Do you believe in God now? (page 5)

amen

rem,

I do not conclude on feelings but the alternatives are not better they are not flawless. When weight what science offers and what the bible offers, i think believing in a creature that is above everyone else makes more sense.

I am expose to a lot of critical thinking but they have not explain why humans are so different from the rest of animals. (ability to think beyond survival). Why the need of spiritual beliefs? Why searching for something that does not exist.

I see humankind is searching for his creator. Without faith we will never believe in him, some required facts how much facts do we need to be satisfied?

amen

Let me add that men (religious or science) talk a lot but proove so little.

amen

rem

Hamster,

So every believe must be based on fact?

You'd rather believe in fairy tales? I think that's sad. Not necessarily for a child, but for an adult it's sad. The only reason we have the quality of life we have today is because society has progressed to the point where we demand evidence for beliefs. This is called the scientific method and it has helped us discover many many things about our universe in the past couple hundred years. Not sad at all!

If you expect everything to be presented in black and white terms, then you're in for a miserable life. It just doesn't work that way.

Nope, not miserable. Actually, you don't seem to understand how rational belief works. Here goes: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't need hard facts for every little thing - only for the really important ones. That's the way it works in real life. When someone tells me they had cheerios for breakfast, I don't need hard facts. I normally believe them because it's not an extraordinary claim. When someone tells me that crop circles are made by adolescent space aliens, I'm naturally skeptical and require extraordinary evidence for this claim.

The question of the existence of god or gods is the of the latter type. So far there is no extraordinary evidence in favor of the existence of gods. But I'm willing to listen to any evidence if it comes up, which is more than most Christians are willing to do, which is sad. Now do you understand why I consider you to be closed minded? You've already admitted it!

Again, us Christians aren't uneducated idiots. I know about other religions. I've taken a class on major world religions. I know basically what they all believe.

Oooh goody! But have you taken a class on Logic and critical thinking skills? If you had, I wouldn't have had to bring you up to speed on the whole extraordinary claims exercise. That doesn't mean you're an idiot. It just means your ignorant of some things. We all are ignorant of different things. Take this time to learn. It's fun!

I know some extremely intelligent Christians. I also know some extremely intelligent JW's. Some intelligent people really believe in Big Foot. Intelligence has nothing to do with having rational beliefs. Intellectual honesty does. That includes having an open mind.

Or is it because you all are still holding a grudge against Christians because the JWs proved to be elitist morons? Get over it.

Nope, no grudge. I couldn't care less about the JW's anymore. In fact, I spend a fair amount of time defending them against some of the irrational arguments that get thrown around about them. For the record, I was a non-denominational Christian after leaving the JW's, so I did believe in Jesus for a time. My non-belief has to do with research and intellectual honesty. Simple as that.

Have fun!

rem

Amen,

You believe 'just because'. You have clearly demonstrated with your posts here that you are ignorant of evolutionary theory and science in general. That's fine. Some people are cool with that type of faith. It's not for me, but that's no problem. Just don't try and tell me your faith is rational (based on logic and fact) because that's a demonstrably false claim.

Revel in your faith, blind as it may be. It's a good feeling. I used to be there. I've just found something more satisfying now: reality.

rem

amicus

Ah. I see you checked your brain at the door on your way in. Well, welcome anyway.

Ok, clerk at the door tells me in order to enter this DB I must check at the door one of two things, my brain or my good manners. Which do I choose?

Belief should always be based on the best available evidence.
Beliefs should be based on evidence. Anything else is a cop-out.

Evidence is always subject to interpretation. What was that infamous saying? "If the glove dosen't fit you can't convict." So today I wear a pair of leather gloves that allow me to pick up a dime. I immerse these gloves in water and tomorrow after they have dried they become 2 sizes too small. Evidence suggests that the gloves could never have fit me.

It was once believed that the Neanderthal was an ancestor of modern man. Thirty years ago if I had suggested that perhaps the two had co-existed I would have been ridiculed as the evidence didn't appear to suggest that. Today we know the later is true. The evidence suggesting that the Neanderthal was our ancestor had been misinterpreted.

Your presumption that one can arrive at accurate conclusions after analyzing the best available evidence is a cop-out.

I feel the breeze on my face, look into the sky and see the clouds and believe in a god. You do the same and see a number to the "n"th power explaining this all occuring by chance. Who's right and who's wrong?

Believing something based on "faith" is exactly the same as believing something based on a whim. The sun will still rise tomorrow whether I have faith or not. But when I stopped believing in your god, he disappeared.

Let's inject some honesty into this discussion. You think he disappeared I believe to be a far more accurate statement. Or to put it another way, you have faith that he disappeared. Or how about this? You have a whimisical notion that he disappeared.

If you can do a prove that he disappeared, please share the proof. I really want to hear it, this is a subject I have spent years pondering.

amicus

Oops!

I see a typo, but I don't see an edit feature.

rem

Amicus,

It was once believed that the Neanderthal was an ancestor of modern man. Thirty years ago if I had suggested that perhaps the two had co-existed I would have been ridiculed as the evidence didn't appear to suggest that. Today we know the later is true. The evidence suggesting that the Neanderthal was our ancestor had been misinterpreted.

Um, no. There was no real consensus on this issue. There were valid arguments on both sides based on fact. Just recently more evidence has come in that has provided more evidence for one side. And today we know the latter is true with a high degree of confidence - we don't know 100%.

See, there are a lot of areas where evidence can be interpreted multiple ways and that's acceptable. It's not acceptable to say that two sides are just as valid when one side lacks any evidence at all. If you believe that wind blowing in your face is evidence of god, then your standard of evidence is quite low. This 'evidence' doesn't reveal how many gods there are, what his/her/their personality is, etc. Basically what it comes down to is you already decided there was a Christian god because you were raised a Christian and then you try to interpret any little phenomenon as 'evidence' for your irrational belief.

If you were as intellectually honest as you think you are then you would be agnostic on the issue. Instead it looks as though you are just full of bluster.

rem