Why do/don't you believe in ? ?
Options
Comments
-
Because man can't explain everything, cannot explain where everything came from (just theories) and cannot generate life from scratch. Because my belief is not just belief; I know.
So ? exists because man cannot explain it ALL? Does everything HAVE to be explained? 200 years ago we wouldn't be able to explain many things, 200 years later look at where we are and what we have accomplished. We have things and have done things that were never thought possible or even thought of yet. What about 200 years from NOW, or even 1,000? What if we're able to explain everything to a T? Does that mean then, based on what you said, since we're able to explain these things that we can't now, that ? possibly doesn't exist? -
@ VIBE. no. The central concept of my post was the last sentence. Other "reasons" are superfluous. That's the bottom line. I relate to the Most High on an experiential plateau. Call it what you may but you're just guessing because our experiience is not shared.
-
solid analysis wrote: »You do realize The Bible exists rite? That's an example of evidence.
now whether ppl accept or reject the evidence is a different issue i don't wanna get into. But u can no more contest the Bible as evidence of ? existence than you can contest my posts as evidence of my own existence. I can rightfully tell you who is the author of every single one of my posts. I made them. And how will u contest it?
Well, if that's the case then, "The Chronicles of Narnia" is evidence that talking lions do exist, that talking mice exist, that there's a fairy tale world that actually truly exist.
A book, by itself, doesn't contest to any evidence. A book can tell of a story, but if there is truth to it, the evidence would actually lie in existence right here and now. So you cannot say, "oh, the bible is the evidence", unless it was written by the hand of ? and there was proof for that, you'd have an argument.it's in the Bible - "For the wrath of ? is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of ? is manifest in them, for ? has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20).
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of ? , so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:1-3)
the very things a Christian accept as being evidence of ? 's existence is the same things as a Christian reason why the believe. aka faith. aka the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is actually pretty weak, it's the just putting trust forth not knowing if it's true or not. That leaves it open to it being non-existent.the evidence doesn't exist? hmm, i dunno.. are u sure?
is it that the evidence doesn't exist, or just that you discount the evidence?
The evidence doesn't exist. This is because there is NO FACTS, just ASSUMPTIONS. Science doesn't say, well here, this is what we THINK and ASSUME without evidence. They put forth many facts to form answers. They've admitted when they were wrong and have always gone back and re-tested, re-researched their findings.you said it yourself. now can u answer, who formed them? Who brought them to?
The way the universe came to, the way life did, the way everything did isn't the same as making an object we do here on earth. So it needed NO creator.
-
No.eddie2time wrote: »is being atheist a religion?...
-
oh did the author of 'The Chronicles of Narnia' claim that? And did the author of the 'Chronicles of Narnia' have to prove he existed before he started authoring his book? Why not? lol how is that anywhere near a valid analogy? oh u just being facetious?Well, if that's the case then, "The Chronicles of Narnia" is evidence that talking lions do exist, that talking mice exist, that there's a fairy tale world that actually truly exist.
We talking about the fact that a book exists being evidence of the AUTHOR's existence. Just like my POSTS are evidence of MY existence. Whether the contents of the book or writing itself is factual or not is a different issue.A book, by itself, doesn't contest to any evidence. A book can tell of a story, but if there is truth to it, the evidence would actually lie in existence right here and now. So you cannot say, "oh, the bible is the evidence", unless it was written by the hand of ? and there was proof for that, you'd have an argument.
Yes a book can attest to certain evidences. Example: History books. Also, whatever other evidence that can be gathered from a book well that would depend on what book we talking about now wouldn't it?
what makes the Bible evidence? Maybe because it contains testimony and eye witness accounts, for starters?
You do realize Judges in courtrooms make rulings in court based on similar types of evidence like eye witness accounts and testimony right?
and so what if ? used humans as the physical instrument through which He deliver His message. All the writers of the Bible agree that the message is from ? . But go ahead and claim it's from men. But yet if yall ever find who the ghostwriter of any given rapper of a particular song is, yall quick to acknowledge the GHOSTWRITER as 'author' of THAT work. (example of a valid analogy) Gotta love the flip floppy logic used by non-believers.Faith is actually pretty weak, it's the just putting trust forth not knowing if it's true or not. That leaves it open to it being non-existent.
Speak for yourself! Fact: the Bible says differently than you about Faith... So, i don't know where you got your concept of faith, that you consider it 'weak'. No wonder no one willingly dies for it.
So, you discount the evidence. Fine. That's on you. But, how you know what Science says? you have his cell phone number? do yall talk often?The evidence doesn't exist. This is because there is NO FACTS, just ASSUMPTIONS. Science doesn't say, well here, this is what we THINK and ASSUME without evidence. They put forth many facts to form answers. They've admitted when they were wrong and have always gone back and re-tested, re-researched their findings.
because CLEARLY u were there when it happened...The way the universe came to, the way life did, the way everything did isn't the same as making an object we do here on earth. So it needed NO creator.
lol no further questions
-
too much things within the universe that are not mentioned in the bible. also, our various religious texts are all basically rooted from the same stories. plus all the extraterrestrial connections with primitive man and how they evolved/influenced their way of life.
i do believe that if there is indeed a "? ", its not what any of us could imagine or fathom -
although given the religious convictions of the author, this is probably not the BEST example for this point.Well, if that's the case then, "The Chronicles of Narnia" is evidence that talking lions do exist, that talking mice exist, that there's a fairy tale world that actually truly exist.
-
oh did the author of 'The Chronicles of Narnia' claim that? And did the author of the 'Chronicles of Narnia' have to prove he existed before he started authoring his book? Why not? lol how is that anywhere near a valid analogy? oh u just being facetious?
We talking about the fact that a book exists being evidence of the AUTHOR's existence. Just like my POSTS are evidence of MY existence. Whether the contents of the book or writing itself is factual or not is a different issue.[\quote]
The point is that ? doesnt exist based on a book.Yes a book can attest to certain evidences. Example: History books. Also, whatever other evidence that can be gathered from a book well that would depend on what book we talking about now wouldn't it?
what makes the Bible evidence? Maybe because it contains testimony and eye witness accounts, for starters?
You do realize Judges in courtrooms make rulings in court based on similar types of evidence like eye witness accounts and testimony right
Correct, but there's actual physical evidence that exists for these things in history and court rulings. The explanation for ? is this; we do not know how all things were made, therefore ? did it. Which is false. We do know these things and they aren't baseless claims, there's actual evidence for the claims.and so what if ? used humans as the physical instrument through which He deliver His message. All the writers of the Bible agree that the message is from ? . But go ahead and claim it's from men. But yet if yall ever find who the ghostwriter of any given rapper of a particular song is, yall quick to acknowledge the GHOSTWRITER as 'author' of THAT work. (example of a valid analogy) Gotta love the flip floppy logic used by non-believers. [\quote]
Actually, the authors of the bible, mostly, are unknown. ? also never told anyone to write the bible, these were written after the fact these stories were told over and over. They weren't being written as their lives went along as some live blog/journal type of thing.Speak for yourself! Fact: the Bible says differently than you about Faith... So, i don't know where you got your concept of faith, that you consider it 'weak'. No wonder no one willingly dies for it. [\quote]
This is what believers say as well. Faith is just that, not knowing it's there but just giving it a trusting go that it is.So, you discount the evidence. Fine. That's on you. But, how you know what Science says? you have his cell phone number? do yall talk often?[\quote]
Science isn't a person, so I think it'd be hard to call science and ask. But I do know based on reading and the evidence presented within tests and research, none of which religion offers, remember it's just faith.
But how do you know what ? says? Do you talk to ? much?because CLEARLY u were there when it happened...
lol no further questions quote]
Ah, the silly ol "you were there/weren't there" saying. It's all traceable to a single event. Do you know what they have to say about this? Or you just ignore it ignorantly? -
@ VIBE. no. The central concept of my post was the last sentence. Other "reasons" are superfluous. That's the bottom line. I relate to the Most High on an experiential plateau. Call it what you may but you're just guessing because our experiience is not shared.
Good post...why should the believer share what the atheist can't or refuse to accept it without questioning it? -
I believe in life, because life exists. Which is not much different than a "? ".
-
I guess if you exclude the parts that aren't the same, "? " and "life" aren't too different.
-
They say ? gives life, I say life gives life!!
-
@ disciplined insght.. I'm saying as well I even reject the term "believer". Belief is to experience as religion is to spirituality. Once we see our spirituality unfold physically and become the witness, we cease to believe. We know. Atheists do not believe or know the same thing because 1) their preconceived notions cause them to not at all or halfheartedly test and observe spirituality in motion and 2) contrary to an all to common attitude of pomp and intellectual superiority, most atheists are handicapped in that they don't have the ability to perceive the spiritual realm. Either dedicated ignorance or sour grapes. They believe but the intrinsic nature of their law codex, the scientific method prevents them from knowing. Only more questions and a one way zoom which can only see the detail in individual things but never their wholistic relativity.
-
Because I realized it's all based on belief and not anything of fact.
Either you believe a ? created everything yet didn't need a creator and tell everyone that everything needs a creator
Or you use common sense and realize it's a flawed argument and come to the conclusion that there never was a point of non existence. -
eddie2time wrote: »is being atheist a religion? i mean atheist go hard in the paint for that status.
they will get on websites and battle you from sun up to sun down. ..
if i didnt believe in a ? and declared myself an atheist i wouldnt even get in a conversation with you about it, it would seem like a big waiste of both our times.
to me atheist are looking to be convinced some how that their is a ? because they feel empty inside or whatever
Atheists argue against your fairy tales because they are detrimental to society and placing focus on self rather than mystic beings is beneficial to society. In a species so advanced one would think there is no longer a need to explain the unknown with guesses when a solid method is in place to figure the answers out. -
I don't experience a personal ? in my daily life. Couldn't say I ever have. I believe there are natural explanations to all universal phenomenon
-
Arguments for a ? make no sense to me
-
So basically for all those who believe in ? it's always this: "Because, ? is so amazing! Who else created this!? Man/science has no answers!!! ? did this!"
Let me ask though, for what reason?
Let's say there is a ? , who did indeed create this beautiful earth w waters and beautiful vegetation. He placed animal life on earth, non-human. Why throw humans into the mix to pollute and destroy the earth? Who over fish populations of fish and over hunt populations of beasts?
Humans have done more damage than good. Why? He "knows" all this before it happens. ? is ? up. George Carlin was right, "if ? was a woman, things wouldn't be so ? up". -
It is hard to define why one believes in ? .
First they must define what ? is to them. Each have a different impression of ? , which is not bad, no two thought systems are the same. But the imprints words and experiences leave upon the mind are as unique as fingerprints, and those things shape our impressions of everything. So that right there is lengthy and personal, how to write all that for public eyes? Especially when scrutiny is needed.
Two how does one correlate the experiences in their life where ? has definitely worked and then convey it to others? Whether you believe ? is real or not or they, to them it was a reality. It is like trying to convince a schizophrenic there really is no one talking to them in their head. Yes there is.
-
I just want to know from a theist's point of view, where is the evidence for a ? observable in our every day lives? How do theists KNOW of ? (excluding the Bible, parents and/or parental figures and sunday sermons)?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »I just want to know from a theist's point of view, where is the evidence for a ? observable in our every day lives? How do theists KNOW of ? (excluding the Bible, parents and/or parental figures and sunday sermons)?
Use logic and reasoning, when in history have you ever known of anything to spring fourth from nothing or to create itself, seems a lot more logical to believe in a Creator than to just think everything sprang fourth from nothing and for no reason. As amazing and as expansive as creation is and you think all that diversity just...happened?
-
If you believe in a creator then you have to ask yourself who created that ? ... SOMETHING HAS TO COME FROM NOTHING!
I dont believe in ? because I picked up a bible and I started reading it and its ? stupid. -
People saying something can't come from nothing like the something that is here now can't be better adapted or more complex then what came before. Even certain things that came before was greater or more well suited to its environment. ex: Dinosaurs vs Man (we would have won). There is no evidence or logical conclusion that a higher consciousness set everything to motion or exist outside of the Universe. The Universe exist without the need to ponder it's existence, unless you consider that one little portion of the universe called mankind which finds the need to question its own purpose.
-
I don't believe in ? for the same reason i don't believe in the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and santa claus.
At a certain time in human history, there wasn't the science we have today to explain natural disasters and events such as people being ill, death, thunder, rain etc. So people made up stories to compensate for that void, and at a time it was taken and understood as fact.
Now that we know not only how illness works, but how to cure it and why death happens, Not only how thunder and rain happens but how to PREDICT it; there is no place for ? in todays society. Only cowards and slow people still believe. -
I don't have any reason to believe in ? other than what my parents told me and what I've read in a text that's thousands of years in the making(not to mention translated over several languages through time).
I don't deny that there may be a ? , but I think that if there is a ? , he's not as depicted in the bible. I can't say the one in the bible is a benevolent one, or at least not all the time. I kinda just laugh when I hear anyone or my family say "? is good, all the time"(no he ? isn't lol).
I was raised Christian, but became an agnostic/atheist(? a label I'm just indifferent to religion) after deciding that I'd been lying to myself about feelings I was supposed to have after being "saved". Reminds me of this Langston Hughes short story "salvation".
http://www.courses.vcu.edu/ENG200-dwc/hughes.htm
