Well sort of. I think that it was highly edited to be montheist. Nothing against Yahweh, but I dont think even he thought he was the only game in town.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-10 18:29
No, lack of EVIDENCE.
end of story.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-10 18:58
I believe in a God, that is, some god, but I can not go any further than that without my own ego being more my argument than my logical reasoning. How do you define a theist who does not have a religion? with what term?
I find it impossible to believe that all of creation is simply a well time accident.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-10 23:19
No, there is no valid reason to believe in God. He is just as fictional as Santa Claus. There is nothing that makes his existence any more likely.
The Bible is just a book to me, there is nothing about it that elevates it or makes it more important then any other book. Again there is no proof the Bible has any divine inspiration.
You can build an admittedly crude scale of comprehension amongst living/sentient entities to which one end of the list is inanimate material that has no concept or analysis of anything around itself. You go on to organize plants, organize less insects and animals, place man somewhere, then finish the known kingdom.
If the end of the list whereupon there are things that have no comprehension or analytical skills of their surroundings can exist, there is sufficient reason to concede that, the other end of the list, something for which there is comprehension and analysis of everything immediate or distant to it, may also exist.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-11 12:20
>>8
"may also exist?" An invisible pink unicorn "may also exist" on Mars, and what of it?
Non-falsifiable claims do not rise to the level of a scientifically testable hypothesis. These claims, carefully parsed so as not to be empirically testable, are statements of opinion only, and in a scientific context, meaningless noise.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-11 12:28
>>9
God, however, does not require scientific approval, unless it's not "[g]od" you're looking for.
At the very most, logical approval can be accepted. If you can develop the hypothesis - scientific or logical - which leads to the invisible pink unicorn on Mars becoming possible, I will explore that possibility if it is within my power. (More likely I will extend my search to become a broad examination of Mars; but, the unicorn would always be in the back of my mind, neighing.)
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-11 13:08
I'm a Christian but I think many parts of the Bible like Genesis and the part about Jesus are just allegories.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-11 21:32
To sum up simply what others have said.
1st theist point: God can exist in the spaces of misunderstanding.
2nd Point: (SpagettiMonsterFallacy): Anything can exist in the spaces of misunderstanding.
Everyone is agnostic to the PROOF of god, there is no point in arguing his possible existence, because if it is invisible, ethereal, silent and tasteless then we have no potential to experience it. We can use science to push the boundaries of where God could still be hiding, like Steven Hawkings new book, The Grand Design. Theoretically proving that the forces of the universe could create mass from nothing. (but then god is the force, until we know more...)
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-12 12:38
What if you believe in Jesus, or least his teachings, but not the demongod of the Old Testament?
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-12 14:21
>>10
This objectively rather surreal idea that there is a magical invisible Santa Claus on an invisible throne in space, who created the universe and cares very much whether or not we eat fish on Friday, is an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, otherwise it's no different from any other crazy story made up by madmen.
>>12
So, we have to accept any non-falsifiable crazy and/or stupid claim now, or just the ones with a cultural pedigree that is pleasing to you?
This is not how the scientific method works. Saying "you can't disprove it 'cos God is invisible, neener neener neener!" is meaningless noise.
If you want to be taken seriously, bring me testable claims, otherwise I am equally justified in claiming that my invisible friend Flooby the Douche Beast went back in time to before God existed and pushed God's pregnant mother down a flight of stairs, so there, neener neener you can't disprove it.
You shouldn't accept anything you can't experience as proof. That is what I am saying. Proof of the unprovable is pointless, so god is just as ridiculous as "flooby" and both are to be taken as non-evidence but still unprovable as false forever.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-15 19:31
>>1
God? Nah. The mess that this place is in, and no God has shown up (except to preach to the choir), shows me that he either doesn't exist or doesn't give a shit.
The bible? Yeah, I've seen one. Several, in fact. I even own one.
Doesn't mean it's not full of shit, tho.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-31 13:32
Let people believe what they want to believe, we should never oppress those because of their faith :)
Your opinion is your own and unless you plan on becoming a Christian extremist (that's right looking at all you reading this) forcing it down people's throats or using propaganda, everyone is happy.
Now...let's get blitzed, pass the peace pipe.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-31 15:28
>>1
I believe in an "architect of the Universe". If you want to refer to this entity as "God", okay.
As for the bible, it is its good points and bad. The ten commandments are common sense, but common sense isn't really as "common" as the name implies. Do not kill, do not steal, do not cheat with thy neighbor's wife, honer thy mother and thy father (doesn't mean you have to "like" your parents though), etc. You don't even have to be religious to understand that.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-03 15:54
it would be quite strange to believe only in jesus and not in old testament, because jesus said that he will make the laws of god come true for whole world, and this means the old testament's laws
personally, atheist, there is no proof of god, bible and other religious books are full of contradictions and there is no real logic behind some of the laws, and if there were/are, they would be modelled for the time the books were written in, and are quite impossible to apply to modern society.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-03 17:08
The Bible DOES NOT EXIST, PEOPLE!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-03 18:52
>>20
Nonsense. There's a copy of it sitting inside the cabinet behind my bed.
>>25
I know this is a troll board, but atheism goes back a lot further than Karl Marx, who was a Jew, not an atheist.
Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism are very old belief systems not requiring the acceptance of any supernatural claim. There were atheists among the very earliest Greek philosophers also: Diagoras of Melos, for example. There is also the Hrafnkels Saga, a Norse story of a man who rejected the Gods and chose to live by his own wit and virtue.
Or... well, you aren't even going to read any of this are you? Feh.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-04 11:36
>>26
You can be a Jew AND an atheist. Like Karl Marx was.
Karl Marx was extremely anti-semitic and anti-religious. Also atheists are faggots who have no answers. They're just too lazy and prideful to serve God.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-05 9:09
nah, just better things to do than think if things i do hurt the feelings of imaginary being. . .
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-05 11:28
>>30
So you'd rather eat mcdonalds and watch american idol than discuss philosophy?
Religious people have answers that are all wrong. Atheists aren't prideful by saying that there is more to understand rather than just believing in a magical sky fairy with no reason to.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-06 3:17
>>32
God is a philosophical concept, so is science. Also I know you think mcdonalds and american idol suck.
>>45
It's e=mc^2 [pomposity]ACTUALLY[/pomposity]. And in actuality, yes, e=mc^2 only explains 1 of 4 fundamental interactions, so there will be scientists pointing out contradictions and questioning it's validity. Both Isaac Newton with his classical physics and Einstein with his relativity believed there was a chance their theories would be displaced by a more accurate theory in the distant future, even though the facts they had at the time indicated they were correct. Why? Because they knew science does not give you absolute certainty, you don't have all the facts and you don't have the intelligence needed to analyze everything fully, philosophy is fundamental in order to understand scientific method and implement it correctly.