General

[quote=demoniak]Still on Foucault's perspective, evidence is not useless at its essence, but on its reliability; this doubtful reliability is strongly linked to the "know-power" idea, as for those able to "create" knowledge will attempt to make their concepts plausible.
Personally, I'm skeptical concerning knowledge. I don't believe that humans are able to extract absolute knowledge or pure truths.[/quote]
And I agree with that mostly.

[quote=Kevvl]I didn't really want to go into extreme detail on that subject and quite frankly still don't as I'm not much into the market of proving or disproving the existence of God, but the absence of evidence against is not the sole reason for my belief -- that'd be kinda silly.

As for the question, I'm a member of the Baha'i Faith.[/quote]
Yeah, I figured there's some evidence that supports your religion. Whether that evidence is valid is the question, but I won't go into it.

[quote=fade2black]
Thanks for the passionate response.
What is your religion by the way?

I don't think that your belief is solely based on logic. Unless I misinterpreted something, I believe you're taking an unsubstantiated claim for the existence of God and believing in it because it supposedly doesn't contradict science. Faith was needed to presume God exist as the default perspective. For anything, the default view should be the lack of belief that something exist. Just too clarify, a lack of belief doesn't mean you think the existence of something is impossible, just improbable. The burden of proof lies on the ones who claim something exist. [/quote]
I didn't really want to go into extreme detail on that subject and quite frankly still don't as I'm not much into the market of proving or disproving the existence of God, but the absence of evidence against is not the sole reason for my belief -- that'd be kinda silly.

As for the question, I'm a member of the Baha'i Faith.

Sorry, I was too busy with other things and procrastinated.

[quote=DeMoNiAk]A philosophical string, concerning knowledge process, perceives science as another form of knowledge, preceded by many other. As for it, the method used by science, though said to be pure, absolute and truthful, is no more than a method to obtain knowledge. In this point, it is important to make a distinction: knowledge depends on subject of knowledge (people) and object of knowledge. As science links the subject to the object, trying to make the first comprehend the second, it denatures the object on its purity, as for the object no longer is "free", but is, now, linked to something else - the subject. Starting from those premisses, Foucault realizes that the knowledge obtained from the analysis, from the object to the subject, said to be absolute, creates a kind of domination. This domination is called "know-power". To his theory, those who detain knowledge are able to control those who don't. [i]Exampli gratia[/i], someone will not doubt a doctor because the doctor "knows" the truth. The doctor is, therefore, in a position of superiority.
Sorry if I couldn't make it clear. I can elaborate it better if you want.[/quote]
I don't agree with the premise that science is pure, absolute, and truthful. I'd describe science more accurately by saying it's the determination of the most plausible truth given our current knowledge of the universe. Because future discoveries may disprove or modify the current scientific theory, there should always be skepticism regarding evidence. Therefore, I don't view evidence to be useless. It doesn't always show the truth, but that doesn't make it useless.

There is a possibility that someone with superiority (suppose Stephen Hawking) can control the knowledge of a specific thing to the general population by modifying it from the truth. Let's say Hawking proposes a concept to be a scientific theory. Of course, it won't be a scientific theory because Stephen Hawking proposed it or else that would just be an argument by authority. In this case, the concept needs to be more substantiated.by future experiments to confirm that Hawking's proposed idea is most likely to be the truth given the knowledge mankind has obtained so far.

[quote=Jobrjo]Alas, I've been drawn back to this thread. Many people have been hating on what I said, but as you seem like a kind person, and you made the thread, I'll relpy to you

A) Well, where did the dense matter come from? Nothing cannot create something. Also, Matter needs Force to move. WHat force moved it? And what force exists strong enough to spread out matter father than we can begin to comprehend?

B) Just cause it's accepted doesn't mean it's true. I've never seen any substantial evidence for the big bang. No record or proff either. Mankind doesn't know, because it never happened

C) Yeah, you may want to do some reasearch on those fossils. As far as I know, everyone turned out to be a normal bone. It would be assumed to be a link, and then found out to be another animal's bone. Not one has been authentized (ok, I know I misspelled that, my bad )

D) Now from here, as I know God created everything, it's gonna kind of negate everything else. 1st of all, the earth hasn't been here for billions of years, actually a few thousand. Even if we take out biblical proof, there's much scientifical proof for this also.

E) Dogs are dogs. Wolves are wolves. The animals may be similar, but they aren't the same. Both are animals designed by a Creator. They aren't descendents, both were made at the same time. However, God did make them similar. It's that simple, God has made animals that are similar, they are after all from the same designer.

F) We know this from Nature today. Organisms can adapt to enviorments. However, they don't grow wings or scales or fur. They don't become something else. They don't evolve. If they can't adapt enough, they die. Evolution doesn't take place. Besides, the same animals exist just fine today, why would they have had to evolve at all?

G) And trust me, I've done my reasearch, and lots of it. My conclusion is where I am now, a Christian

Thanks for asking and answering. I hope this helped somewhat~ ta-ta [/quote]

A. Where did the dense matter come from? We don't know. The Big Bang Theory doesn't imply that this expansion marks the origin of the universe, just the particular era of the universe that has been going on for the last 13-14 billion years.

B. That's true. Just because an idea is widely accepted, it doesn't mean it's the truth. But at least the Big Bang Theory has evidence whereas creationism is widely accepted but has zero evidence. Have you even research the evidence for the Big Bang?

C. I don't know what event you're referring.

D. What's the evidence for that?

E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_dogs#History_and_evolution

F. Natural selection doesn't mean that every population adapt to the environment. Populations that fail to have the traits to survive die. Evolution has no goal or reason. The mutation of a population comes before the need of that trait to survive. The animals that exist today exist because they've managed to be adapted to the environment throughout the past. If the environment changes, the population with the traits to survive, well, survive and those without don't survive.

[quote=Kevvl]In truth? Likely a result of being raised as such, although I did make a conscious choice to stick with the religion only after studying various perspectives (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Atheism. Didn't check out Hinduism too much). I didn't decide I was going to stick with it until I was absolutely sure it was the most logical path.

Though, I would like to point out an inaccuracy in the idea that I stick with "my particular God". You see, my belief is not that there are multiple Gods for each religion, or even that each religion worships a completely different God. I believe that the various religions, or at least a good majority of them, believe in the same God, and that each religion was directly brought (by a messenger) from that God. You'll notice that, in studying differing religious texts, the spiritual laws/teachings are almost identical. There's always some daily prayer, there's always a fast of some degree, there's always emphasis on morality as well as reward or punishment beyond death for following or disobeying spiritual and social laws, etc. Additionally there are a basic set of rules that, as a whole, seem to have expanded over time. The Ten Commandments, for example, appear in some form or another in just about every Abrahamic religious text. I've noticed only two things genuinely change over time through religion.

First, a concept seems to be added to the repertoire and the teachings become slightly more complex. Abraham himself introduced the concept of 1 God. Moses upheld that idea and introduced the concept of the law. Christianity upheld those ideas and introduced the concept of forgiveness. Muhammad upheld those ideas and introduced the concept of fealty towards God (Insha'Allah, although I'm probably wrong in saying that's the primary original teaching, it's an example). Etc.

Second, social laws change. Quite a bit actually. Jews are restricted from eating pork -- but that makes sense, they lived in a desert! To prevent disease and death, it's pretty darn hard to cook and prepare pork properly. That's also why there were so many food preparation laws (Kosher), in order to keep things sanitary with the technologies they had available, quite a bit of preparation was required to make sure things were safe. Fast forward to Christianity and larger cities and villages are being set up, pigs are now easier to farm and food borne illness less of a problem. Thus, Christians are allowed to eat pork. Fast forward again to Islam and pork is no longer a thing; Islam was brought to a people living in a desert, without as many means for food preservation or sanitation. Shucks, the original Muslims were nomads, a group of tribes brought together by the religion. They kinda needed better food preparation laws and dietary restrictions (Halal).

As my previous statements would imply, I base my belief solely on logic. I have yet to find a logical fallacy in the writings of my faith...and I assure you I've tried. One big thing for me is science. The writings do not reject science; they embrace science and tell that science and religion can coexist. It's a fairly common belief nowadays, but one of the primary creation concepts of my religion is the idea that the Big Bang, the formation of the planets and galaxies, the evolution of our species, and everything else was not directly hand crafted by God in a matter of days or years, but was to some degree the result of planning and some degree of divine intervention. Not so much intelligent design, but intelligent forethought. Why then do some other religions have a different idea about how the world was created? To put it simply, folks back in 0 B.C. wouldn't have understood what Jesus was talking about if He'd said that billions of years ago (The number itself not even being a concept) there was a gigantic explosion of mass and energy that created the entire universe. So He simplified it so that it'd be more easily understandable.

I value faith as much as it's required. For some it is a necessity, as most are lost without their faith. For others it is a burden, and the idea of acting solely on faith is repulsive. I act as much as I can on logic and so far have found no substantial evidence to sway me the other way. Would I become an Atheist? No, probably not. At worst I'd likely become agnostic. I do prefer to keep an open mind, and I feel that outright atheism is often closed to the possibilities, much like many religious people are closed in the opposite direction. Faith alone would never be enough to keep me in one mindset, but neither would logic and reason ever be enough to close my mind entirely.[/quote]
Thanks for the passionate response.
What is your religion by the way?

I don't think that your belief is solely based on logic. Unless I misinterpreted something, I believe you're taking an unsubstantiated claim for the existence of God and believing in it because it supposedly doesn't contradict science. Faith was needed to presume God exist as the default perspective. For anything, the default view should be the lack of belief that something exist. Just too clarify, a lack of belief doesn't mean you think the existence of something is impossible, just improbable. The burden of proof lies on the ones who claim something exist.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive by the way. Most atheists are agnostic atheists and not gnostic atheists. You can claim yourself to be an atheist and still have an open mind just like you can claim yourself to be a theist and have an open mind. Both sides have people who are close-minded, but theism and atheism doesn't implicitly mean a certain degree of openmindedness.

@ReLaX: Oh Okay, I though you meant something else .

Fearful roaches use religion to calm themselves down because they follow things by mindless impulse and programmed desire. All religions made by humans are basically flawed and manipulated in some way. God is real and Religion is fake.

I honestly which people would stop using their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the BigBang theory as a disproof for it. Your inability to understand the theory itself (not the layman description of there was a big explosion) is not weakness in the theory but a weakness in your education.

[quote=Sweax]@MarxMaster: 1: Your welcome
2: I have no idea, it has been told to me. But you're right, you cannot just follow the book or any other kind of religious proof.
3: I think you haven't read the bible clear enough. Jesaja states that there will come a person who will die for our sins and give us new hope, [b]not only for Isreal, but for all nations (thus, every people in the world)[/b]. In my opinion and my view, i've seen a lot of people who were helped by God. A acquaintance of mine, went with his dad to an heal service (I'm sorry if I've took the wrong word, it has something to do with church and healing) and tried to heal his father, he has cancer in his ears. It didn't work out (of course it didn't, you cannot just simply heal cancer) but later, the operation went very well, his dad didn't went deaf and we believe that God helped them in that situation.
Well, helping. I think he mentally supports you. He cannot change things that happen in your life. The future is unknown and even he cannot know what is going to happen in your future. You may ask: 'Then, if he doesn't know what's going to happen in the future, he isn't all knowing.' Of course he can't know the future, but that doesn't mean he isn't all knowing. He led, In my view, the making of the solar system and the evolution of animals and humans as we know that today. He is someone who knows a lot, but he can't know what will happen in the future. Nobody can, because the future could be different in many ways. That doesn't mean he's not all knowing. He just can't know it, because there is no proof of it. If you didn't knew that apples weren't sweet, you aren't dumb, you just don't know it. Same here.
4: How can a feeling be a hallucination? I didn't dream, in fact, at first I thought what the heck was going on there. But I think our opinion differs here, but I know that those experiences weren't hallucinations. Why? Because there are other people who've experienced the same. A lot of Christians did. Funny thing is, there is a movie called 'The Reaping' (very interesting but really scary to me) where there is an prof who is examining 'wonders'. You see, in that movie that a lot of Christian 'wonders'
are cause by side effects, who let the 'wonder' look like a wonder, while it wasn't a wonder. So there are people who hallucinate about Christian things, and I nagree with you. But some of the experiences (like mine) aren't hallucinations.
5: Let's take a look from the other side. 10% of all Chinese people living in China are Christians. They were raised with another religion and didn't hear about God and Jesus. They have become Christians. So religion doesn't has to be implanted by taught, but it can also be from experience or brought religion from other people (I don't know how to say it differently). What about me? If I were taught to be a Hindu and I heard from Jesus and God, I think I would have chosen to be a Christian. But you cannot know things that haven't taken place, right?
6: You're right, religion can be implanted by taught. But ask yourself: 'If South-America didn't heard about Catholicism but instead heard from the Islam, did they have the same results as we know it today about Christianity?'
That doesn't mean religion isn't right, because you cannot prove or disprove it. But I understand your opinion .

I also have some questions for you:
How does the world presents itself? Do you think that everything would be alright if we all where Atheists?

It's nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn't point a finger in my face of: You are wrong, I'm right. [/quote]

Just a few comments:

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqc0roZTZSA

Would everything be good if we all were atheists? No not at all, atheists also commit crimes, atheists are also greedy, mean and so on.

Btw, thanks for the link in your last post & regarding whether or not I've read the bible, I've read the passage with Noah, but that's not the reason why I spoke of Noahs Ark flood story as literal, it's because of people like those who run AiG, CMI, ICR and so on, not based on what I think as a non-believer.

@MarxMaster: 1: Your welcome
2: I have no idea, it has been told to me. But you're right, you cannot just follow the book or any other kind of religious proof.
3: I think you haven't read the bible clear enough. Jesaja states that there will come a person who will die for our sins and give us new hope, [b]not only for Isreal, but for all nations (thus, every people in the world)[/b]. In my opinion and my view, i've seen a lot of people who were helped by God. A acquaintance of mine, went with his dad to an heal service (I'm sorry if I've took the wrong word, it has something to do with church and healing) and tried to heal his father, he has cancer in his ears. It didn't work out (of course it didn't, you cannot just simply heal cancer) but later, the operation went very well, his dad didn't went deaf and we believe that God helped them in that situation.
Well, helping. I think he mentally supports you. He cannot change things that happen in your life. The future is unknown and even he cannot know what is going to happen in your future. You may ask: 'Then, if he doesn't know what's going to happen in the future, he isn't all knowing.' Of course he can't know the future, but that doesn't mean he isn't all knowing. He led, In my view, the making of the solar system and the evolution of animals and humans as we know that today. He is someone who knows a lot, but he can't know what will happen in the future. Nobody can, because the future could be different in many ways. That doesn't mean he's not all knowing. He just can't know it, because there is no proof of it. If you didn't knew that apples weren't sweet, you aren't dumb, you just don't know it. Same here.
4: How can a feeling be a hallucination? I didn't dream, in fact, at first I thought what the heck was going on there. But I think our opinion differs here, but I know that those experiences weren't hallucinations. Why? Because there are other people who've experienced the same. A lot of Christians did. Funny thing is, there is a movie called 'The Reaping' (very interesting but really scary to me) where there is an prof who is examining 'wonders'. You see, in that movie that a lot of Christian 'wonders'
are cause by side effects, who let the 'wonder' look like a wonder, while it wasn't a wonder. So there are people who hallucinate about Christian things, and I nagree with you. But some of the experiences (like mine) aren't hallucinations.
5: Let's take a look from the other side. 10% of all Chinese people living in China are Christians. They were raised with another religion and didn't hear about God and Jesus. They have become Christians. So religion doesn't has to be implanted by taught, but it can also be from experience or brought religion from other people (I don't know how to say it differently). What about me? If I were taught to be a Hindu and I heard from Jesus and God, I think I would have chosen to be a Christian. But you cannot know things that haven't taken place, right?
6: You're right, religion can be implanted by taught. But ask yourself: 'If South-America didn't heard about Catholicism but instead heard from the Islam, did they have the same results as we know it today about Christianity?'
That doesn't mean religion isn't right, because you cannot prove or disprove it. But I understand your opinion .

I also have some questions for you:
How does the world presents itself? Do you think that everything would be alright if we all where Atheists?

It's nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn't point a finger in my face of: You are wrong, I'm right.

[quote=Fade2Black]Why do you believe not only a god or gods, but your particular god(s)?[/quote]
In truth? Likely a result of being raised as such, although I did make a conscious choice to stick with the religion only after studying various perspectives (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Atheism. Didn't check out Hinduism too much). I didn't decide I was going to stick with it until I was absolutely sure it was the most logical path.

Though, I would like to point out an inaccuracy in the idea that I stick with "my particular God". You see, my belief is not that there are multiple Gods for each religion, or even that each religion worships a completely different God. I believe that the various religions, or at least a good majority of them, believe in the same God, and that each religion was directly brought (by a messenger) from that God. You'll notice that, in studying differing religious texts, the spiritual laws/teachings are almost identical. There's always some daily prayer, there's always a fast of some degree, there's always emphasis on morality as well as reward or punishment beyond death for following or disobeying spiritual and social laws, etc. Additionally there are a basic set of rules that, as a whole, seem to have expanded over time. The Ten Commandments, for example, appear in some form or another in just about every Abrahamic religious text. I've noticed only two things genuinely change over time through religion.

First, a concept seems to be added to the repertoire and the teachings become slightly more complex. Abraham himself introduced the concept of 1 God. Moses upheld that idea and introduced the concept of the law. Christianity upheld those ideas and introduced the concept of forgiveness. Muhammad upheld those ideas and introduced the concept of fealty towards God (Insha'Allah, although I'm probably wrong in saying that's the primary original teaching, it's an example). Etc.

Second, social laws change. Quite a bit actually. Jews are restricted from eating pork -- but that makes sense, they lived in a desert! To prevent disease and death, it's pretty darn hard to cook and prepare pork properly. That's also why there were so many food preparation laws (Kosher), in order to keep things sanitary with the technologies they had available, quite a bit of preparation was required to make sure things were safe. Fast forward to Christianity and larger cities and villages are being set up, pigs are now easier to farm and food borne illness less of a problem. Thus, Christians are allowed to eat pork. Fast forward again to Islam and pork is no longer a thing; Islam was brought to a people living in a desert, without as many means for food preservation or sanitation. Shucks, the original Muslims were nomads, a group of tribes brought together by the religion. They kinda needed better food preparation laws and dietary restrictions (Halal).

[quote=Fade2Black]Is it based on evidence/logic and/or faith?[/quote]
As my previous statements would imply, I base my belief solely on logic. I have yet to find a logical fallacy in the writings of my faith...and I assure you I've tried. One big thing for me is science. The writings do not reject science; they embrace science and tell that science and religion can coexist. It's a fairly common belief nowadays, but one of the primary creation concepts of my religion is the idea that the Big Bang, the formation of the planets and galaxies, the evolution of our species, and everything else was not directly hand crafted by God in a matter of days or years, but was to some degree the result of planning and some degree of divine intervention. Not so much intelligent design, but intelligent forethought. Why then do some other religions have a different idea about how the world was created? To put it simply, folks back in 0 B.C. wouldn't have understood what Jesus was talking about if He'd said that billions of years ago (The number itself not even being a concept) there was a gigantic explosion of mass and energy that created the entire universe. So He simplified it so that it'd be more easily understandable.

[quote=Fade2Black]How much do you value faith and why should it be valued? Would you become an atheist or even change your religion, if there was the strongest evidence and logic possible that goes against your current religion? In other words, do you value evidence and logic and do you value the two over faith when determining what is most likely the truth? (If there is superior reasoning over the alternatives based on evidence/logic for anything including the existence of God, I would believe in it.)[/quote]
I value faith as much as it's required. For some it is a necessity, as most are lost without their faith. For others it is a burden, and the idea of acting solely on faith is repulsive. I act as much as I can on logic and so far have found no substantial evidence to sway me the other way. Would I become an Atheist? No, probably not. At worst I'd likely become agnostic. I do prefer to keep an open mind, and I feel that outright atheism is often closed to the possibilities, much like many religious people are closed in the opposite direction. Faith alone would never be enough to keep me in one mindset, but neither would logic and reason ever be enough to close my mind entirely.

[quote=Jobrjo]Alas, I've been drawn back to this thread. Many people have been hating on what I said, but as you seem like a kind person, and you made the thread, I'll relpy to you

A) Well, where did the dense matter come from? Nothing cannot create something. Also, Matter needs Force to move. WHat force moved it? And what force exists strong enough to spread out matter father than we can begin to comprehend?

B) Just cause it's accepted doesn't mean it's true. I've never seen any substantial evidence for the big bang. No record or proff either. Mankind doesn't know, because it never happened

C) Yeah, you may want to do some reasearch on those fossils. As far as I know, everyone turned out to be a normal bone. It would be assumed to be a link, and then found out to be another animal's bone. Not one has been authentized (ok, I know I misspelled that, my bad )

D) Now from here, as I know God created everything, it's gonna kind of negate everything else. 1st of all, the earth hasn't been here for billions of years, actually a few thousand. Even if we take out biblical proof, there's much scientifical proof for this also.

E) Dogs are dogs. Wolves are wolves. The animals may be similar, but they aren't the same. Both are animals designed by a Creator. They aren't descendents, both were made at the same time. However, God did make them similar. It's that simple, God has made animals that are similar, they are after all from the same designer.

F) We know this from Nature today. Organisms can adapt to enviorments. However, they don't grow wings or scales or fur. They don't become something else. They don't evolve. If they can't adapt enough, they die. Evolution doesn't take place. Besides, the same animals exist just fine today, why would they have had to evolve at all?

G) And trust me, I've done my reasearch, and lots of it. My conclusion is where I am now, a Christian

Thanks for asking and answering. I hope this helped somewhat~ ta-ta [/quote]

C) Then you don't know much, because there has been several links between humans and apes, let me list them for you:
H. s. Sapien
H. Heidelbergensis
H. Erectus
H. Ergaster
H. Georgicus
Au. Habilis
Au. Robustus
Au. Aethiopecus
Au. Sediba
Au. Garhi
Au. Africanus
Au. Afarensis
Au. Anamensis
Ar. Ramidus
Ar. Kadabba
Or. Tugenensis
Sa. Tchadensis

Not only do we have all these links, but we have hundreds of some of the links. All in all, an educated estimate says there is around 8000 specimen hominid fossils.

D) No, the earth is 4,5 billion years old. That's at least what the evidence tells us. You might believe that your god is trying to trick us, but then that's just one good deceitful God, huh?

E) Just because animals aren't the same, doesn't mean they didn't have the same origin. You might believe that everyone came from Adam and Eve, so even though Blacks and Asians aren't the same, doesn't mean they didn't originate at Eve. Though, science shows us there never were a biblical Adam & Eve, it shows us that we descended from single celled organisms.

F) When they adapt.. meaning, changing to fit the environment, then they're evolving. The mechanisms behind evolution are the same ones behind adaptation. Evolution as a whole, just has more to it, than simply adapting.

And we have observed new features evolve, from new biochemical pathways to differentiated morphology. This can even happen in one generation, though often limited to plants.

G) Why should anyone trust this when you spew all this nonsense out? Your way of research has probably been indoctrination coupled with a couple of google looks at places that already agrees with you.

PS. I don't hate you, but when you write nonsense, it has to be corrected.

@MarxMaster:
1: Faith is to me logical. How can you say to may that it isn't, while I Experienced (2) things that definitely logicalized my faith.
2: God has been here there and then for ever. He didn't had an end nor he had a beginning. The bible has told me that, and the bible is written by people and those people have heard it from God. God is an righteous person who loves all of his people that he created (that also means (in a christian's view): You, your father, your mother etc.). He is the one who helps me and other people through rough times. And that's one of the reasons why I believe in God. He's logical to me and that's why faith = logical in my view.

3: Yes it is. How? Christians believe (except for Jehova's witnesses) that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. I have no idea why, but it is like that. It's like the system of the Trias Politica: legislature power, executive power and the judiciary power. They all work whit each other and the all control each other. It's vaguely simialar to the G, J and HS thing. I've experienced the Holy Spirit. I'm not really a person who believes in that all, and I thought it was only fro weird people. Now that I have experienced it, I know that he is there. All other people cried, and I started to laugh. Just because... there was something that made me do that. Of course, you think it's just mentally deficient talk and I respect your meaning. I'm just answering your questions.
Why are there people who are worshipping other Gods?
Well, In my view they are worshipping fake 'Gods'. Or it could be that they are worshipping the same God, but they have a different view on it. Maybe that's the cause why there are so many other religions. God doesn't have to be a person, It could/can be (a) spirit(s) (In Asia, they worship those that), or some kind of feeling that you have by doing things. I don't know, it's a hard question.
The reason why I'm a christian is because I think Christianity is a more comparable religion to my thoughts that Hinduism. If it wasn't I may have became a Hindustani person. I had and have my difficulties with my religion, but I'm living with it. There is no perfect religion, because there is always something you don't like about your religion. But Christianity has a very large scale of possibilities so that's one of the causes why I think Christianity is better then Shintoism or Hinduism.
I don't think religion depends in what kind of circumstances you live. There are enough lower class atheists to support my view.

4: I agree with your point of view. I also believe that it is illogical to believe everything that a Religious Book says. The fact is, evolution is true and is perfectly applicable on the Bible, if you read it well. God created the humans out of dirt. The first organisms arise from dirt. So it's pretty funny how the Bible and science can be combined.
The fact is, I don't think we evolved from the monkey we know today. I think we evolved from an living being that was similar to the 21st century monkey. I think the being was smarter then other animals and since I believe that the human is smarter then an animal, I think we evolved from an early sapiens.

I'm a very open-minded christian. I hate thinking in small 'boxes'. But to me, Christianity is the religion or even lifestyle that is perfect for me.
And for you it is Atheism. So not all Christians think like your arguments. I think I'm one of the few who tries to see things differently then the main group of Christians.
Why do I do that? Because I think that God's love applies to all people and that thing is the most important thing why I chose and believe in God. Because God = Love.

I believe in God, since it's the only religion who tells you that you are loved. And that is something which I think, is pretty neat.
But yea, since there are so many people against my religion (Christian) and they all say that Christians suck and that they are brainwashed during the Medieval Centuries and make theological theories (How ironic, I've made a tautology ) about how earth was created, it's hard to believe in any kind of God anyway.

And Yes, I as a christian, do believe in Science, since it's something that is cool. Not only that, it's even on line with the bible, if you are open-minded which most of the christians aren't since their brainwashed by some vicar who tells you that you are so bad and you are no good to this world. Or even Jehovahs, who are very annoying and more likely to put a foot between your door and then try to convert you to something, that is so weird. They also say that there are only 144.000 places in the bible (Ow Please, it's from the Book of Revelation, it's metaphorical and 144.000 indicates a very large number, but that that number isn't endless)

My Believe, is based on logic. Like how are we supposed to make a plant out of nothing. Yea mother earth, the magical unicorn of the flying spaghetti monster (which is not even real, since a man just made it up, because the Government of America only allowed the Christian believe at school. And thus, he made it, because when you have the right at free religion and that it should be accepted at all times, you should take the chance)

Logic and the Bible. It's very simple. There are no other religions who tells you that you are loved. There are no other religions who say that faith and hope is less important the love. There are no religions who have a sex book in there Book of religion (seriously, search for Songs of Solemn, it's full of it. You might as well get an orgasm out of it (oops, bad joke )) or any other book which has a subject of Love. I believe in God, because he's the only one who gives love. And love is something very special. My believe is about a loving person. Not a Person who hates and punishes and say be good and it will be given to you. No, he loves you, and when he loves you, you can't do anything more then love back. It's logical and simple.

Faith is nice, and it's necessary. And then we have Atheïsm. You know, Karl Marx has made up the Atheïsm, to 'make the communistic system more equal'. Yea, like hell. It sucked. Not saying that Atheïsm is bad, but when you see what people can do with it, it's just no good. There are no restrictions, so you can do anything you want. ANYTHING. Which means things like war, fights and so on. But, I have to say, Atheïsm brings you freedom and atheïst are more open for other people. They don't judge you at what you did. You are a person. Just a person. That's all. You know, when we all think that, we could become less selfish. And I think that Atheïsm is just a way of living. But, with a boring end. You die. You're gone. That's all. How lame. I don't like boring things.. I like something... ...better. Like, Heaven? So yea, I won't change my religion, because Atheïsm isn't just that epic. Well, at some points, but overall. It's just lame in action (Ow and BTW, i'm not flaming at IT, i'm flaming the secondary or tertiary things, and if you don't believe, you're might as well read Karl Marx books again. Ow funny thing, Atheïsm does have a book. The Book of Karl Marx. How ironic...)

Evidence and Logic can also be used at Religions. So don't say things that are inaccurate. Like how are Christians or even Islamic people "Unlogic"?
The believe in something that is Logical to them. And I see many logic in the Bible. A few things:

- It teaches us valuable things in life. 'Like what?' would a person say. Well, it kind of (not sure it's going to end in your brains(Ow, the sarcasm)) gives you a sign about how love works.

And one other thing, before peeps are going to bash my religion flame me in way way that I'm the dumb person here and weird in my head a few 'other' things:
1: How is God supposed to take action in war stopping if we are so dumb, for not seeing love.
2: How are Christians even possible to think that homosexuality is wrong and that it is choice. People with Autism don't choos there disorder. Those people (Those close-minded christians (sects FTW, ow the brainwash) and ATHEÏST are so dumb.
3: 'The world is so bad, 'your' Jesus must come back soon. He can do something about all the bad things in life'
Okay, here's the thing. 'The person with no sins throw the first stone' (Ow yea, bible Qoutes FTW). You are not 'clean' and neither am I. So who are you to say that he must do it. You are so lazy, you can do it by yourself, and so do I. Love is something that makes peace, and we are the only living being who can love and beloved. So start by yourself.

So yea, feel free to say bad things about my religion. I don't care. You are the one, who is attacked, not me.
Plain Logic, Plain simple.

Me

PS:
@ReLaX Do you even read the Bible? The story of Noah and The Great Flood is Figuratively.
[url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nihilism]Nihilism. There you go[/url]

En'Taro Adun!

[quote=DeMoNiAk]"Know-power" as seen in Foucault about the epistemological process.[/quote]
But what is it that makes evidence useless according to Foucault? I want to learn more about this arguement.

[quote=FreshProducts]I skipped over some of the comments, well most of them partially cus I'm busy xP, I'll try to read em all later on. As for your questions..

Why do you believe not only a god or gods, but your particular god(s)?
I believe that it is God. He is not only my religion's God but God over everyone and everything; these are my views. Also, the book we have clearly outlines who God is and his characteristics, so to speak. Also, the evidence outlined in the book and the knowledge behind it as well as the simplicity in instructions are staggering. The book offers what a model life is like, what to do in the end and outlines some pretty neat history and science even though it is not even meant to be a scientific journal.
I believe that there is only one god and he is the God.

Is it based on evidence/logic and/or faith?
Well actually, it encompasses all three.
Of course it has faith. We believe in God even though we don't see him.
There is logic behind the religion, even though it may be over 1,000 years old, the logic behind it still stands ture
There is evidence that the book could not have been written by some illiterate man centuries ago meaning there must have been some outside influence, something no human would have been capable of.

How much do you value faith and why should it be valued?
Well I value it a whole lot thats for sure. I value it because of what is said in the book and because I believe what's written in it to be the words of God.

Would you become an atheist or even change your religion, if there was the strongest evidence and logic possible that goes against your current religion?
Actually, no. The reason I say this, and I'm sure you'll disagree with me but its still an opinion; I dont believe that there ever will be any evidence or logic to deny my religion.

In other words, do you value evidence and logic and do you value the two over faith when determining what is most likely the truth? (If there is superior reasoning over the alternatives based on evidence/logic for anything including the existence of God, I would believe in it.)
Woops, should have answered both together, sorry. I partially answered this question before, I dont believe there will ever be logic or evidence against it, again my opinion.[/quote]

Thanks for taking time to reply.
What is your religion?
What's the logic of religion that you were referring and what's the evidence supporting that an outside influence wrote your holy book?

What compels you to believe the words in your holy book are the words of God?

You didn't really answer my question, "Would you become an atheist or even change your religion, if there was the strongest evidence and logic possible that goes against your current religion?". You're taking the premise to be false in your response. The whole point of the question is to describe whether you would do a specific action or not if the premise in the question is true regardless whether it is true or false in reality.

[quote=AloneSpoon]1) think about it almost 2billon people are jew, christ, and muslim this so called god must be right, the human race is created soo perfectly no big bang could have cuased this the whole perfect cycle of hours of day and night is impossible for some unknown giant speed of space foramtion could have made us. have u heard of noahs ark, scientists are seeing affect's in this world today because of it. If you havent seen things that prove god like a plane crashing and one small baby surviing while everyone else dies, means you are completely blind. If there was something that prove god wrong like aliens life will be very different, but we have not seen this and we will never will.[/quote]

There is no effects from the flood because the flood never happened as described in Genesis.

@UAPaladin: We have proof that it did, via science, rather than a man made idea.

[quote=Jobrjo]I am a Christian, and I am so because I know it to be the case, not because of my parents/friends. I'm a Christian because of me. (However, I have/am growing up in a Christian home)

However, even if I wasn't, evelution and the big bang make no sense, so I wouldn't believe n either of those (what I would believe in, idk). Just a few of many points (and these are the common sense ones, not the scientifical ones, which are plentiful as well).

Big Bang
a) Explosions don't create, expecially not order.
b) Where did the explosion come from, and what caused it?
c) No evidence of such a thing.

Evolution
a) Since the earliest records of man that we have, man has stayed man, and there's no such thing as changing animals.
b) It's not seen happening today, and through close obsevation, we can see that cells are not slowly morphing.
c) If it happened, all we should have left today are humans, much less fish, reptiles, and the sort.
d) Once again, where did the starting organism come from?

Sorry, but I have not the time for full out conversations, at least at the moment. So bye [/quote]

Your reasoning is so ridiculously flawed it's hilarious. If evolution doesn't exist, why are there no fossils of almost any of the animals that exist today. If evolution didn't exist, there'd be no life on Earth. If evolution didn't exist humans would be way more advanced than we are now, because otherwise how fast we're advancing in technology would be impossible. My reasoning behind this is that if we were advancing that slowly for around 2 billion years, it'd be almost impossible to be advancing how fast we are now.
@MagicFrappe, become Catholic, you get to believe in the big bang, evolution, we believe that non-Christian (Catholicism is just a type of Christianity) people can go to heaven, and our Masses are really fun, the priests (at least where I'm at) are hilarious, and my Religion teacher at school (Catholic school) jokes around about sex and drugs all the time. I have no idea why movies and TV shows portray Catholics as stuck up idiots.

[quote=Zunoku]Before mankind, there was no concept of God. That's why I do not believe in God. In my eyes, he's manmade...
Now I'm going to leave this thread.
Happy flaming.[/quote]
Before there was mankind there were no concepts of anything, thus, according to your reasoning, nothing exists.

@mashmellow23: You have twisted view on religion. God can't be both Jewish and Christian, because Judaism is the old religion which Christianity is based upon. So if Judaism was always right from the start, there's no way God can be Christian. But if Christianity really did succeed Judaism, then God has to support Christianity and punish those who don't abandon Judaism. So your answer is actually incorrect for sure.

Question for everyone: Will you accept your deserved punishment if your religion (atheism included) was the wrong one?

im not sure if this is true but alot of islamic people say that their god and the christian god is the same. mohammed and jesus were both prophets of god. so the quran is like a continuation of the bible
^ there are two ways to live. live as if nothing is a miracle or live as if everything is a miracle. dont know about you but i see miracles everyday

@FreshProducts

That's a hard question to answer, and deciding upon the truth value of the premises involved in religious arguments causes so much disagreement. As an atheist, I deny some of the premises and thereby deny the conclusion. However, a Christian most likely affirms those premises.

Now I ask you this: do you deny natural theology, or do you hold that the basic tenets of religion could be discovered and defended by using the same tools that are employed in scientific thought (Hume's definition of natural theology)? I myself must accept natural theology in order to apply such tools in denying religious arguments, which should provide clues as to how I can determine truth values.

@FreshProducts

It's funny because a lot of atheists do claim that religious beliefs are illogical, when in fact almost every human thought is based on the use of logic. Sure, fallacies arise whenever the premises are mixed up too much, but what most atheists unwittingly deny are premises or conclusions behind the beliefs and not the logical validity of the arguments themselves. They tend to think that logic equals truth, whereas logic by itself cannot produce truth; truth only arises when logic is applied to true premises.

@noojnow: i know that. jesus wasnt even born on that day he was born sometime in the summer. its just a day to represent and celebrate it but yea it has turned more into a business. still doesnt give people a reason to be an ass about it

[quote=FightTheWar]While I believe that God probably exists, nobody really knows for sure. My OFFICIAL stance on religion vs science (and I don't necessarily think the two have to contradict each other) is that I am strongly against any religious group that tries to block the advancement of science in the name of their religion, and I'm also strongly against non-religious people who are offended by privately-funded, publicly displayed religious displays (such as Christmas decorations), and try to file lawsuits on the people who display them (seriously, who is offended by Christmas? I mean, how pathetic do you have to be to actually see a Christmas display, feel OFFENDED, and threaten to sue the people if they aren't taken down). Yeah, that's my official stance on religion vs science.[/quote]

agree with this guy right here. basically just mind your own freaking business. what other people do isnt your problem so dont stick your nose in it. ive never seen people offended by christmas stuff though. these people that are so extreme needa get a life and learn to shut the hell up

[quote=Mooton]"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."[/quote]

Possible?

While I believe that God probably exists, nobody really knows for sure. My OFFICIAL stance on religion vs science (and I don't necessarily think the two have to contradict each other) is that I am strongly against any religious group that tries to block the advancement of science in the name of their religion, and I'm also strongly against non-religious people who are offended by privately-funded, publicly displayed religious displays (such as Christmas decorations), and try to file lawsuits on the people who display them (seriously, who is offended by Christmas? I mean, how pathetic do you have to be to actually see a Christmas display, feel OFFENDED, and threaten to sue the people if they aren't taken down). Yeah, that's my official stance on religion vs science.

IMO religions were created to induce fear to be able to have control over people, and because everyone is afraid of death, they just adapted to it later on saying their message is about peace, love & tolerance and not about fear and such.

[quote=myrdrex]It's more than enough to suggest that anyone claiming to have "truth" or "facts" on their side is lying.

The only fact is that we likely know and understand the tiniest fraction of reality. It's every bit as absurd to deny unequivocally that some greater being/force created this universe (via observation, making a decision in an alternate relative, etc...) as it is to proclaim unequivocally that this being happens to resemble an old, Caucasian male with a long white beard.

That's what faith is all about- a belief that you grasp some of the mysteries of reality while simultaneously understanding that we mere 3 dimensional beings don't truly understand the whole picture- that's for the greater being(s).[/quote]

Then would you be more comfortable with the idea that science is a justified belief?

Gosh, Basilers just love to bash on religion.

@dimo: Ugghh.. I have to take that back. I once mailed with Robert W. Carter, a creationist with a PhD in biology (http://creation.com/dr-robert-carter-cv), so I thought I could just slip you his mail. Found out when I checked my mail, that I did it through CMI, and apparently thats the only way, and you're not ensured getting to talk to him, you might end up with an spectroscopist like Safarti. But if you want to try anyways, here's the page: http://creation.com/other-question-comment

If it becomes a long discussion, I'd like to read it :]

[quote=ReLaX]I can establish that through mail, want to?[/quote]

Very much so.

99% of christans are only christians becuase they were raised in a house where you went to chruch.

[quote=sutper]You are talking about string theory. There is no scientist on the planet that will call that fact. It is supported by math, and many experiments. Also, it helps to describe the universe. The math just suggests that there are more dimensions. Scientists know that it may be wrong/ more accurate.

Not to mention, if it turns out to be wrong, they will dismiss it and go believe in something else that describes the universe better. Scientists believe in things that best describe the universe, and that's how it should be.

Their belief in this is no where near the leap it takes to believe in something with no evidence(Which also takes a supernatural force).[/quote]

It's more than enough to suggest that anyone claiming to have "truth" or "facts" on their side is lying.

The only fact is that we likely know and understand the tiniest fraction of reality. It's every bit as absurd to deny unequivocally that some greater being/force created this universe (via observation, making a decision in an alternate relative, etc...) as it is to proclaim unequivocally that this being happens to resemble an old, Caucasian male with a long white beard.

That's what faith is all about- a belief that you grasp some of the mysteries of reality while simultaneously understanding that we mere 3 dimensional beings don't truly understand the whole picture- that's for the greater being(s).

[quote=dimo]I think one of the most repeatedly used counter arguments (read logical fallacies) is people not "believing" or understand one or more scientific theories (and let me be clear we are talking about scientific theories here, not the everyday use of the word). I would love to debate or even just pick at the brain of anyone who has a university level understanding of many of they key concepts associated with the broad term "evolution" (big bang, abiogenesis and actually evolution).[/quote]

I can establish that through mail, want to?

I think one of the most repeatedly used counter arguments (read logical fallacies) is people not "believing" or understand one or more scientific theories (and let me be clear we are talking about scientific theories here, not the everyday use of the word). I would love to debate or even just pick at the brain of anyone who has a university level understanding of many of they key concepts associated with the broad term "evolution" (big bang, abiogenesis and actually evolution).

[quote=aeroist]nihilism. evidence is useless.[/quote]

What does nihilism have to do with "evidence is useless" ?

[quote=Jobrjo]I am a Christian, and I am so because I know it to be the case, not because of my parents/friends. I'm a Christian because of me. (However, I have/am growing up in a Christian home)

However, even if I wasn't, evelution and the big bang make no sense, so I wouldn't believe n either of those (what I would believe in, idk). Just a few of many points (and these are the common sense ones, not the scientifical ones, which are plentiful as well).

Big Bang
a) Explosions don't create, expecially not order.
b) Where did the explosion come from, and what caused it?
c) No evidence of such a thing.

Evolution
a) Since the earliest records of man that we have, man has stayed man, and there's no such thing as changing animals.
b) It's not seen happening today, and through close obsevation, we can see that cells are not slowly morphing.
c) If it happened, all we should have left today are humans, much less fish, reptiles, and the sort.
d) Once again, where did the starting organism come from?

Sorry, but I have not the time for full out conversations, at least at the moment. So bye [/quote]

Thanks for your input. Similar to you, I probably won't be constantly active here.

The Big Bang Theory is supported with great evidence, but that's not to say it doesn't have the potential to be slightly wrong like Newtonian physics. The Big Bang is an expansion of dense matter not like the Michael Bay explosions.
"Where did the explosion come from, and what caused it?"
Very good question. Ask an astrophysicist. I don't think mankind knows why the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang is the accepted cosmological model based on the evidence we have today. We know it's likely that the Big Bang occurred in the distant past, but we don't know why.

Your points opposing evolution are based off of misconceptions. First, there are transitional fossils and skeletons relating to many species including human beings. Evolution is not when an organism turns into another species during its lifetime like in Pokemon. Evolution is a gradual change in a population throughout generations by natural/artificial selection. This process has been occurring for a few billions of years and it's still occurring today. Here's an example in recent history: domesticated dogs are descendants of wolves, but have different characteristics from wolves due to artificial selection. Also, evolution has no goal and evolution doesn't mean an organism "improves its body." If an organism has characteristics good enough to survive its environment, it survives and passes down its genes to its offspring. Incidentally, it is mutations that potentially give a population physical changes to improve their survival rate.

Obviously, I didn't really address your questions in great detail. Just ask anything or do some research.

I saw the word Nihilism, so I was drawn to this thread. What relevance is there in whether or not a God exists, let alone whether or not the particular God you believe in exists? Regardless of whether or not an unfathomable force actually does presume to dictate every attribute of our consequential existence, the fact that we perceptively believe that we exist and that we believe that our choice, mentality, and development are meaningful to our own existence should be more than enough to justify our own self-relevance. Why seek satisfaction in something that cannot be comprehended? You live, breathe, act, and are able to make conscious decisions... That's more than enough. I see no reason to argue about what cannot be proven.

[quote=Jobrjo]
Evolution
a) Since the earliest records of man that we have, man has stayed man, and there's no such thing as changing animals.
b) It's not seen happening today, and through close obsevation, we can see that cells are not slowly morphing.
c) If it happened, all we should have left today are humans, much less fish, reptiles, and the sort.
d) Once again, where did the starting organism come from?

Sorry, but I have not the time for full out conversations, at least at the moment. So bye [/quote]

A) No they haven't, there is such things as transitional fossils
B) It's still happening today, we can see species change over time
C) Nope, because all fulfill their niche
D) A long range of chemical reactions.

I don't presume anything, other than we can experience and measure (with current science) only the most insignificant fraction of a percent of the rounding error of actual reality.

Anyone who claims to use "logic" or "science" to somehow "prove" or "know" that there's no greater reality that surrounds and perhaps even creates this one are the ones that are making absurd statements.

There's a reason that even devout Christians 'proclaim the mystery of faith'. Even they recognize that existence and the very substance of reality itself is not known, nor likely to ever be known in any of our lifetimes.

Even science itself points to us perceiving reality in a mere 3 of n (11? 12?) dimensions, with observations needed to collapse probability into reality. Does an atheist mean to tell me that they actually think it's more likely than not that this reality we perceive and the unknown way it was brought into existence has no greater dimension/observer to it?

You're going to make that leap of faith and somehow call it 'fact' while simultaneously mocking anyone that claims there is a greater level of existence and some higher level presence that created this insignificant 3 dimensional universe we see around us? If so, that takes some irony. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I am a Christian, but I also believe in the Big Bang and Evolution. I know it contradicts many other Christian's views, but then again I don't go to church myself. (The main reason being why is that they always claim that if you don't follow Christianity you go to Hell.)

There's a point to where you should value faith. I think those that go overboard and try to autoconvert everyone while shooting down logical claims on Science aren't following the true spirit of religion. By following any religion you should be promoting good morals and being nice and kind to others.

I also personally think, on the subject that there's no proof of god, that if there was an omnipotent being that theoretically could do anything he'd have the ability to make it where to there is no proof that he exists. Why one would do such a thing is beyond me though.

I personally believe that no matter what you religion is (or if you don't follow one.) if you're a generally good person you'll be rewarded in the end. I think everyone should be more tolerable of others point of views.

[quote=Jobrjo]I am a Christian, and I am so because I know it to be the case, not because of my parents/friends. I'm a Christian because of me. (However, I have/am growing up in a Christian home)

However, even if I wasn't, evelution and the big bang make no sense, so I wouldn't believe n either of those (what I would believe in, idk). Just a few of many points (and these are the common sense ones, not the scientifical ones, which are plentiful as well).

Big Bang
a) Explosions don't create, expecially not order.
b) Where did the explosion come from, and what caused it?
c) No evidence of such a thing.

Evolution
a) Since the earliest records of man that we have, man has stayed man, and there's no such thing as changing animals.
b) It's not seen happening today, and through close obsevation, we can see that cells are not slowly morphing.
c) If it happened, all we should have left today are humans, much less fish, reptiles, and the sort.
d) Once again, where did the starting organism come from?

Sorry, but I have not the time for full out conversations, at least at the moment. So bye [/quote]
do you at least have time for 9th grade biology

[quote=aeroist]nihilism. evidence is useless.[/quote]

Why is it?

[quote=aeroist]How do we know gOd exists?
How do we know we exist?
If something exists, i can choose not to believe it.
Just because i see something doesn't prove its existence, just as how if i can't see gOd, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
Faith requires lack of confidence.
Faith in gOd comes natural to humans because we feel better in security of our own power.
There are many points in the bible that go hand-in-hand with science (e.g. lamb blood), but it's debatable whether they're one and the same.

Do you exist?
How do i know you're the same person you claim to be?
There is nothing in the world that designates yourself to be "you".
The mind can go through amnesia.
The skin cells rot and multiply over time, creating a different physical appearance over time.
Brain waves can be manipulated (mainstream i know) easily, as well as physical functions which follow the previous factor.
How can i identify gOd if i cannot identify the person next to me?[/quote]
Given our limited knowledge about the universe, nothing in application is 100%.
When claiming something has to exist, the burden of proof lies on the person making that claim, not the people lacking that belief. If I claim that Beethoven is still alive, I have to be the one providing evidence. We can't believe that Beethoven is still alive because you can't disprove it.
As an agnostic atheist, I acknowledge that there is a possibility of God existence or anything for that matter. But God's existence is not plausible based on the lack of objective evidence from the people claiming that god exist as of now.

[quote=Uglamore]this is a flamewar about if this thread is going to descend into a flamewar or not o.o
I am an agnostic. I see nothing wrong with other faiths, nor do i see anything wrong with atheism. There is only one thing i have against religion (or the lack of it) is the peddling of one's faith. I am annoyed by those who try to convince others that their faith is correct. There may or may not be a god. In the meanwhile, I will live my life according to my own moral codes.[/quote]
I have similar views. I think people should be able to live their lives based on faith and reject concepts of reason no matter how illogical it may be as long it doesn't harm others. Unfortunately, there are many cases today and in the past where violence and politics is influenced by an idea that has no evidence of its truth, but all in the name of faith.

Before mankind, there was no concept of God. That's why I do not believe in God. In my eyes, he's manmade...
Now I'm going to leave this thread.
Happy flaming.

[quote=aeroist]How do we know gOd exists?
How do we know we exist?
If something exists, i can choose not to believe it.
Just because i see something doesn't prove its existence, just as how if i can't see gOd, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
Faith requires lack of confidence.
Faith in gOd comes natural to humans because we feel better in security of our own power.
There are many points in the bible that go hand-in-hand with science (e.g. lamb blood), but it's debatable whether they're one and the same.

Do you exist?
How do i know you're the same person you claim to be?
There is nothing in the world that designates yourself to be "you".
The mind can go through amnesia.
The skin cells rot and multiply over time, creating a different physical appearance over time.
Brain waves can be manipulated (mainstream i know) easily, as well as physical functions which follow the previous factor.
How can i identify gOd if i cannot identify the person next to me?[/quote]

But there are certain characterists that define you. Such as your voice, or the way your appear. Your DNA is indefinite proof of who you are.

@LovelyCorpse: lol

[quote=ilovebucketz]isnt that the point of a forum? create disscussion? who cares if its a flame war at least its something to read....[/quote]

It is true that a point of a forum is to have a discussion, within a limit of course. And having these kinds of threads are pointless, end up in a flame war, and end up having someone's feeling getting hurt.

@fade2black: flame war; A flame war is a heated argument between two individuals, that results in those involved posting personal attacks on each other during or instead of debating the topic at hand