Do you believe in God?

[libertyman777]

And for you unbelievers, I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Well said.

[WIDOWMAKER]

Skepticism, the comrade of truth, finds its most enduring and faithful friend in science...

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear.”-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President 1801-1809

[Libertarian_Geek]

I have some friends that are belligerent atheists, some that are belligerent "thumpers" but most are at various (peaceful) points within the scale. This is one subject where I don't argue with either side of the scale. I'll state my beliefs, but won't try to convince folks to either side (there's enough of that from both sides and it just drive folks away). I must admit, it's the one thing that I believe in that cannot be tested scientifically (Besides string theory, but string theory is pretty.)

I provide this single belief an exception to my usual rules. It's not out of convenience or a "what do I have to lose" consideration. It's because I believe that it cannot be tested. I feel that man will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God no more than a goldfish in a bowl will be able to prove or disprove the existence of the ocean. I'm not trying to sway anyone's beliefs, just describing how I balance the equation for myself.

I didn't need to ask specifics about the OP question, because of the spelling and capitalization of the word "God." Besides, whatever name you use, I figured that's what it means; a superior being, the creator, yadda yadda yadda. It didn't need to get into specifics about belief in Christianity, because those "specifics" have already been dictated, edited, translated by man. Therefore, it's just another interpretation that's subject to man's error.

We're all given little bits of information. Enough to decide one way or another except for a small remainder of doubt. I've always felt like this remainder of doubt carries exactly as much pressure on your decision as your free-will can produce in either direction. If one believes, then they exchange free-will for faith. They use their faith to exactly erase that doubt.

That's about as far as I care to go. I'm getting into a territory close to preachy and even closer to self-justification. Both are areas, which I try to avoid.

[bikefreek]

And for you unbelievers, I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Well said.

and us "unbelievers" find your unquestioning adhearance to a fairy tail.....disturbing

To believe in something unquestionably without proof to the point where you are disturbed by the very notion that someone else doesnt, all while justifying your actions by saying to yourself "its ok one day they will understand, just as i do now" is a kind of crazy that i dont want to be a part of. I can name numerous bad things that happened DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF RELIGION, or in the name of one religion over another....can you name a few bad things that have been perpitrated in the name of atheism? Ive never seen an atheist burn a women alive for being a witch, Ive never seen an atheist declare jihad, Ive never seen an atheist cover up rampant sexual child abuse among their coworkers. speaking of jihad...did you know that the middle east was the center of almost all innovation and scientific progress??? That was until someone came along and said it was all against god...so all advancement stopped

[continuity]

...speaking of jihad...did you know that the middle east was the center of almost all innovation and scientific progress??? That was until someone came along and said it was all against god...so all advancement stopped

And there is the crux of the issue. Some human decides/believes that they have been given ultimate understanding of the Bible, Koran, what have you, often of some obscure passage, and fixates on it. Absolutely losing sight of the overall message.

Perhaps a non-believer would recognize what power such insight bestows upon them and under cover of "belief" pursue an agenda that benifits them...

Wait, that could never happen. Never mind.

[doubloon]

Undecided.

You can't prove he doesn't exist and I have no proof he does.

I believe in things that have proofs.

You can't prove god's existence because god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science.

Believing in something without proof is called faith. I'm not a fan that, and I live life OK without believing in god.

Keep in mind that sometimes you don't need proof or validation to believe in something that exist. For example, you could tell me right now that you are happy, but how will I know you are not lying? Can you prove to me how you are feeling? Can anybody validate your feelings? No.

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

[jdj]

Undecided.

You can't prove he doesn't exist and I have no proof he does.

I believe in things that have proofs.

Are you "undecided" in the same way that you are undecided about the easter bunny? I can make up an infinite number of claims which cannot be disproved. This does not imply that such a claim should be given any credence whatsoever. I suppose I am also 'undecided,' as all views and beliefs are subject to evidence and falsification at any time. However, I am only undecided in the same sense that I am undecided about belief in unicorns.

[bikefreek]

Undecided.

You can't prove he doesn't exist and I have no proof he does.

I believe in things that have proofs.

You can't prove god's existence because god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science.

Believing in something without proof is called faith. I'm not a fan that, and I live life OK without believing in god.

Keep in mind that sometimes you don't need proof or validation to believe in something that exist. For example, you could tell me right now that you are happy, but how will I know you are not lying? Can you prove to me how you are feeling? Can anybody validate your feelings? No.

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

So because you are happy you must be right????!!!! Does the term "self supporting delusion" mean anything to you?

[TOOL1075]

there is definitely a creator of something, as something started everything, somewhere.

but who created the creator? there has to be a beginning. I vote for an entity of pure energy and consciousness that started to make stuff. your poll doesn't have that choice, so I voted "yes."

[Libertarian_Geek]

And for you unbelievers, I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Well said.

and us "unbelievers" find your unquestioning adhearance to a fairy tail.....disturbing

To believe in something unquestionably without proof to the point where you are disturbed by the very notion that someone else doesnt, all while justifying your actions by saying to yourself "its ok one day they will understand, just as i do now" is a kind of crazy that i dont want to be a part of. I can name numerous bad things that happened DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF RELIGION, or in the name of one religion over another....can you name a few bad things that have been perpitrated in the name of atheism? Ive never seen an atheist burn a women alive for being a witch, Ive never seen an atheist declare jihad, Ive never seen an atheist cover up rampant sexual child abuse among their coworkers. speaking of jihad...did you know that the middle east was the center of almost all innovation and scientific progress??? That was until someone came along and said it was all against god...so all advancement stopped

Why confuse religion with belief in God? The two are related, but distinct. (are you attempting to game the language to build your case?)

Also, man can make an attempt to justify their evil by claiming to do it in the name of a Popsicle or for Jody Foster. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that Mrs Foster, or the popsicle is to blame. Only the nutcase's interpretation.

Personally, I'm not disturbed that you or anyone else doesn't believe. Why do you find it disturbing that I (and others) choose to believe in God? Apparently, just because you're an athiest doesn't mean your objective. Just like believing in God doesn't make one a myrmidon.

So long as I don't do anything to affect you? It's none of your business what I believe in. If you're disturbed, then maybe you need professional help. See what I did there (gaming the language.)

[Libertarian_Geek]

there is definitely a creator of something, as something started everything, somewhere.

but who created the creator? there has to be a beginning. I vote for an entity of pure energy and consciousness that started to make stuff. your poll doesn't have that choice, so I voted "yes."

Brain-warp coming!

something, everything, somewhere, beginning:
(where & when & things)
Places (3 spatial dimension) and Time (1 temporal dimension) are all properties of our universe (we don't need to get into the other tiny little theoretical dimensions wadded up within those.) Things occupy the space/time created within this construct. In order to pose questions related to anything not in our universe, you'll need to use terms that aren't bound to properties of our universe. The concept of spacial and temporal dimensions may not apply outside of our universe (I can't know.) Therefore, it gets pretty confusing to discuss.

Here's an exercise: Try to imagine our universe in a simplistic version: 3 dimensions of space (height, width, depth) and 1 temporal (time) Now, imagine another one with... 3 space and 1 time (just like ours). Easy enough, right? Now correlate the two. One object in one throughout its existence in 4 dimensions (3+1). Another object in one throughout its existence in its 4 dimensions. How do they interact? Do they interact? They can't. If you're tempted to say they do, but only if they match the same location x,y,z,t then, you still haven't figured it out yet so re-read this paragraph. Otherwise, continue. Now, imagine the "container" (for lack of a better word) that "contains" these two universes. But here's the rub. You have to avoid using infinity. Stuff in each universe may only interact with stuff in its own universe. The structure of the universe isn't made of stuff in which it contains, yet it defines the properties and laws of physics that govern everything within.

So, the question of "who created the creator" is like saying what icecream cone created my icecream cone? To say there has to be a beginning is true, but only within our universe' space/time-dimensions.

[bikefreek]

and us "unbelievers" find your unquestioning adhearance to a fairy tail.....disturbing

To believe in something unquestionably without proof to the point where you are disturbed by the very notion that someone else doesnt, all while justifying your actions by saying to yourself "its ok one day they will understand, just as i do now" is a kind of crazy that i dont want to be a part of. I can name numerous bad things that happened DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF RELIGION, or in the name of one religion over another....can you name a few bad things that have been perpitrated in the name of atheism? Ive never seen an atheist burn a women alive for being a witch, Ive never seen an atheist declare jihad, Ive never seen an atheist cover up rampant sexual child abuse among their coworkers. speaking of jihad...did you know that the middle east was the center of almost all innovation and scientific progress??? That was until someone came along and said it was all against god...so all advancement stopped[/quote]

Why confuse religion with belief in God? The two are related, but distinct. (are you attempting to game the language to build your case?) If you look up the definition of the word religious you will see it impossible to believe in god and not be religious if anyone is playing with words to support their case its you
Also, man can make an attempt to justify their evil by claiming to do it in the name of a Popsicle or for Jody Foster. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that Mrs Foster, or the popsicle is to blame. Only the nutcase's interpretation. your analogy holds true if ONE man is the offender...but when thousands of men do it then the RELIGION is to blame
Personally, I'm not disturbed that you or anyone else doesn't believe. Why do you find it disturbing that I (and others) choose to believe in God? Apparently, just because you're an athiest doesn't mean your objective. The definition of objective is: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions without distortion by personal feelings, predudices, or interpretations....so faith by definition is not objective because it ignores all fact and reason because of personal feelings Just like believing in God doesn't make one a myrmidon.

So long as I don't do anything to affect you? It's none of your business what I believe in. If you're disturbed, then maybe you need professional help. See what I did there (gaming the language.)[/quote]

[Libertarian_Geek]

Your choice to use colors makes a rebuttal a bit confusing without re-formatting. So I reformatted w/ quotes.

and us "unbelievers" find your unquestioning adhearance to a fairy tail.....disturbing

To believe in something unquestionably without proof to the point where you are disturbed by the very notion that someone else doesnt, all while justifying your actions by saying to yourself "its ok one day they will understand, just as i do now" is a kind of crazy that i dont want to be a part of. I can name numerous bad things that happened DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF RELIGION, or in the name of one religion over another....can you name a few bad things that have been perpitrated in the name of atheism? Ive never seen an atheist burn a women alive for being a witch, Ive never seen an atheist declare jihad, Ive never seen an atheist cover up rampant sexual child abuse among their coworkers. speaking of jihad...did you know that the middle east was the center of almost all innovation and scientific progress??? That was until someone came along and said it was all against god...so all advancement stopped

Why confuse religion with belief in God? The two are related, but distinct. (are you attempting to game the language to build your case?)

If you look up the definition of the word religeous you will see it impossible to believe in god and not be religious if anyone is playing with words to support their case its you

So, you only found one definition? Are you sure that you looked it up? It didn't help your spelling. Organized religion (as opposed to one being "religious") seems to be the definition that you and I can likely both agree have a history of problems. But you're making the classic mistake of assuming that correlation = causation combined with inductive reasoning. Many evil acts have been done in the name of a religion. So you inductively reason that religions cause evil. Plenty of evil acts have been done by groups of men? Does that mean that men are evil? Or simply that men have the capacity for evil? Does it mean that large groups of men have a cumulative capacity for large quantities of evil acts?

I'm one man with faith. Am I a religion? No. Am I religious? Yes. Am I Evil? Was a great metal song.

Also, man can make an attempt to justify their evil by claiming to do it in the name of a Popsicle or for Jody Foster. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that Mrs Foster, or the popsicle is to blame. Only the nutcase's interpretation.

your analogy holds true if ONE man is the offender...but when thousands of men do it then the RELIGION is to blame

So according to your logic, at some point between 2 and 1000, people are no longer become responsible for their actions. At that point, it's their religion's fault? But it's not their own? What is creating this evil, if not the decisions (to act or not to act) of men?

Personally, I'm not disturbed that you or anyone else doesn't believe. Why do you find it disturbing that I (and others) choose to believe in God? Apparently, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean your objective. Just like believing in God doesn't make one a myrmidon.

The definition of objective is: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations....so faith by definition is not objective because it ignores all fact and reason because of personal feelings

I never claimed that faith is objective; just that it settles a remainder for me once everything that can reasonably be rationalized has been. Because we're human, we cannot completely remove emotion, bias and prejudice out of every decision. My personal beliefs help me to deal with the remainder.
You're assuming that I'm not objective because of my belief in God.

I just stated that being an atheist doesn't mean that your views aren't distorted by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations. I also stated that believing in God doesn't mean that you are blind and ignorant follower of a collection of men.

Speaking of objectivity. I suspect that someone has a little bias against religion. It doesn't seem very objective to apply such weak induction to a discussion.

So long as I don't do anything to affect you? It's none of your business what I believe in. If you're disturbed, then maybe you need professional help. See what I did there (gaming the language.)

[Libertarian_Geek]

...so faith by definition is not objective because it ignores all fact and reason because of personal feelings

Fact and reason when both are 100% clear; when you're in complete control of the situation, the environment around you and the effects that it has on you. In these cases, when it's easy to remain completely objective... Then you have no need for faith. In these cases, you've completely solved the equation.

Personally, I haven't discovered very many of these situations yet. For those where I have, I was probably wrong. Most of the time, I'm down to 99.999% and need my faith to secure the left-over.

[Paledaddy]

Sorry, nope !!!

Pd

[Libertarian_Geek]

Sorry, nope !!!

Pd

Well. OK.

You disagree. Good. Because bad things tend to happen when too many folks agree too closely about religion, politics, unions etc or are afraid to speak up when they disagree.

[bikefreek]

Geek wrote:
So according to your logic, at some point between 2 and 1000, people are no longer become responsible for their actions. At that point, it's their religion's fault? But it's not their own? What is creating this evil, if not the decisions (to act or not to act) of men?

You are ignoring the point...which is that the people that were "evil" were inspired by god, did it for god, and believe they were doing the right thing by god.

You keep talking as though being religious and being a part of a religion are so different. In the end you both believe the same thing just to different degrees...that there is a magical man that lives in the clouds that is in control of everything. You even alluded to the reasoning for such a notion...because you dont know the answers to certain questions. Well neither do i but im content with not buying into a fairytale for the sake of having an answer. When a population stops looking for answers and chaulks things up to god theory where does that get anyone? You can argue over the finer points of whatever you want but the fact remains that whether you are religious or a part of a religion you believe in magic and fairytales.

[warjunky1428]

This is the main problem with discussing religion, it becomes personal and heated. Keep this at a cool simmer and learning is done by all sides of the argument as they hear someone else's point of view instead of taking it as a personal insult and begin throwing around insults.

Looking at a lot of these arguments, those who see themselves as undecided or quietly saying neither fit more under the agnostic view. This is not to be confused with atheist, as they are very distinctly different. An agnostic recognizes that there is a power beyond their conscious understanding. It is there, and it is far more powerful than us, but we simply choose to not put a name to it or describe it. God, spirits, angels, demons, the holy ghost, the sixth sense, etc: they all describe the same realm of power.

That's the basics of it, and here is my personal take on it. The concept of structure religion is a mental security blanket to the feeble human conscious mind. To be able to pass off guilt and responsibility to a higher power relieves that mental burden. To believe that there is a glorious life after death for you and a horrendous life after death for your enemies is mentally relieving. This is all tricking the subconscious to feel empowered by having this higher power on your side, propping you up, having your back, and carrying your pack.

The power described in the last line of the paragraph before last, in my opinion, is your subconscious mind. It has been proven that we use a very small percentage of our brain consciously, yet most everyone has felt the psychological power that is possible. You could feel someone looking at you, sense someone else's presence, feel someone elses pain or sense their distress despite the distance between you, knew someone else's thoughts or what they were thinking, thought the same thing at the same time as the person you love during a board game of sorts as you felt like your minds were connected. These are all examples of some power that connects us, and the most logical concept of that is our subconscious mind.

[JustAnotherName]

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

I see you are not familiar with Dawkins flying spaghetti monster example.

Polygraph aren't very accurate or reliable. If they were, why bother going to court?

[BWT]

Yes, and I'm saving that debate/head ache for Saturday when I share a Golf Cart with an Atheist.

Then we'll discuss how the Fed is all a group of lies. The Government is evil, etc, etc, etc.

And whatever other Alex Jones hot topic he wants to discuss. But we agree on a few things, and we get along, so I don't really care.

I'll tell you what I always question of figure heads in Government, Religion... ideals... I'm wary of individuals that look for empowerment.

I've questioned my beliefs, but I found at their core... they made sense, to me. It's disenfrachisement, acceptance of others, a doctrine of love, forgiveness, but it's been manipulated by many, there's many sects, many changes. I've found contentment in the actual bible.

I mean, to be controversial, I believe the Catholics have changed it, I believe Mormons have changed it.

I mean where in the bible did it say to build a small city full of gold and wonders and obscure yourself from the populace into positions of power?

The Crusades?

I'm a Christian, non-denominational. I've debated it at length, but I find that the fundamentals, if you truly look at them for what they are... don't promote pride, arrogance, destruction, etc.

And to tell you the truth, as a political conservative, I realize an organization or belief system that isn't about gathering power in some fashion, gaining prestige, etc. is the anti-thesis of what man is.

Evolution? I had this discussion before... and it couldn't be explained away before, and I doubt it will be now.

When can an organism go from being a single-cell organism to a multi-cell organism. They can't... they simply can not. Any genetic anomally would be crippled and starved at that microbial level, like a Siamese twin, it wouldn't be more efficient, it would be less. That's as likely as you to physically join your body and merge with another human being.

So let's entertain the idea second reason it's impossible, say it was an anomally, and it was multiple cell, it'd also starve after a certain point because, cells can only grow so large before they starve, the reason they starve is the cell walls grow too far from the organs, that they literally can't eat enough to survive, that in the time it takes for the things they consume to get to the organs, they're already dieing.

Third reason, Those cells, the earliest form of life, supposedly, right? They're still there... in the exact same condition. But but, humans evolved right, we're the exclamation at a sentence that spans billion of years? How could those cells still exist? Why wouldn't Apex Predator eat them? Some Bacteria in their current form are the oldest fossils known to us. How could step one, have possibly survived this long? How. HOW?!

ETA: Fourth reason, Mitosis, instead of cells joining after a certain size, in fact, they must separate to survive, they must become less sophisticated to survive. To live.

Then you get to the fact we only finished mapping the human genome in 2003, and that's mapping, let me repeat that Mapping, We finally looked at the whole DNA strand, and yet, We Know.

[bikefreek]

Yes, and I'm saving that debate/head ache for Saturday when I share a Golf Cart with an Atheist.

Then we'll discuss how the Fed is all a group of lies. The Government is evil, etc, etc, etc.

And whatever other Alex Jones hot topic he wants to discuss. But we agree on a few things, and we get along, so I don't really care.

I'll tell you what I always question of figure heads in Government, Religion... ideals... I'm wary of individuals that look for empowerment.

I've questioned my beliefs, but I found at their core... they made sense, to me. It's disenfrachisement, acceptance of others, a doctrine of love, forgiveness, but it's been manipulated by many, there's many sects, many changes. I've found contentment in the actual bible.

I mean, to be controversial, I believe the Catholics have changed it, I believe Mormons have changed it.

I mean where in the bible did it say to build a small city full of gold and wonders and obscure yourself from the populace into positions of power?

The Crusades?

I'm a Christian, non-denominational. I've debated it at length, but I find that the fundamentals, if you truly look at them for what they are... don't promote pride, arrogance, destruction, etc.

And to tell you the truth, as a political conservative, I realize an organization or belief system that isn't about gathering power in some fashion, gaining prestige, etc. is the anti-thesis of what man is.

Evolution? I had this discussion before... and it couldn't be explained away before, and I doubt it will be now.

When can an organism go from being a single-cell organism to a multi-cell organism. They can't... they simply can not. Any genetic anomally would be crippled and starved at that microbial level, like a Siamese twin, it wouldn't be more efficient, it would be less. That's as likely as you to physically join your body and merge with another human being. If there was an anomally that found a way to exploit a food source that single celled animals cannot then it would be more than possible

So let's entertain the idea second reason it's impossible, say it was an anomally, and it was multiple cell, it'd also starve after a certain point because, cells can only grow so large before they starve, the reason they starve is the cell walls grow too far from the organs, that they literally can't eat enough to survive, that in the time it takes for the things they consume to get to the organs, they're already dieing. uuhhhh did you fail biology class? yes its true a single large cell cannot survive but it has to do with surface area to volume not the time it takes to get to the "organs" of a cell. This is the entire reason for multicell organisms...in your attempt to disprove the evolution of multicell organisms you described the exact cause of their evolution.

Third reason, Those cells, the earliest form of life, supposedly, right? They're still there... in the exact same condition. But but, humans evolved right, we're the exclamation at a sentence that spans billion of years? How could those cells still exist? Why wouldn't Apex Predator eat them? Some Bacteria in their current form are the oldest fossils known to us. How could step one, have possibly survived this long? How. HOW?! easy the less complex and specialized an organism is the harder it is to eradicate...its the KISS principle applied in biology

ETA: Fourth reason, Mitosis, instead of cells joining after a certain size, in fact, they must separate to survive, they must become less sophisticated to survive. To live. youre right cells divide and when they divide they go from something as fragile as a human embrio to a full grown man...what has a better chance of survival?

Then you get to the fact we only finished mapping the human genome in 2003, and that's mapping, let me repeat that Mapping, We finally looked at the whole DNA strand, and yet, We Know.

[jdj]

When can an organism go from being a single-cell organism to a multi-cell organism. They can't... they simply can not.

Demonstrably false. Unicellular to multicellular evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory. See here for a lay persons explanation:

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watc ... efore.html

And here is the link to the abstract of the paper:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... 2/00171545

You are using the 'argument from personal incredulity,' a logical fallacy. " I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

[doubloon]

Undecided.

You can't prove he doesn't exist and I have no proof he does.

I believe in things that have proofs.

Are you "undecided" in the same way that you are undecided about the easter bunny? I can make up an infinite number of claims which cannot be disproved. This does not imply that such a claim should be given any credence whatsoever. I suppose I am also 'undecided,' as all views and beliefs are subject to evidence and falsification at any time. However, I am only undecided in the same sense that I am undecided about belief in unicorns.

Why should I rule out the possibility of an easter bunny just because I haven't seen or touched one?

When you see tracks like this in the woods do you believe they were made by a deer?
http://www.saguaro-juniper.com/i_and_i/ ... ack_dt.jpg

When the easter bunny passes through a house he leaves baskets of treats. You see the tracks you believe a deer made them, someone else see's a basket of treats and believes the easter bunny left them. What's the difference?

Are you confusing the concepts of probability, faith and proof? Or are you denying the possibility that the easter bunny may be tangible but not in a material context?

To me the probability that a basket leaving, egg pooping, easter bunny exists or ever existed in the material sense is very low but the probability that he exists for some 6 year old somewhere is 100%.

I believe racism exists, not in the material sense but it is certainly tangible to me. There are others who will tell you racism doesn't exist in the U.S.A. and within their tangible realm it may not so they will deny the existence of racism anywhere else. When I was young the easter bunny was tangible to me, not so much anymore (to me) but does that mean he doesn't exist for anyone else? I've seen *actsI* I attribute to racism but I can't say I've ever seen "a racism". So do I have to see "a easter bunny" for there to be one?

Who are you to say what is or isn't tangible for someone else. We all create our own realities and it's only where those realities are forced to overlap that we must find common ground.

All it really takes for something to exist in someone's tangible reality is for them to believe it exists. Therefore I submit to you that the easter bunny and god are the same being.

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

I see you are not familiar with Dawkins flying spaghetti monster example.

Polygraph aren't very accurate or reliable. If they were, why bother going to court?

I'm quite familiar with his noodly goodness, should I assume you are not familiar with TIPU because you didn't use it in a sentence?

I suppose you have first hand experience with the reliability and accuracy of a polygraph in the hands of a trained professional?

But seriously, are these the best arguments you could come up with after a day and a half thinking about it?

Back at ya.

Is not!

Is too!

Nunh unh!

Unh hunh!

[bikefreek]

Undecided.

You can't prove he doesn't exist and I have no proof he does.

I believe in things that have proofs.

Are you "undecided" in the same way that you are undecided about the easter bunny? I can make up an infinite number of claims which cannot be disproved. This does not imply that such a claim should be given any credence whatsoever. I suppose I am also 'undecided,' as all views and beliefs are subject to evidence and falsification at any time. However, I am only undecided in the same sense that I am undecided about belief in unicorns.

Why should I rule out the possibility of an easter bunny just because I haven't seen or touched one?

When you see tracks like this in the woods do you believe they were made by a deer?
http://www.saguaro-juniper.com/i_and_i/ ... ack_dt.jpg

When the easter bunny passes through a house he leaves baskets of treats. You see the tracks you believe a deer made them, someone else see's a basket of treats and believes the easter bunny left them. What's the difference?

Are you confusing the concepts of probability, faith and proof? Or are you denying the possibility that the easter bunny may be tangible but not in a material context?

To me the probability that a basket leaving, egg pooping, easter bunny exists or ever existed in the material sense is very low but the probability that he exists for some 6 year old somewhere is 100%.
I believe racism exists, not in the material sense but it is certainly tangible to me. There are others who will tell you racism doesn't exist in the U.S.A. and within their tangible realm it may not so they will deny the existence of racism anywhere else. When I was young the easter bunny was tangible to me, not so much anymore (to me) but does that mean he doesn't exist for anyone else? I've seen *actsI* I attribute to racism but I can't say I've ever seen "a racism". So do I have to see "a easter bunny" for there to be one?

Who are you to say what is or isn't tangible for someone else. We all create our own realities and it's only where those realities are forced to overlap that we must find common ground.

All it really takes for something to exist in someone's tangible reality is for them to believe it exists. Therefore I submit to you that the easter bunny and god are the same being.

You can't prove god's existence can't be tested in the realm of science. Just because it hasn't been done before that doesn't mean it's impossible.

You could use a polygraph to validate I believe I am telling the truth about being happy. Feel free to refute the accuracy of the polygraph with TV science.

I see you are not familiar with Dawkins flying spaghetti monster example.

Polygraph aren't very accurate or reliable. If they were, why bother going to court?

I'm quite familiar with his noodly goodness, should I assume you are not familiar with TIPU because you didn't use it in a sentence?

I suppose you have first hand experience with the reliability and accuracy of a polygraph in the hands of a trained professional?

But seriously, are these the best arguments you could come up with after a day and a half thinking about it?

Back at ya.

Is not!

Is too!

Nunh unh!

Unh hunh!

if im not mistaken you just justified your train of thought by aligning it with a six year olds mentality

[Libertarian_Geek]

You are ignoring the point...which is that the people that were "evil" were inspired by god, did it for god, and believe they were doing the right thing by god.

I'm getting bored with this (it's not your fault, it's the subject matter and the certain futility that comes with the subject matter.) I understand your perspective (heard it before) and where you're coming from (I just don't agree) except for the above quoted point.

I believe that the ugly s--t in history that Man's done in the name of religion can be solely blamed on the combined actions and inaction of men regardless of the excuse that they use.

To argue that it's religion's fault is like saying it's the economy's fault for the stimulus package, or that it's terrorism's fault for the Patriot Act. I honestly never thought that I would be arguing with an atheist and telling him that he's vastly over simplified things and that he's conveniently hidden the specifics behind a loosely wrapped abstract concept called religion. To me, that is just beautiful irony.