Why I'm not a Christian anymore. What about you?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not sure why you think these theories are scientific; they have nothing to do with science and have no basis in any scientific method. They are brought up in debates like this solely to say "Well, it could have been this way, therefore not God."

BumFluff122

Okay, but once these alternatives are presented only one of two things can happen:

1. They still believe God did it,

2. They believe the universe did it.

More likely than not, it's gonna be 1., and both are equally valid in terms of science.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

They are based on science, and moreover in observable clues.

LJS9502_basic

And why does everyone think that science somehow tries to battle religion or generally god as a notion? If they didnt then I would have no question to the likes of "why do you worship science as the answer to everything" asked of me.

I think my cake analogy was somewhat depicting what my opinion is.

The eggs and the other ingredients in a god theory may of course be in the fridge, but we cant know for sure.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not sure why you think these theories are scientific; they have nothing to do with science and have no basis in any scientific method. They are brought up in debates like this solely to say "Well, it could have been this way, therefore not God."

Theokhoth

Okay, but once these alternatives are presented only one of two things can happen:

1. They still believe God did it,

2. They believe the universe did it.

More likely than not, it's gonna be 1., and both are equally valid in terms of science.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Strong agnosticism.

Teenaged

But as I said its not a religion and neither do I worship anyone. ;)

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]It is an argument against those that believe without a doubt that God created the universe in which we live. They aren't willing to look at the alternatives because they believe that there are none. I've stated before that, more than likely, the birth of the universe will forever remain unknown. The only way we could truly discover what happened in the moments before the expansion of that particle is to go outside of that expanding space. I am an agnostic atheist but I am not going to completely rule out that a super powerful beign created that in which we live but the majority of people like me need proof. The only evidence thus far points towards a natural existence of the universe.

BumFluff122

Okay, but once these alternatives are presented only one of two things can happen:

1. They still believe God did it,

2. They believe the universe did it.

More likely than not, it's gonna be 1., and both are equally valid in terms of science.

Because a person who believes in God isn't likely to just up and stop believing simply because an alternative was presented.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not sure why you think these theories are scientific; they have nothing to do with science and have no basis in any scientific method. They are brought up in debates like this solely to say "Well, it could have been this way, therefore not God."

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not sure why you think these theories are scientific; they have nothing to do with science and have no basis in any scientific method. They just seem "more natural." They are brought up in debates like this solely to say "Well, it could have been this way, therefore not God."

Theokhoth

No they aren't. . .they have absolutely no evidence supporting them; there is no proof whatsoever that there is more than one universe, no proof that the universe is cyclic, etc. They have no basis in science; they are philosophical conjectures. The closest they come to being scientific is that they appear to be "natural" events.

What? 0_o

Because a person who believes in God isn't likely to just up and stop believing simply because an alternative was presented.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]They are based on science, and moreover in observable clues.

Teenaged

No they aren't. . .they have absolutely no evidence supporting them; there is no proof whatsoever that there is more than one universe, no proof that the universe is cyclic, etc. They have no basis in science; they are philosophical conjectures. The closest they come to being scientific is that they appear to be "natural" events.

What? 0_o

Philosophy pertains to the beginning of existence as well.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Strong agnosticism.

Theokhoth

But as I said its not a religion and neither do I worship anyone. ;)

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because a person who believes in God isn't likely to just up and stop believing simply because an alternative was presented.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because a person who believes in God isn't likely to just up and stop believing simply because an alternative was presented.

BumFluff122

Or, maybe they'll question the alternatives and find them lacking.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not sure why you think these theories are scientific; they have nothing to do with science and have no basis in any scientific method. They are brought up in debates like this solely to say "Well, it could have been this way, therefore not God."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Yeah that describes me at the moment.

But as I said its not a religion and neither do I worship anyone. ;)

Teenaged

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

I'm not saying it's a religion.

Alternatives? Can science...which remember is humans understanding of events...ever really say with certainty that a guiding force...ie God was not behind the creation? No. So science cannot argue against God. Thus it's not effective.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No they aren't. . .they have absolutely no evidence supporting them; there is no proof whatsoever that there is more than one universe, no proof that the universe is cyclic, etc. They have no basis in science; they are philosophical conjectures. The closest they come to being scientific is that they appear to be "natural" events.

Theokhoth

What? 0_o

Philosophy pertains to the beginning of existence as well.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Perhaps you need to visit more forum debates. Yes God is thought to have lived outside of spacetime. If he created both space and time how could he live within it? Space and time would already need to exist. Therefor he can't have created either.

BumFluff122

Well if you think of it that way, if the universe was made without a god, whatever way it was made it would need to be made outside of spacetime too. See both science and God require faith, its basically just picking your poison.

First of all you basically just proved what i said, the universe would need to be out of space time too, and secondly I never said anything about the big bang, but it sort of pertains to what i said. Where would that infinitely dense particle come from.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Yeah that describes me at the moment.

But as I said its not a religion and neither do I worship anyone. ;)

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

Theokhoth

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

I'm not saying it's a religion.

I don't think there is a single way of effectively arguing a deity. You CAN, however, argue what some consider the deity's words, something like The Bible.enterawesome

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because a person who believes in God isn't likely to just up and stop believing simply because an alternative was presented.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

When people call things like atheism a religion, they typically refer to the faith aspect.

enterawesome

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

I never connected the abstract notions I mentioned with a diety. Therefore they are not a religion.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Alternatives? Can science...which remember is humans understanding of events...ever really say with certainty that a guiding force...ie God was not behind the creation? No. So science cannot argue against God. Thus it's not effective.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]I don't think there is a single way of effectively arguing a deity. You CAN, however, argue what some consider the deity's words, something like The Bible.LJS9502_basic

Or, maybe they'll question the alternatives and find them lacking.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]No that is invalid because we faith in many things. We have faith in people, we have faith in our loved ones, we have faith in love. Can one call love a religion (non-metaphorically). No.

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

Teenaged

I'm not saying it's a religion.

No, I said why certain people refer to it as a religion.

Alternatives? Can science...which remember is humans understanding of events...ever really say with certainty that a guiding force...ie God was not behind the creation? No. So science cannot argue against God. Thus it's not effective.LJS9502_basic

Then that's the end of the discussion, because by stating that, scientists can just as well be talking to a wall. Because according to that logic, no matter what proof science brings you can always say they're wrong.

They don't disprove the beliefs. I never said they did,. However to form an unwavering beliefs based on partial data, or even non existent data, is completely insane.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Alternatives? Can science...which remember is humans understanding of events...ever really say with certainty that a guiding force...ie God was not behind the creation? No. So science cannot argue against God. Thus it's not effective.TheFlush

Then that's the end of the discussion, because by stating that, scientists can just as well be talking to a wall. Because according to that logic, no matter what proof science brings you can always say they're wrong.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]No that is invalid because we faith in many things. We have faith in people, we have faith in our loved ones, we have faith in love. Can one call love a religion (non-metaphorically). No.

Can someone call trusting someone a religion? No.

The fact that some notions revolve around issues of faith or that in their uncertainty they require faith, in no way does it render them a religion.

I never connected the abstract notions I mentioned with a diety. Therefore they are not a religion.

I agree that God can't be fully perceived for the reasons you gave, but I do not agree that God cannot be perceived period for that reason.

The only religion that gets validity from my statement is the one that worships the guys that omnisciently say we can't know the answer.

Theokhoth

I was born into Christian beliefs, and went to church with my family until I was around 10 years old or so. I basically came to the same realization, that I was believing all of this because I was raised to believe it, and not because I actually feel in my heart that it is the truth, which I do not. I also took note on the fact that I was believing out of fear of going to Hell, which again, is not a legitimate reason to believe in such things.

It also comes to mind, that the majority of the World does NOT believe in Christianity, and I think to myself, thats a lot of people burning in hell for eternity,just because they were born in a different part of the World which holds a different culture and belief. Also, I guess if I were to really think about it, I sin a good ammount, and feel no need to seek forgiveness for it. Im living life how I see fit, and I dont see the point in limiting my experience here on Earth just for the POSSIBILITY of a greater reward after the fact. Life is now. So thats why im not a Christian anymore.

First of all you basically just proved what i said, the universe would need to be out of space time too, and secondly I never said anything about the big bang, but it sort of pertains to what i said. Where would that infinitely dense particle come from.

magnax1

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

First of all you basically just proved what i said, the universe would need to be out of space time too, and secondly I never said anything about the big bang, but it sort of pertains to what i said. Where would that infinitely dense particle come from.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I agree that God can't be fully perceived for the reasons you gave, but I do not agree that God cannot be perceived period for that reason.

The only religion that gets validity from my statement is the one that worships the guys that omnisciently say we can't know the answer.

Teenaged

I was referring to my earlier statement that the guys saying nobody can know the answer are deities. It was more or less a joke.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Well, if you LIVE by love and think its the key to everything and love is a deity, and you have a follower who also believes, then yes, it is a religion.enterawesome

I never connected the abstract notions I mentioned with a diety. Therefore they are not a religion.

Its just that your point (not invalid), was irrelevant to mine.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I agree that God can't be fully perceived for the reasons you gave, but I do not agree that God cannot be perceived period for that reason.

The only religion that gets validity from my statement is the one that worships the guys that omnisciently say we can't know the answer.

Theokhoth

I was referring to my earlier statement that the guys saying nobody can know the answer are deities. It was more or less a joke.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

First of all you basically just proved what i said, the universe would need to be out of space time too, and secondly I never said anything about the big bang, but it sort of pertains to what i said. Where would that infinitely dense particle come from.

BumFluff122

And then i said there is basically no proof for this and it requires just as much belief as a god does and is just as logical.

I was born into Christian beliefs, and went to church with my family until I was around 10 years old or so. I basically came to the same realization, that I was believing all of this because I was raised to believe it, and not because I actually feel in my heart that it is the truth, which I do not. I also took note on the fact that I was believing out of fear of going to Hell, which again, is not a legitimate reason to believe in such things.

It also comes to mind, that the majority of the World does NOT believe in Christianity, and I think to myself, thats a lot of people burning in hell for eternity,just because they were born in a different part of the World which holds a different culture and belief. Also, I guess if I were to really think about it, I sin a good ammount, and feel no need to seek forgiveness for it. Im living life how I see fit, and I dont see the point in limiting my experience here on Earth just for the POSSIBILITY of a greater reward after the fact. Life is now. So thats why im not a Christian anymore.

KcurtorMas

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

And when it comes to slavery we shouldn't?TheFlush

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

TheFlush

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

LJS9502_basic

Maybe because Christianity is illogical :P

Science is not mystical. It's merely a term given by humans for the study of the universe. Which I've said several times in this thread I don't a reformation from you on what I said. And with that said.....that means the alternatives are not in a position to disprove the core belief.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

I was born into Christian beliefs, and went to church with my family until I was around 10 years old or so. I basically came to the same realization, that I was believing all of this because I was raised to believe it, and not because I actually feel in my heart that it is the truth, which I do not. I also took note on the fact that I was believing out of fear of going to Hell, which again, is not a legitimate reason to believe in such things.

It also comes to mind, that the majority of the World does NOT believe in Christianity, and I think to myself, thats a lot of people burning in hell for eternity,just because they were born in a different part of the World which holds a different culture and belief. Also, I guess if I were to really think about it, I sin a good ammount, and feel no need to seek forgiveness for it. Im living life how I see fit, and I dont see the point in limiting my experience here on Earth just for the POSSIBILITY of a greater reward after the fact. Life is now. So thats why im not a Christian anymore.

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

They don't disprove the beliefs. I never said they did,. However to form an unwavering beliefs based on partial data, or even non existent data, is completely insane.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

TheFlush

Maybe because Christianity is illogical :P

Yeah, thats the vibe I'm getting too. It seems like just because a lot of people aren't Christians go to Hell. I'm not a Christian, but believe in and praise a God, so I go to Hell? Its as if he knows God's judgement better than He does...enterawesome

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

That's exactly how I see it. And the more I see of religion (doesn't matter which one) the more I'm convinced that they're all wrong and there's just nothing.

Maybe because Christianity is illogical :P