scientific reasons for believing in god?

Original post by frankieboy

I suspect because it adds a "Godlike" quality to the writing. Therefore adding more weight to the psuedo-logical argument.

Yes, people often use this as evidence of the Quran being a truly holy book...

So you're telling me that if if repeat all that I have said and make it rhyme, there's a chance of you taking this science stuff seriously?

Reply 602

Original post by Ishea16

does it? why do you say that lol?

my point, its not something to explain
you're trying too hard

Please, I literally need help understanding the sky comment.

Reply 603

pvaz6965

2

Original post by Ishea16

or maybe you should stop calling other peoples beliefs
"pure unadulterated crap usually termed delusion"

You are still a kid aren't you? I am far more precise and careful with language and meaning than you are. That comes with age and experience.

Reply 604

Original post by frankieboy

I guess that speaks volumes.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

i guess it does

well St Nicholas=Santa and he was actually a real guy who was very rich and near Christmas he would go and drop off gold coins or something in peoples chimneys

we did this in Re

so yh i do believe in him he was a walking living guy for goodness sake :rolleyes:

Reply 605

Original post by pvaz6965

You are still a kid aren't you? I am far more precise and careful with language and meaning than you are. That comes with age and experience.

age is just a number
I could me more mature and experienced than you :tongue:

stop making assumptions loool :biggrin:

Reply 606

loveleest

21

There is no evidence lol

Reply 607

alcibiade

11

There is no scientific reason or proof that points to God's existence. That's why theologians invented faith: they wanted philosophers and their followers to stop questioning their sacred teachings and texts and so advocated that their flock stop thinking. Later, it was enforced with the threat of violence.

Reply 608

Original post by leavingthecity

Please, I literally need help understanding the sky comment.

tbh
i dont usually give up on my weaker students but you seem like you should be leavingthecity

jokes lol dont take it to heart :h:

Reply 609

frankieboy

13

Original post by Ishea16

i guess it does

well St Nicholas=Santa and he was actually a real guy who was very rich and near Christmas he would go and drop off gold coins or something in peoples chimneys

we did this in Re

so yh i do believe in him he was a walking living guy for goodness sake :rolleyes:

St Nicholas != Santa Claus.

St Nicholas was a philanthropic Bishop. He died. After his death, the legend of Santa Claus was invented, for fun.

St Nicholas probably existed. Santa Claus does not. It's Santa Claus that I said I believed in, not St Nicholas.

I also believe in unicorns. Do you have an explanation for that as well, or do you think I'm crazy as a bag of cats?

Reply 610

Original post by frankieboy

St Nicholas != Santa Claus.

St Nicholas was a philanthropic Bishop. He died. After his death, the legend of Santa Claus was invented, for fun.

St Nicholas probably existed. Santa Claus does not. It's Santa Claus that I said I believed in, not St Nicholas.

I also believe in unicorns. Do you have an explanation for that as well, or do you think I'm crazy as a bag of cats?

well my Re teacher has being teaching this for years i would think she would know what she's talking about

but if santa claus is st Nicholas and you believe in santa then you'd have to believe in St Nicolas.. because they are the same person...

well you believe in unicorns, why are you asking me for an explanation lol?

Reply 611

Original post by frankieboy

Yeah actually that's a fair point. Perhaps we have a responsibility to continue to try and dispel this disgusting archaic superstitious brainwashing, even though it seems futile.

Yeah as tedious as it is...it's those things that should make us argue; all the types of discrimination they encourage ...

Reply 612

Original post by Ishea16

tbh
i dont usually give up on my weaker students but you seem like you should be leavingthecity

jokes lol dont take it to heart :h:

Don't worry, not taken to heart. But the thread is really looking for logical reasonings and experimental evidence from it's contributors

Reply 613

Original post by leavingthecity

Don't worry, not taken to heart. But the thread is really looking for logical reasonings and experimental evidence from it's contributors

wow
i know, and i said that maybe people shouldnt be looking for evidence
because that's not believing
that's a fact and you cant believe a fact because its just a fact...

Reply 614

Good bloke

19

Original post by Ishea16

i said that maybe people shouldnt be looking for evidence
because that's not believing

In terms that other people might use, wanting evidence before believing something is normal, rational and sensible. Believing something without supporting evidence is irrational, superstitious, bizarre and asking for trouble.

Reply 615

Original post by Good bloke

In terms that other people might use, wanting evidence before believing something is normal, rational and sensible. Believing something without supporting evidence is irrational, superstitious, bizarre and asking for trouble.

thats not believing then
thats called accepting

Reply 616

Original post by Ishea16

wow
i know, and i said that maybe people shouldnt be looking for evidence
because that's not believing
that's a fact and you cant believe a fact because its just a fact...

We are back within the word game here.

You can accept or reject facts.

There is nothing wrong with requiring facts. It's discouraged because....well they often fly in the face of religion and educate people out of their dogmas.

Reply 617

Original post by Ishea16

thats not believing then
thats called accepting

Why do we need to just 'believe'? What spiritual mechanism is set in motion when a person decides to blindly believe? Why is this the only acceptable way to God?

Reply 618

Original post by leavingthecity

We are back within the word game here.

You can accept or reject facts.

There is nothing wrong with requiring facts. It's discouraged because....well they often fly in the face of religion and educate people out of their dogmas.

these words were invented for a reason because they dont mean the same thing

huh? you cant reject a fact, a fact is proven and is undeniably true

no theres nothing wrong for requiring facts
but what kind of facts are you even looking for?
do you want to see God, will a physical being make it evidence that God exist?

how can you look for something when you dont know what youre looking for?

Reply 619