Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[ringo747]

Tough question!

I'd outright reject the areas that are obviously false, I'd also seriously question the validity of the rest of the scripture too. I don't think I'd take many parts of the bible seriously at their face value, but I don't think it's all 100% BS. The bible has some great values, but it also has so many archaic/outdated/simply retarded ones.

I'm not a historian but I think I'm right in saying that they examine each aspect to determine its validity and if something isn't valid they will reject that part.

I can certainly see why there is debate around the reliability of scripture but it is all dependent on the interpretation.

I won't expect an atheist to believe it is an inspired book but at the same time it still has to be examined like any other ancient text.

 

[Craterloads]

Yes you are. You are claiming god or gods exist. I'm not going to denounce your belief as I am not an anti-theist, however I personally (and that is the important part here) trust in mathematics more than metaphorical prose.

No i didnt

You still havent provided any evidence

 

[Craterloads]

Same with there being a God.

However in the case of aliens there is plenty of evidence to suggest how life began on this Earth (evidence that is, not a story book). From Fossils to surviving species etc. Using this evidence (yes evidence) can we not assume that it's perfectly possible that life exists in at least one of those many planets orbiting one of those stars within one of those Galaxies we can see from our telescopes?

There is zero evidence, that life exist beyond our planet. Statistics and probabilities dont class as evidence.

 

[One]

Yes you are. You are claiming god or gods exist. I'm not going to denounce your belief as I am not an anti-theist, however I personally (and that is the important part here) trust in mathematics more than metaphorical prose.

A lot of the statistics rely on opinions of the shape and expansion of the universe and that is a hotly debated topic. Even with statistics it makes the likelihood of life low seeing as how many planets don't have life and how few planets are earth like.

It's all a bit nonsense based on beliefs that any extra-terrestrial life will be carbon based, but this is of course not necessarily true.

I think the only difference is that with ET life we will actually have something tangible to look for. If we find it, we've found it and that will be that. I don't believe in ET life, I believe in the search for it though.

 

[Shayper]

So if you can't get something from nothing where did God come from? "God did it!" Doesn't answer any questions it just sets things back he step.

This raises an interesting point about infinity. Infinity cannot truly be infinite, as it begins somewhere. But, for something to begin, there must be something before it, creating an infinite loop. It's turtles all the way down.

 

[estebanrey]

Just seems like a cheap way to not answer a question that you cannot answer or provide evidence for.

Eh? You don't have to answer a question if it has a false premise.

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[Spook187]

deleted double post.

 

[ringo747]

Knock yourself out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Ok I got as far as line 1...

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the process by which life arose from inorganic matter."

This isn't life from nothing!

 

[RDM]

And that's why I said evidence, rather than proof. I can't prove it, I can only make my decisions based on the evidence that is available to me. If god was to be proved, undeniably, then I would accept his existence and change my belief structure.

Substitute "evidence" for "proof" if you want, the argument remains the same. If you cannot give a statistical probability for life existing on other planets (and you can't without making massive unfounded assumptions) then you don't have any statistical evidence.

 

[Spook187]

Retarded audience, anyway look at 23:40

 

[Craterloads]

Eh? You don't have to answer a question if it has a false premise.

Like i said, easy way out. It's a pretty simple question and has no reflection on our intelligence or how we class our intelligence.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Once i started screwing yours

 

[estebanrey]

A book written by someone when we thought the world was flat

There is no recorded evidence that we in any great numbers believed the World was flat.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm

Why the Myth of the Flat Earth?

The idea that medieval people thought the earth was flat appears to have spread in the late nineteenth century as a stick with which to beat the medieval Christian church, which is often blamed for restricting intellectual growth in the period. The myth also taps into people’s ideas of “progress” and of the medieval era as a period of savagery without much thought.

Let's play fair now

 

[Shayper]

No i didnt

You still havent provided any evidence

There is plenty out there, However it is difficult to post from my phone. And you really have claimed that, your whole belief structure depends on it.

There is zero evidence, that life exist beyond our planet. Statistics and probabilities dont class as evidence.

Of course statistics count as evidence. Have you ever studied maths at a degree or higher level?

A lot of the statistics rely on opinions of the shape and expansion of the universe and that is a hotly debated topic. Even with statistics it makes the likelihood of life low seeing as how many planets don't have life and how few planets are earth like.

It's all a bit nonsense based on beliefs that any extra-terrestrial life will of course be carbon based, but this is of course not necessarily true.

This is also a very good point. We have the evidence, but lack the mathematical methods to consolidate that evidence into proof. This is e entire point of science and maths.

 

[Shayper]

Substitute "evidence" for "proof" if you want, the argument remains the same. If you cannot give a statistical probability for life existing on other planets (and you can't without making massive unfounded assumptions) then you don't have any statistical evidence.

Statistics is based around assumptions. Including, occasionally, unfounded assumptions. The entirety of physics is based around the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, and yet this is an unfounded assumption because we just don't know.

 

[Eliot]

Ok on the rest of your post.

You posted earlier "Aside from the other arguement which that i just think its a crock of &$&$".

If you believe this statement to be true which I assume you do then surely you are basing it on evidence? Otherwise it is no different to the theist saying there is no God but giving no evidence.

But thats what I think. You don't need evidence to do think
As a side,
I don't feel I need evidence to disprove something when all that exists to be taken as evidence is a book written by people when we thought the world was flat.
Is it that even evidence?
What real evidence is there to argue for the existance of god?

Why are the non believers in this thread the ones that seem to have to be burdened with providing evidence for not believing?
Do you not think that the very phase "Believe in God" is inciting doubt?

Hyster, Good post.

 

[Craterloads]

There is plenty out there, However it is difficult to post from my phone. And you really have claimed that, your whole belief structure depends on it.

I've said nothing of such, in this thread.

Of course statistics count as evidence. Have you ever studied maths at a degree or higher level?

Please provide some then, some maths that prove aliens exist.

 

[Jason2]

The infinite can be found no where in nature, so what makes you think the universe is eternal?

As for Abiogenesis, that's something atheists have never liked to discuss. They simply have no answer to how life arose. Lots of scientists have tried to replicate it but all attempts have failed.

 

[Eliot]

There is no recorded evidence that we in any great numbers believed the World was flat.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm



Let's play fair now

Thats interesting!

 

[ringo747]

But thats what I think. You don't need evidence to do think
As a side,
I don't feel I need evidence to disprove something when all that exists to be taken as evidence is a book written by people when we thought the world was flat.
Is it that even evidence?
What real evidence is there to argue for the existance of god?

Why are the non believers in this thread the ones that seem to have to be burdened with providing evidence for not believing?
Do you not think that the very phase "Believe in God" is inciting doubt?

Hyster, Good post.

So you only think but you don't believe then? So you really don't believe that the whole religious thing is a load of *****.

Some of the non-believers in this thread seem to know beyond any doubt that there is no God. This positive belief in the non-existence of God requires evidence to support it. I think we have already established that there is none.

 

[Eliot]

The infinite can be found no where in nature, so what makes you think the universe is eternal?

Read that sentence again.

Its contradicting itself.

Why is the universe Unnatural?

And also,
If Infinity could be found in nature, how would you know for sure?