The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???

jampa17 wrote: Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???   you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???   You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...

What you are describing are emotions.

Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all.


Edited by p0mt3 - December 01 2009 at 18:13

Dean wrote: p0mt3 wrote: jampa17 wrote: Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???   you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???   You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think... What you are describing are emotions. Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all. Emotions are a part of nature, not just human nature - animals have happy, sad, fear, joy, whether they are as sophisticated as human emotions is another question, but how sophisticated human emotions are is debatable too.

You're a vegetarian, aren't you?

Dean wrote: p0mt3 wrote: You're a vegetarian, aren't you? Nope, I'm a vegetarianarian - I only eat amimals that eat plants.       ...or perhaps that's herbivorian....

Whew!

And all this time I thought Dean was under my bed ready to eat me.  

Negoba wrote: How exactly is it not a strawman for a PhD trained scientist to take on pop-culture ideas of religion rather than theological ones? Further, how do you know how most people conceptualize God?

Because Dawkins' purpose was to write a popular book for the pop culture. Given what you wrote, you seem to agree that there is a difference between pop-culture ideas of religion and theological ideas of religion.. which means most people (pop-culture) have a different way of conceptualizing God. Like you said, people (Christian Americans, anyway) think of God as more Zeus-like than the way Muslims may view God.

Also, most people don't read philosophy or theology. Dawkins didn't have any interest in arguing against ideas held by a group of academics.

I would take a quote from the book but I'm currently lending it to my sister...

jampa17 wrote: Who tell you that miracles were meant to be one way to God show himself...??? He doesn't need and doesn't care about proving you nothing... that's faith all about... but you will believe it's only an excuse right...???   I put it this way... if you see Jesus going back to earth, if you see him flying down tonight you will believe in him...??? yes... until you have proof right...??? well, what is so special to believe in what you already knew... that's what faith is all about... I believe in God specially because I have no proof at all... but... well.. again... is that an excuse for you...???

I didn't say miracles were meant to be a way for God to show himself, they are just one way he could.

I don't like the idea of faith. At all. I don't use faith anywhere in my life and I don't get why people expect me to use faith in the areas of explanations of how and why we are here and how to live my life. It's just not sensible to me. But there I go again, using logic and stuff.

Epignosis wrote: Also I would point out that even if a miracle (of the science-violating kind) did happen, would science-minded atheists go, "Well, there must be a deity after all!" No...most of them I'd wager would consider it another one of those anomalies science would explain eventually... ...which makes miracles an unimportant facet of this discourse anyway.

Well, if the atheist is truly science-minded, he would be willing to change his mind given the evidence. And with God being omnipotent and omniscient and all that, I'm sure it could figure out a way. Until then, I don't have any evidence pointing to its existence.

Finally, if a Creator exists, then He called into being every scientific law man would ever discover.  Wouldn't violating those laws then point against God's existence?

I don't think so. My definition of a miracle would be some event that does break scientific laws. Jesus turning water in wine is definitely breaking scientific laws.

jampa17 wrote: Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???   you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???   You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Emotions are just chemical reactions - that's why people ingest chemicals (drugs) to change them. Past that, I'm not sure what you're saying... Sorry.

Also, I don't personally take how I feel about something in determining how I think about something. Sure, it might be nice if God exists, depending on how you view the situation, but that feeling doesn't make his existence true nor false.

Dean wrote: p0mt3 wrote: jampa17 wrote: Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???   you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???   You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think... What you are describing are emotions. Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all. Emotions are a part of nature, not just human nature - animals have happy, sad, fear, joy, whether they are as sophisticated as human emotions is another question, but how sophisticated human emotions are is debatable too.

omri wrote: jampa17 wrote: Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???   you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???   You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...   There is no proof of the existence of god and for sure there is no proof for the unexistence of god. We (each one of us personally) have to choose if we believe or not. Your choice to believe in god is O.K. just as my choice not to believe and these different choices of us don't make neither you nor me better than the other in anything. I respect your choice and hope you respect mine. I see no reason for hard feelings.

^ consider using the phrase "I'm sure that beyond any reasonable doubt there is no god". :-)

yeah... I was thinking in the holy Drummer... "Carpe Diem" he'll say...

Even if the creator/God/bearded gaffer did appear and all doubt was removed about his/her/their existence: would that entity punish those creatures who either hitherto denied his existence or were incapable of recognising such e.g. wildlife, plants, conservative politicians, line dancers, Tangerine Dream fans etc

Would he acknowledge a moral compass with man-made poles ?

(As an atheist, I'm hoping to get a lenient sentence for good behaviour)