|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Simple human logic dictates that some form of God(s) do(es) exist. Think about it. If you were raised completely alone, without any contact with other humans to influence you, wouldn't you think the world was created by some powerful being(s)? Or would you come up with evolution as a way to explain everything?
Your reasoning is flawed. Even if your speculation about what a person raised completely alone would or would not believe is entirely correct nothing about the actual state of the world follows logically from a belief.
|
|
|
god = non exsistant, at least as more that a thought
|
On June 03 2004 16:48 Meta wrote:
god = non exsistant, at least as more that a thought
and why does he have to be more
|
On June 03 2004 16:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Show nested quote +Simple human logic dictates that some form of God(s) do(es) exist. Think about it. If you were raised completely alone, without any contact with other humans to influence you, wouldn't you think the world was created by some powerful being(s)? Or would you come up with evolution as a way to explain everything? Your reasoning is flawed. Even if your speculation about what a person raised completely alone would or would not believe is entirely correct nothing about the actual state of the world follows logically from a belief.
Google: Onotological Argument
|
to religious people god = a thought that acts like a guide to a better life
to non religious people god = non-existant
to brainwashed fundamentalists god = a big guy with a beard who hates gays and who sends you to hell if you dont believe in him or forget to confess your sins
by the way, i find it weird that almost 50% of the people here still believe in god, but that probably has to do with the high percentage of americans that visit this site.
in europe, religion had a HUGE influence on public life (non-constitunial influence tho) because the largest party (60%+ of the votes) used to be the christian-democrats, and they build, what we call in europe a 'pylon' (yes, its also a sc term) that consisted of unions, lobby groups, bars, hospitals, social securities,...
a large portion of the population was a member of one or more organisations of this 'pylon', but after a while (around the end of the seventies) it stopped working well, so a lot of people turned away from both the christian party and the pylon that it had 'build', another consequence of this was that people turned away from church too, so they stopped being religious.
now, on a population of 10 million, there are 2 new priests every year.
i think from the population from 0-55 years old, only like 10% is religious.
|
Norway28714 Posts
hey guys stop nitpicking
if you believe god exists, press yes
if you don't believe he exists, press no.
if you believe neither more than the other, don't answer.
it's a very, very simple poll.
|
Norway28714 Posts
pfff that totally depends on your opinion of religious..
FAR more than 10% of europeans between 0 and 55 years believe there is some kind of supernatural force or god or whatever that created the universe, if nothing else through starting the big bang. (believing this does not go against science, as science really has no explanation for what was before the big bang, and hell, big bang is just a theory too. )
in fact, if you had a poll all across europe going "are you religious?" where the possible answers were "yes, very." "yes, slightly" "no", well above 50% would answer one of the first two options.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Google: Onotological Argument
I do not need to google it, I am already aware of the ontological argument  . Two points: First, he was not making the ontological argument in any proper sense. Secondly, basically no philosopher takes the ontological argument remotely seriously anymore. Imho, nothing follows logically from someone holding a belief in something.
|
On June 03 2004 17:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
hey guys stop nitpicking
if you believe god exists, press yes
if you don't believe he exists, press no.
if you believe neither more than the other, don't answer.
it's a very, very simple poll.
simple indeed ._.v, still it causes trouble lol
|
On June 02 2004 19:37 HnR)Insane wrote:
I like how the Atheist option has bad grammar :/
And "God exist" is good grammar? It's actually, "God exists."
|
On June 03 2004 16:13 baal wrote:
I did, what can i say... atleast you dont belive in creationism BS
Why is it "BS?" I mean, I've heard pretty good arguments from both sides, and happen to side with creationism; however, I've never really heard a convincing argument that creationism was "BS." Please elaborate.
EDIT: I obviously voted "God exist."
|
On June 03 2004 20:29 SickofLife wrote: Show nested quote +On June 02 2004 19:37 HnR)Insane wrote:
I like how the Atheist option has bad grammar :/ And "God exist" is good grammar? It's actually, "God exist s." well the thread was made by an atheist so hah!
|
On June 03 2004 16:13 baal wrote:
I did, what can i say... atleast you dont belive in creationism BS when did creationism go against big bang?
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Well scientists working to the big bang cosmological model dated the age of the universe to billions of years before the bible's stated creation date. 
|
Scientists were only able to date back to the bible's interpretation of the date of the creation of humans, not the earth or the universe. (well that was an ugly sentence)
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
|
On June 04 2004 00:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Well scientists working to the big bang cosmological model dated the age of the universe to billions of years before the bible's stated creation date. You're telling me you said this without have any idea of its credibility?
i don't want this to get to 30 pages like last time, i'm out, sorry 
|
the reason that many ppl chose God Exists option is prolly didnt look at the choice n just click on the 1st one (as they thought DOES NOT shoud come 1st ) 
|
On June 03 2004 16:50 Vicious)Soul wrote: Show nested quote +On June 03 2004 16:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Simple human logic dictates that some form of God(s) do(es) exist. Think about it. If you were raised completely alone, without any contact with other humans to influence you, wouldn't you think the world was created by some powerful being(s)? Or would you come up with evolution as a way to explain everything? Your reasoning is flawed. Even if your speculation about what a person raised completely alone would or would not believe is entirely correct nothing about the actual state of the world follows logically from a belief. Google: Onotological Argument
1-I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
2-Necessary existence is a perfection.
3-Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.
I wasnt aware of this argument so I'll just post it here for others to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
