from which the King James Version was created. The version the Catholic Church uses has more books and longer ones of others included in the Protestant Bible. On top of all that, the Pope ordered John Wycliff (the man that translated the latin Bible into English so the common man could read it) assasinated, for diseminating the holy word of God into the language of the common man. The Church also put Galileo under house arrest for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite. Of course the Church reviewd the evidence he had for his calim and quickly changed the Bible because they saw that they couldn't contradict the claim once knowledge became widespread. That's how subjective the Bible is.

So do any of you Christians see how subjective and sordid the history of your beloved text is?

How can you adhere to such imposible stories like Noah and the Arc. Did Noah load 20,000 species of beatle onto the Arc. Did he have climate control abilities to sustain the polar bears and penguins as well as the bengal tigers and camels? Did he drop off several unique species (Kangaroos, Koalas, Platypusses) in Australia. Of course not. The story of Noah is a just a re-do of the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' an ancient Babylonian legend.

While the Bible may contain a moral and ethical code that will foster a sustainable society, that doesn't make it the word of the all powerfull creator of the universe.

How can Christians claim that their religion is any more valid than Judaism, Islam or Hindu? All of these religions have their own texts excluding Christianity from truth and proclaiming their's the sole word of the all powerfull creator/s of the universe. All of these religions can provide you with incontrivertable proof that it is imperative that you subscribe to their ideology or you will be subjected to eternal damnation (usually including some sort of torture even though you have supposedly been separated from your phisical body). I work with an Indian woman from Maylasia that is an agnostic but was personal wittness to a yearly Hindu gathering where they visably pierced their skin and then removed the piercing implement (usually huge metal hooks) and have NO WOUNDS!!! She was standing off to the side looking at this spectacle and thinking silently to her self that "this is a bunch of bullshit" and one of the people piercing themselves spun around and started screaming abuse at her in "tounges". So should I become a Hindu given this impressive display of supernaturality?

After all this is considered I can't come to any other conclusion other than this: all religion is simply the concoction of powerfull men seeking to control of the less powerfull, and I can't see how anyone could come to any conclusion other than this.

Specifically to Mrs Einstien.
I found one part of your last post to be particullarly telling

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
MrsEinstien For all of you that are too scared of God to spell His name out correctly, I will be keeping you in my thoughts and prayers. "I would much rather believe in God and be wrong than to deny His existence and be wrong."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The "fire insurance" approach to religion is to me more disgusting than any other argument. Even if you were just believing in "God" to hedge your bets "just in case" that nonsense turns out to be actuallity after you die, Christianity prohibits this sort of thing anyway. According to every Christian standpoint I've ever encountered (and I was raised in a Christian sect) believing in God "just in case" will get you sent to hell just as quick as being a heathen will.

Get out of this one you 'mental crutch' using dipwads.

[theophysics]

TO LIBERTYMINDED:

I think you are rather close-minded in your approach to Christians and what they believe. All Christians do not agree upon the same things as stated in the Bible or even things that occur in churches. I see that you did a little research on the origin of the Bible, but even in that, you are lacking the full understanding and the bigger picture that your explanation tends to allude to. THE BIBLE was a human product, divinely inspired, yet also only written by humans. Since we humans are prone to make mistakes and to complete things with error, of course the Bible will have some things wrong with it. I see that point. But being a Christian helps me to understand that even though the Bible is not inerrant, our God is! He is not a human product. We did not get to mess Him up, as we have obviously messed up this beautiful world that He created for us (due to our free will).
Secondly, I don't believe in the whole "fire insurance" as being a way to convert others to Christ. When I got saved, I did not do it just to get out of going to hell and eternal damnation and spiritual torture. I got saved because I loved God, and wanted His touch and spirit in my life. I was not stating earlier that people should get saved for that reason. My logic is that since I am saved, I am a lot happier that I get to go to Heaven someday... I believe in Heaven and Hell. It is not a decision for me to have to make whether or not I am going to Heaven or Hell. Since I follow God, I get to spend an eternity with Him.
Thirdly, I do not see the use in name-calling... That is very immature... "you 'mental crutch' using dipwads"
Yeah, you really accomplished something with that. Very funny.
Lastly, you raised the points about Noah and the arc and other stories... It does not matter to me whether they are fully accurate or not. I just am sooo thankful to God that we are still here. Who says that God was finished creating animals and other things before the flood? That is something that no one really knows about. God could have just as easily have created more animals after the flood... Either way, having them on the arc was all managed by God. He made sure that everything would go smoothly.
You still haven't answered the question I asked earlier...
Why is it so horrible to believe in God?
What does it hurt?
The answer, my brother, is that true Christianity hurts no one. God is perfect and you are not. He has better plans than you do. Get off your prideful attitude, and realize that someone is over you and is the true creator of the universe. He needs no evidence for He is God! Science can not prove God completely, because science is even below Him. We are thinking with closed minds and only on a humanistic level here. "Burden of Proof"---"Bull". Get off that. YOU and no other scientist can ever be as wise as GOD! Sorry, no offense to those of you that think that you have to have a scientific explanation for everything... We can't even decide on a good cure for AIDS, let alone the power of Almighty God. So I am just suggesting that maybe you should think a little more with your hearts and not your stubbornness and rather small intelligence levels. Oh yeah, you still haven't proven to your case to me yet. God exists!

Folks,

I've not read any of today's posts, yet. I was thinking at work, tonight, how to put our disagreement as fundamentally and consicely as I can.

As I see it, the title of this thread is somewhat misleading in relation to thought.
It's not just does Gawd exist. Depending on the religion, it's also does angels, the
devil, demons, witchs, holy ghosts, miracles, heaven, hell, and a bunch of others stuff exist?

Belivers in the above proudly!! admit that that their believe is based on *FAITH*
(my dictionary - belief which is not based on proof).

At its most fundamental level, our disagreement is not about whether or not Gawd exists, but about whether faith is a means to knowledge.

It's an epistomological disagreement, at base. Can *faith* generate knowledge or not. That is **the** question!!

At its most fundamental level, theism claims faith can and does generate knowledge. Atheists (meaning without theism) claim that faith cannot and does not generate knowledge.

Agnostics claim they ain't got a clue in relation to the fight over faith as a means to knowledge, while pretending to be the most openminded of the bunch, clueless as they are.

Now, I and my fellow atheists often take an unfortunate shortcut, and claim Gawd does not exist. Well, that's understandable, given the self-contradictory definitions of he, she or she-it!! we've been given.

But the damned fact is, what atheists are really saying, in relation to Gawd, is there is no evidence - no proof.

I'll tell you this, as an atheist, if I were confronted with evidence and proof, I'd be a believer - BUT I WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING BASED ON THE CLAMS OF *FAITH*!! I figure that applies to all atheists, unless they have
"faith" in atheism, when "faith" is exactly what they oppose.

Gimmie evidence, argument and proof and I will follow you anywhere, as an atheist. But if you tell me I gotta believe, based on *FAITH*, or I will go to hell, well: ROTFLMAO!!! I AIN'T SCARED IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!

So, to summarize, this is an argument about faith as a valid means to knowledge. Whether or not Gawd exists is a secondary question. I hope I've explained why I despise agnostics the most of all, in this dispute?

Why anyone would belive anything for which there is no evidence and no proof is totally beyond this atheist's mind. I FULLY REJECT FAITH AS A VALID MEANS TO KNOWLEDGE!! AND IN THE ARGUMENT, AGNOSTICS PISS ME OFF THE MOST!!

I have faith in little, green, horny females from outer-space. Prove otherwise!

libertarian larry

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1,)
In my opinion just seeing how everything works together to make up our ecology, our bodily functiions and the durability of such seeming fragile life makes me believe in God.

Is the invisible guy in the sky a sretch? Yea a bit but for me it is less of a stretch than the random theories.

I believe in evolution but I believe the evolution was begun and planed by an intelligence so far beyond our own that it is a god whether it actually fits our image of God or not.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I'm studying biochemistry, granted I'm at first year Uni, but so far I've not scene anything that requires me to believe in an imaginary friend. I would've thought our society would've grown out of such outdated beliefs by now, but apparently, we're more stupid than that.

wow... fun. So MRSEinstein you openly admit that the members of the orginization you associate with do not agree on what GOD (love saying that, reminds me of when I used to make believe as a kid) wants or is telling or asking you to do. Also, you say that the doctrine on which you base your beliefs is riddled with errors(ohh, a good place to look for awnsers. the cheat sheet from the retardo in the back of the class). I would like to thank you for providing us less forturnate people with the "BIG PICTURE"(if you left anything out of that picture i'd love for you to fill in the gaps. it's too easy to put holes in as is). I appriciate your sincere (and i do believe it is) conversion to christianty because of youe love of GOD (ohh, still gives me the giggles) and his of you, but many of your fellow sheep (going with the "god is our shepard" thing because I wouldn't want to resort to name calling or the like) do believe in the "fire insurance" and tell others they must convert or they will get the eternal lake of fire bit. but alas, I'm getting off the point, I'm talking about you and not your kin. That was almost a good trick saying that you don't mind if the stories like noah's weren't "fully accurate" as you put it, but that not true at all. IT NEVER HAPPENED. It's unlikly he ever lived. Myself and the rest of the more enlightened populace of the world would be ever so grateful if you would stop saying old legends and myths such as those occured (it is a request i doubt you will grant, but it's worth a try).Ohh, almost forgot, the bible says GOD (never fails to amuse me) stopped making animals before he created man, and if that don't get ya. He rested on the seventh day (i don't see how someone, omnipotent or not could be creating and resting at the same time). As to your question.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
MRSEinstein Why is it so horrible to believe in God? What does it hurt?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I'm sure my friend libertyminded will get around the answering you queery in his usual fireball of logic to which none can stand up to in good time, but I thought I'd take a crack at it.
I feel a little childish bring this up, and I know GOD (hehe) wasn't the main reason, but 72 virgins certaintly was a motivating factor in the plane crashes of 9/11[1]. I don't even want to start on the list of wars started in the name of GOD (ohh, it tickles)[2]. The daily deaths of hundreds because of their infidel status in Bosnia, Ugoslavia, Sudan, Pakistan, and India[3]. Annnnd the broken mental states of those who believe in GOD (haven't laughed this much in years) but have met a great deal of misforturne in their lives and blame that which does not exsit for forgetting them[4]. That last one wasn't nearly as bad as the first three but i wanted to include all the suffering GOD (gets me every time) has expeled upon the globe, not just the killings. THAT is what it hurts "brother". I liked the bit about GOD (boy oh boy that's a gut buster) being over libertyminded. I find it to be entertaining that an imaginary concept not only rules over an entire race but also can make matter from nothing and organize the molecules throughout all the universe just so he could tend to a few billion monkeys in a distant corner of the void. I loved the part about GOD (thats a good one) needing no evidence. That really helps you stick to your fragile delusion without need for an attempt to find proof of any kind. I suppose being so gullible that you can believe such a poorly concocted illusion does keep you happy, and in line (that will be a good laugh if you ask for clarification on that comment). Thankyou for directing me to try to conduct thoughts with my blood pump. I have been attempting to, but have thus far failed to achieve any measure of success. Needless to say though, you MRSEinstein, are one of the finest examples that the original "big brother" is still the best one.

[i_am_a_n00bie]

Wow, I went away for a few days and the topic really exploded. Groovy.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
I deny god's exsistence; he was conceived by primative minds during primative times. People couldn't comprehend anything beyond their tribes so they made up stories about how things came to be. Salvation, damnation makes no differnce to me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What you are saying is contrary to your argument. You claim that people in ancient times could not comprehend anything beyond their tribe. Firstly, where you there? How do you know this? Secondly, how is this any different to what you are doing? You cannot comprehend anything outside your comfort zone, so you choose to disbelieve it's existance...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (chicagoastronomer,)
Again lets repeat it again....

One is not burdened with proving a nothing. It is the responsibility of the person making the allegation/claim of a something to prove it exists thru somesort of evidence. But you blind, closed-minded, child-like believers will never understand this...and if it wern't so serious, it would be laughable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Again, lets repeat it again...

If I was trying to sue you, then you would be perfectly correct. The burden of proof in a court of law falls to the prosecutor. Since this is NOT a court of law, this is closer to a scientific discussion, it falls to those who wish to DISPROVE the theory, to disprove the theory.

Heh, I wonder how many times that will have to be said. Oh well.



A couple of other points...

The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New Testament, and on top of that, to fully understand the nuances of it you would have to spend a long time studying the society at the time. As such, it may seem a little odd to us now. This is fine, but I fail to see how the social differences between then and now equate to it disproving either Christianity or Judaism.

I find it a lot more useful to look through the New Testament. Jesus effectively replaced the 10 Commandments with two commands; Love the Lord, and Love your neighbor. If you're trying to say that God is in some way an arsehole, then... well... I can't think of an argument that would support this, based on the facts.

Also, if you are saying something based on what is in the Bible, then please make sure that you have your facts right. If you have a Bible, then use it. Otherwise use http://www.biblegateway.com/.

[m5lange1]

Just in general to those who only believe it what is provable...

I loved the line from "Contact"

"Did you love your father?"

"Yes"

"Prove it"

Not criticizing here just thought it was a cool point.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)

If I was trying to sue you, then you would be perfectly correct. The burden of proof in a court of law falls to the prosecutor. Since this is NOT a court of law, this is closer to a scientific discussion, it falls to those who wish to DISPROVE the theory, to disprove the theory.

Heh, I wonder how many times that will have to be said. Oh well.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
With lost by default, this is no where near a scientific discussion, unless ofc you'd like to show us some scientific data supporting the existence of a deity. And if you want to talk scientific, then the word theory means a collective model that explains facts, fits all know data and can make accurate predictions. Since no one has yet to prove a deity exists with scientifically valid data, we can assume that no has to disprove the existence of a deity. Otherwise I'd have to start disproving the existence of flying pink elephants.

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (larry,)
tman, Others,

Agnosticism is the least tenable position of all.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
This is why i'm agnostic.

No point in arguing if neither side has any proof supporting it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I read through the entire thread last night. I wish I could remember the names.
The point you are making is a non-point, if logic is understood. Yet it has come up soooo many times before, and been refuted!!

The deal is, those who make a positive claim are logically obligated to offer supporting eveidence for their claim.

IT'S CALLED THE "BURDEN OF PROOF"!!
Ever hear of that?

Agnosticism is the *least* teneable of all relevant positions! If I were accused of murder, I SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T WANT AN AGNOSTIC ON THE JURY!!

Thing is, if I'm accused of murder by someone, they are logically and legally obligated to supply the evidence for their claim. They have made a *postive claim*, the BURDEN OF PROOF rests with them!

Now, a Christian jurist, if consistent, would say I don't give a damn about the evidence, or the abscense of it. I'm gonna believe what I wanna believe.

And the agnostic jurist? PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF MURDER!!!!

THAT IS TRULY SICK CRAP!! I can't prove a negative, and neither can anyone else.

It's no damned accident that "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" is a rule of conviction.

IF THE EXISTENCE OF GAWD WERE SUBJECT TO TRIAL, believers would be obligated to supply evidence for their claims. If no convincing evidence were supplied, Gawd would be found not to exist, given the lack of evidence. Unless, of course, there were agnostics on the jury. "Well, there's no evidence that he exists, but there's no evidence that he doesn't, either", you agnostics would claim. Puke!!

Lemmie put it this way.

I can't supply the slightest shred of evidence, but there is a little green woman standing in the corner of my room right now, I claim. Well, buddy, you claim you can't make up your mind about my claim, sans evidence. And, you claim, those who demand I supply evidence have not supplied evidence that there is *NOT* a little green woman in my room.

NO HUMAN CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE. IT'S BASIC REASON AND LOGIC - FORTUNATELY IMPLEMENTED IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

Atheist are not obligated to prove the non-existence of little green women. Those
who claim they exist have the "burden of proof".

Agnostics are fence-sitters, employing the same illogic, and unreason, as the belivers!!

I ain't obligated to provide evidence for the non-existence of little-purple-people-eaters. The burden of proof rests with those who claim they do. And you agnostics claim you can't make up your mind, due the the lack of evidence supplied by both sides of the dispute. That, buddy is pure BS!!

You, like the belivers, want to play with all of the cards wild. Any claim should be entertained, until proved otherwise. ANY CLAIM!!!!

I'M A REINCARNATED CLAM! PROVE THAT I'M NOT, OR BE AGNOSTIC ON THE QUESTION. JESUS FUCKN' CHRIST!

libertarian larry<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
(is not equal to --> "==")

Prove that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2

(a+b)^2 = (a+b)(a+b) = aa + ab + ba + bb = a^2 + (ab+ba) + b^2 = a^2 +2ab + b^2.


Prove that a^2 == 2a

It works fine when a=2. However, a^2 = aa, while 2a = a + a. When a=3 you can see that 3^2 = 9 while 2(3) = 6.


So, to review, in order to prove that something is true you must prove it is true for every case. The easiest way to do this is to prove it is true for an arbitrary case "a".

However, in order to prove that something ISN'T true, you only need one example that is inconsistent with the original assertion.


So it's quite possible to prove something is true as well as not true.


The thing about asking "is god real" is that to prove either side is completely impossible.

In fact, in this particular case, even if it was possible to prove that god DID exist, it would defeat the whole purpose of religion. The point of it is to have "faith". Believing in something WITH proof is easy...but believing in something WITHOUT proof is hard.

It goes right in line with the classical Christian belief that the harder you work the better you are.

This is why agnosticism is the only acceptable position regarding religion. You're simply acknowledging that there can never be proof of god's existence = true because that would defeat the point and if there was proof of god's existence = false then there would be no god.


As far as agnostic juries...i think you're mistaken.

The whole point of court is for the defendant to prove that he/she did not do the accused crimes to the jury while the prosecutor tries to prove that the defendant did do the accused crimes.

If a jury member is agnostic it simply means that he/she would think any argument in which there is no proof either way is illogical. If neither side had proof of their respective cases there would be no trial (in fact it probably would've never gone to trial in the first place).

Agnosticism is simply the ethos that any argument in which neither side has proof is a waste of time. And, indeed, why bother arguing about things in which neither side can be proven true or false?

[libertyminded]

I too thought the movie Contact had some interesting arguments but the one you brought up 5lange

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
5lange

Just in general to those who only believe it what is provable...

I loved the line from "Contact"

"Did you love your father?"

"Yes"

"Prove it"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

While love might not be a physically tangible thing, it is an emotion and therefore is merely the result of different hormones (namely vasopressin and oxytocin) surging and waning in relation to stimuli. Many studies have been done whre the relative hormone levels were measured in couples that were "in love" at multiple stages of their relationships. It was discovered that a combination of 3 hormones produced the euphoria like disposition that we feel when were "in-love" and that we typically remain susceptive to the effects of these hormones for 3-5 years (long enough to form a relationship and raise a child to todlerhood). So, love, just like any other physiological reaction is quantifiable, unlike a diety.

In response to MRSEinstien (a complete travesty against Albert)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
MRSEinstien

Why is it so horrible to believe in God? What does it hurt?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There are quite a few reasons believing in something that is not there is detrimental to society and here they are.

a)I understand that it is almost impossible to change peoples minds about the religion they choose to believe and realize that most people do not consider the logical problems with their faith. I must ask those of you that are convinced that there is some sort of all powerful being controlling the universe if you have something to say that could put my mind to rest regarding some of the consequences inherent believing in such philosophies.
Because most people in this world subscribe to some form of religion or another, most elected politicians (as well as most appointed ones and dictators as too) especially if they subscribe to one of the Abrahamic religions, are operating under the assumption that there will be a finite end to civilization and life as we know it here on Earth. All of the major of these religions embrace some sort of "final judgment" or apocalypse.
This is a dangerous mindset for us as a species to settle into for two reasons. Reason 1 is that if everyone in power is going about their business in an understanding that we are in the "last days" or even that there is such thing as a "last day" then they are not all that inclined to seriously plan for the types of things that could potentially destroy our planet like an asteroid or the moon's weakening orbit or another massive climate shift. There's not just a chance of these things happening, they are indeed happening and have been for millions of years, so it's not a matter of if but when.

b) Which is far more remote, but a possibility nonetheless. Is that there are other intelligent species out there that might have been around for a while longer than us and have far more advanced technology. As of yet there has been no empirical proof, but you would have to have your head buried in the sand not to realize that there have been many things flying around our planet seen by very credible people that cannot be explained in knowable terms. If indeed there are other space faring species in this universe then the possibilities for what their motivations are in visiting our planet could be a worry. I can imagine that most planets like ours can only support intelligent life for a short period of time given how quickly intelligent species can multiply and use up resources. I know that it would behoove us here on Earth to be looking for another home when ours is no longer livable so I don't see why other species wouldn't be doing the same thing. Most religious people seem to think that humans were created as a special thing by the all powerful creator of the universe and refuse to accept that there may be other intelligent species out there.
If you are a Christian that believes that the universe was created something like 7500-12,000 years ago then you are ignoring very basic facts about the universe as we know it. Our galaxy alone contains 50 billion stars with maybe several million of these solar systems containing planets like ours. There are also 100 billion galaxies in this universe that we've found so far, each of them with their own compliment of millions if not billions of worlds. All together that means 500 trillion stars. Be conservative and say that 1% of those stars have solar systems like ours. That's 5 trillion. Now say that 1% of those sloar systems have planets that could sustain life. That's 50 billion. Go a step further and say that 1% of those planets have been around long enough in the right conditions to develop intellegent life. That leaves the posibillity of at least 500 million solar systems that could have intelligent organisms on them. And that's just what we can verify exists. We also know that the amount of space between these things is extremely vast and incomprehensible to the human mind. This lets us know that the universe is indeed billions of years old because the stars that we see in the sky are so far away that it would take the light from them millions of years to reach us. Indeed most of the stars we see in the sky no longer exist. There is no trick of science as Christians often claim about carbon dating which is admitedly unreliable. The speed of light is a definite measurable thing and is constant.

c) Because pretty much every religious person is convinced that they know the plan of the all powerfull creator of the universe or at least know what moral code that creator wants man to abide by, they get particullarly zealous in regards to promoting this moral and ethical code. This has lead to horrific things such as The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jihads, genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars and enforcement of draconian justice (prostitution laws and drug laws in this country [America] and horrific things like stoning executions of women that endevour to learn to read, cutting off of limbs for things as simple as theft in hardline Islamic countries and dowry burnings and the like in India where Hindism is the thing). While I concede that religion also creates a culture of charity and philanthropy in many cases, this doesn't absolve religion from it's responsibility for the horrific acts perpetrated by it's adherents. I can also hear you thinking "Well that's just the sinful nature of man, not the fault of God", it's is because these people believe in God and the superiority of "His" moral code that these sort of things occure.

So I urge those of you that have tied your philosophies to this idea of a finite existence to reconsider for the fate of the species as a whole. As long as we have people operating under the misconception that we are the all beloved creation of some sort of all powerful primate in the sky, we are going to be loosing precious time and research needed to keep our species around long after our planet becomes unlivable. To put it like one of my science minded friends in the south did, "It's been two thousand years people. HE AIN'T COMMIN' BACK!"

So I ask you to consider. All things being equal: Do you think it more likely that this universe exists on some sort of finite timeline with a beginning and an and controlled by an all powerful version of ourselves that has handed down his road map for "returning" to him to less than 7% of people ever to exist . Or is it more logical to assume that when you're dealing in probabilities like 1 in 500 million the random occurance of intelligent life is not only possible but inevitable?

(a more in depth explanation of this position is availible at The Big Picture for those interested)

Libertyminded, Others.

Libertyminded, I don't remember some names but of those I do, you and Logicallunatic are my best intellectual friends on this thread.

Still, I'm gonna hammer you on your below statement:

You wrote, "If you are able to put aside your bias and start with a clean slate, saying 'God may exist and God also may not exist' and start from there I think that everyone with even the most simplistic critical thinking abilities would have to come to a conclusion that there is not enough evidence to make definite conclusion either way".

Good Gawd, L.!!! Try substituting "little purple eaters" for God in your above sentence!! And I claim that substitution is perfectly valid.

There's not enough evidence to decide either way about "little purple people eaters"
you should conclude, given your argument. Despite the emotional reason you gave for being an atheist, your argument is pure agnosticism.

So, to agnostics, and to your above argument, I will say, "It's a very good thing to have an open mind, so long as it's not sooooo open your brain falls out"!!!!!

Turns out I didn't meet the criteria of my intellectual friend (you), claiming even the "most simplistic critical think(er) would have to conclude there is not enough evidence either way.

Well, sort of, I agree. But the damned fact is, I have only one life to live, and I ain't gonna waste it entertaining every Gawd Damned!! peice of crap humans can come up with on "Coast to Coast AM" radio.

The Earth is already ruled by aliens? The consipracy is run by the Devil from a basement apartment in London? Doctor Taplinskie's herbal concoction will make you penis hard, at just the right time, and it'll keep ya from going bald, too!? Gawd exists?

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, whether the claims are for Gawd, or Dr. Taplinsky!!!!!

Prove to me you've never fucked a little green, martian female!! Do ya get my drift,
I hope? I mean, you could have. That's not nearly the most bizzare claim I've heard humans make.

Yeah, *anything* is possible, for those with an open mind. But the truly open mind awaits the evidence! Until it shows up, it's the shit-can, as I see it!! I don't want my brains falling out in relation to Dr. Taplinskie's herbal cure for whatever,
nor in relation to those who claim Gawds, goblins, withces, devils, heaven, hell, and miracales exist, with no evidence!! None!!

You might have noted that you really pissed me off when you put me on an even footing with nutcases? You agnostic, you.

larry

[PaulOtt]

The problem with asking for proof of God's existence is that you are placing a man-made system (the scientific method) above Him, and asking Him to be subject to it. This will never happen. God is not our plaything, to be toyed with and experimented upon. Furthermore, there is no formula or specific non-spiritual circumstances which will always make you aware of the presence of God. That is why, from a theological standpoint, legalism is generally frowned upon by Christianity.

And if God did appear before man in some undeniable way and said, "I AM GOD," some would still deny it, and later generations would claim it was a myth if they hadn't seen it with their own eyes.

- Paul Ott

[Gregthegreat]

I agree a God exists as well as lesser gods and others. I could ask an atheist cosmologists to "prove the big bang existed"or prove "evolution of the "species". The poor chap would be at a loss. And that would be two EASY questions. I have many more difficult theories that I would ask them validate. Ask any atheist or agnostic scientists to prove the foundations of "modern" science and be prepared for deception. (its 500 year old rehashed, double speak word salad). Often this deception isn't a conscious decision, these God hating phds are in denial similar to neurotic denial of a narcotic addict. Its part of the process. I believe a designer created space time and exists outside or our atom based reality. Even a race of highly evolved humans would be as gods to the wise man HS of earth. Isn't that obvious? BTW Jesus was a zombie ET from M38

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PaulOtt,)
The problem with asking for proof of God's existence is that you are placing a man-made system (the scientific method) above Him, and asking Him to be subject to it. This will never happen. God is not our plaything, to be toyed with and experimented upon. Furthermore, there is no formula or specific non-spiritual circumstances which will always make you aware of the presence of God. That is why, from a theological standpoint, legalism is generally frowned upon by Christianity.

And if God did appear before man in some undeniable way and said, "I AM GOD," some would still deny it, and later generations would claim it was a myth if they hadn't seen it with their own eyes.

- Paul Ott<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So what you're in fact saying is that there is no way to prove that god exists or doesn't exist.

[PaulOtt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
So what you're in fact saying is that there is no way to prove that god exists or doesn't exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Yes, when speaking of "prove" as defined by the scientific method.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vladsbyte,)
I agree a God exists as well as lesser gods and others. I could ask an atheist cosmologist