Do you believe in "GOD" ,and the "Great" beyond ?

................. GOD DO NOT EXIST, THERE IS NOTHING MORE WHEN WE DIE, AND SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING IN A LOGICAL WAY!!!!

So, for all those people that still believe in it, DEAL WITH THE FACT IT IS FICTION. Is like Saint Clauss (according to the catholics, Saint Nicolas of Vari), is a good tale you told to a kid before he goes to sleep, but a big lie. People control you using God as you control a kid with Saint Clauss, so, use your mind and STOP BELIEVING THAT. Is like if you believe you´re going to have a flying cloud, like Goku, that you can ride, never is gonna happen, NEVER!!!

So, deal with the fact that the universe is colapsing each second, and you life is an evolutionary accident.

(This is for the religious people, ´cause they [obviously] still believe in God)

[hahaha, hAhAhA, HAHAHAHAHAHA{normal, insane, and maniacal laughter}]

When it comes to the existence of a greater being, I am a believer. First off, I notice a lot of Atheists acting a lot like other religions: they'll happily, eagerly point out flaws in thinking, plot-holes, and quick to rationalize miracles, but if confronted by something truly out of this world, they'll be just as quick to say it never happened, it's 'a trick of the lights', some sort of hallucination, or that they'll "Someday" rationally discover what caused said phenomenon.

In that sense, they're just as bad as any religion who might go to ignore scientific findings or historic documents, which is why it irks me when people act like Atheism is "better" than religion.

I've noticed a lot of people say they're atheists just because it makes them feel better, or because they don't like the idea of a big man pulling the strings. You're entitled to think in such a way, but if you do, you're no philosopher. You're just a coward who's too afraid to acknowledge there's more to this world than what meets the eye, and you're probably too close-minded to contribute anything meaningful to this conversation. If you can tell me you're an atheist after a lot of hard thought and reasoning, I'll be happy to respect your beliefs.

On that note, as one who's had an open mind all his life (or at least tried really hard), it's borderline impossible for me to say there isn't something out there greater than us, be it god or otherwise. Having experienced firsthand supernatural phenomenon, magick, and other such things, you come to realize that this reality far extends past our current comfort zones weather (weither? weaither? You know what I mean) we like it or not.

First and foremost, my belief in a higher consciousness spawns from this train of thought: reality is altered through perspective, and we can only experience reality through our own perspectives. If all conscious life in the universe stopped existing, and nothing could perceive reality, reality couldn't exist. As such, something had to be aware of existence at the beginning of time for the begining of time to evolve to the now.

Secondly, if this higher power is god or not is simply irrelevant. God's ultimate agenda would be beyond us and our mortal labels, because god is a different being than us, its perspective would also be skewed, and trying to pin any human attributes to God would be akin to us trying to humanize a tree. Not possible.

Thirdly, the existence of evil does not necessarily prove that god isn't benevolent. Granted, he's just as likely to be good as he is to be evil, but the existence of evil does not disprove he's a good god any less than the existence of good proves he's not evil.

Fourth, We may not know where god comes from, but by that token, we don't know where that single atom came from that spawned the big bang, or where the massive amount of pressure that set it off came from. And even if we were to figure that out, we'd still have to ask where THOSE components came from. God, at least, has the potential to give us a definitive answer: he's all powerful, so why couldn't be exist forever? He lacks reason so there's no reason to try to pin logic on it.

Fifth, scientific advancement does not necessarily contradict any idea's of a higher power. Things fall because of gravity, not because of gods fist. Strange lights in the forest are swamp-gas, not spirits. But you have to remember what science is: Science identifies things, not explains how they come to be. Science, if I could steal a metaphor for a moment, is like watching a game of chess from far away and trying to figure out the rules, just by watching. you don't have to know what they're planing, why they're playing it, or that it's even a game: all science does is figure out what the rules are.

As for a Great Beyond, the idea that there's a higher power doesn't mean there has to be a great beyond. God's just as likely to guide us into a paradise as he is to just obliterate us after we die. But the answers will come, in time, so I'll just wait and find that one out for myself.

Those are my takes on it. I'd welcome any challenges of my thinking... no such thing as a perfect philosophy, after all.

thanks!

Correct me if im wrong but didnt Christianity only take hold after Emperor Constantine officialized it as the primary Roman religion?
I was also taught that some speculate that he only did this to control what the citizens of Rome believed in, as "Religion is the opiate of the people" - Karl Marx.
Oh and also didnt he gut out 2/3s of the early convert's scriptures, leaving only texts that support his ideal religion to form what is known today as the Holy Bible?

Edit: After giving it more thought i realized i completely disregarded Judaism and Islam but the point im trying to argue is the validity of the origins of Christianity.

I'll bite.



That's not acting like other "religions", that's being skeptical (something religions aren't fond of us being). Skepticism has nothing to do with atheism. Don't link atheism to shit that's irrelevant. Atheism only concerns itself with god (that is, it's a lack of belief in a god), and nothing more. Skepticism is also not exclusive to atheists. There are theists who would dispute the claim of something "out of this world" happening as well. When a miracle is claimed to have occurred, it's always anecdotal evidence. Shit, even god is just anecdotal evidence. Why should anyone believe it? Most of the time, the situation is just a misinterpretation by the person who claims that some crazy magical shit happened. Maybe you yourself have been tricked into believing magical phenomena actually happened.



Like what? Also, historical documents don't do anything to prove paranormal phenomena.



Sure, I wouldn't have much respect for any atheist who didn't intellectually reach atheism, but don't act like there really is more to this world. You have nothing to base that claim on, and by nothing, I mean something besides anecdotal evidence like saying "I saw it with my own eyes." That's not good enough. Oh, and yeah, I've thought about it long enough to reach the conclusion that there's no reason (by that, I mean there's no evidence to support god's existence) to believe in a god.



Just going to mention, being open minded doesn't mean accepting everything you come upon. Being skeptical and dismissing things that have no reason to be believed while believing things for which there is evidence is also being open-minded. If you're going to say, "I never said blah blah blah about open mindedness", I know you didn't say anything, I just thought this is something that needs mentioning.



Every so-called logical argument for god that I have ever come upon has been illogical. Any argument for god will always have either bad logic and/or a false premise (or just an unproven assumption). This argument is no exception. It stems from a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. You'll find your rebuttal here. I hope you adhere to the claim of being open minded.



Yes it does. I don't believe in any force of evil, but there are acts which we consider evil (because evil is an act). If god created everything including human beings, he created us with the ability (and some of us with the tendency) to do evil. You cannot claim god is good when god is responsible for all evil done throughout the world and as far as I've seen, (if he exists) he just stands around and watches as it occurs.



Ah, yes, god lacks reason, so we can't rationalize him. The same pussy cop-out heard throughout a dickload of discussions about god. If we can't "pin logic on it", why the fuck did you try to make a logical (more like lolgical) argument for his existence? You might as well say he exists just because. Saying he's "all powerful" doesn't mean shit. If you haven't heard the paradox that the idea creates, it goes like so: Can god create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? If he can, he's not all powerful, if he can't, he still isn't all powerful. Also, why does one need to be all powerful to exist forever? Why couldn't energy and matter have always existed? The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. One of those "rules of the universe" we have observed. So why couldn't they exist forever? It's much more reasonable to think that than believe god is all powerful and always existed.

Why haven't the people in this thread stopped believing in "God" yet?

I believe in a god, that somewhere out there, there is someone or something bigger then ourselves that we can't comprehend, but i don't believe that God was made to make all our lives filled with rainbows and unicorns he lets us chose how our life is gonna turn our, karma basically, but i don't deny the possibility that I'm wrong and the church of the flying spaghetti monster is right you have your opinions and i have mine, scientist say there is not proof for god, just the theory, yet there are lots of thing that only exist in theory in the science world (dark matter, strange matter, time travel, etc.) so i also think religion has it's place but so does science , Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Then why give a shit about it?

I'm being raised in a very Catholic environment, but I won't let it be mistaken for an oppressive one, because they've always been tolerant of others, even what I choose to believe. However, I've always had my doubts. While I don't think I've ever seriously doubted the existence of God, I constantly doubt the truth of Catholicism, and by extension most religions in general. For example, and I'm just using my former religion for simplicity's sake, why is it that we always talk about being kind to others and helping those in need, but then those in power of the Church turn around and cover up sexual abuse that happens across the world? Furthermore, and in comparison to the sex abuse example this is something of a lesser complaint, but why is it we always talk about treating others the way we would like to be treated, but then my state (with support from the Catholic Church) goes right ahead and forbids gays the right to marry? Now, I want to be clear: I don't wish to generalize Catholics in the slightest (my own family, for example, thought Prop 8 was abhorrent) but that simply isn't a religion that I can take part in and still feel good about myself.

As for the beliefs of Catholicism and Christianity in general, while I understand that most of the Bible is intended to be taken as metaphor, I also am led under the assumption that we're supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is divine, and was assumed into Heaven after he died. Forgive me for saying, but the belief that a human being was divine is a little tricky for me to believe. I'll take that he was a good man, and I believe he was unjustly executed when he was put on the cross, but that he was the Son of God? I apologize, but that is a pill a bit too large for me to swallow. I guess, in the end, you could say I'm a theist who doesn't believe in any semblance of organized religion.

And finally, for the Great Beyond, well, this is my opinion: I like to think that I've been a good person, so if I die and there's a Heaven, GREAT! I'm rewarded for my good deeds. However, if I die and there's nothing... well... at least it's peaceful, and you'll never feel any harm come to you ever again.

i absolutely love your philosophical take on this. I would like to see other philosophical answers and others takes on this. it's interesting to read the differences of opinions. my take: i'm an ant in a humongous universe. there are bigger things than me so why cant there also be some "thing" such as "God" or "higher" existence other than me? -shrugs- i dont know. so i believe there's more than what we know because we still have more to learn and do. i believe there are possibilities that others automatically disregard and there are assumptions others take without looking at the other side. overall, i don't think i will ever know whether dead or alive. it's hard enough taking my day step by step. I do understand there are things that happen that dont have any explanation. personal experiences that could be written off as a dream or an illusion. smoke and mirrors trick, drugs. the lists go on. truth is there. is it simple or complex. or both. i like to listen to others opinions even if they rip mine apart.

Perhaps It comes from my previous workings with Atheism, but when I find an atheist, they're rarely NOT skeptics. Trying to separate the two is akin to trying to separate Religion from Faith: possible, but irrelevant and nit-picky. But more on the point, there have been 'miracles' that have been documented, although I hesitate to mention this because I lost the source I would of sited to validate this. Secondly, I have considered the possibility that nearly everything I experienced could find its roots in more mundane way. But Occam's Razor comes into play after that. Yes, it could be that person X's mind is so twisted and distorted from a long string of misfortunes that plagued their childhood, they have schizophrenic tenancies and an acute, inborn talent for cold reading. But, it's much simpler to assume he's actually talking to dead people.



No, as in, RELIGIONS will ignore historic documents and scientific evidence. It was comparing two vices, not tagging on another one.




The thing about believing in a higher power is that, if that higher power can be proved using reasoning an Skeptic would use, then it's not really a higher power. Skeptics/Atheists have all these ways to twist what they see and what they can prove to make it less significant than it really is. Granted, any established religion does this, so it's not as much a problem unique to atheists as much as it is just an annoying trait. When it comes to proof, however, (which would trivialize the whole belief in that there's more out there than we can comprehend) EVERYTHING starts with observation. Yes, I may have saw a ghost or whatever, and people don't beleive me. Well, thousands of years ago, someone noticed the earth wasn't' the center of the universe, same deal. The problem with believing in the supernatural is, regardless of what you see or what really exists, finding proof of its existence stops making it supernatural and just plain makes it natural... and some things you just can't find proof of outside simple observation, which is just as trustworthy as any of your senses. Like I said, reality exists as you perceive it, and it's impossible to see reality without looking through a lenses. This as much proves what I say as much as it proves what you say, though.




It dosn't really spawn from a misunderstanding of Quantim Mechanics, because it's more of a philosophical train of thought than a physical one. The thing about science is, any science, is that evidence can be misleading. Sun rises and sets. Evidence, in ancient times, that the sun circled the earth. While this is a simplified example, it's still true: what we do know of mixed state existence could be wrong, or misleading. This is even more true because there's no way to really test said theory without observing stuff first.

which makes me wonder: if any inanimate object could, in theory, be an observer, then how do we know anything exists in two states at all? Would they ever be in two, separate places in the first place? Because they can observe themselves, thereby making them collapse before they even managed to separate?

I'd also like to point out, though, that you only replied to SOME of my points. Is this because you can't think of a logical argument for the others?

But back to the main point, the idea that something has to be observed to exist mostly stems from my philosophical beliefs because there's no real way to prove something can exist without it being observed. It's a coin-flip, I'll admit...



No it does not. The very principles of good and evil are the principles of good AND evil. Good cannot exist without evil just as evil could not exist without good, given their natures. If we were to just have GOOD, then there would be no axis, and GOOD would just be NORMAL. If good was just normal, then it would be impossible to be virtuous because there's nothing to be better than.



I'll take the fall for that one, but that was more of a final point than an actual belief of mine. Your rock point neglects the concepts of infinity and trivializes the concept of being "all-powerful". yes, an all powerful being could create a rock so heavy it couldn't lift it. But infinity is a very fluid thing, while a rock is not. The rock would be constant and unchanging while the higher being would then surpass the rock it was once dwarfed by and lift it.

Secondly, the concept of infinity is not something physicists and scientists dwell on. It's more used in Math and Philosophy than actual science, because all things must end. An atom is a finite thing, and if the atom that started the big bang had more matter in it than a normal atom, then it wouldn't be an atom anymore, it'd be something else. and even if one 'thing' had all the energy and matter in the universe compressed within it, why did it explode at THAT point in time? If it had always existed, than that means it had ALWAYS had the ability to resist the pressure. So what, then, would cause it to pop?

thanks!

Occam's Razor is not to take the simplest explanation, it's take the explanation that requires the fewest new assumptions (which in non-elaborated form, is the "simplest explanation". It's commonly misinterpreted.). Either he's crazy or he's faking it is more favorable by Occam's Razor than saying he's talking to dead people, which requires us to make new assumptions about the world.



The thing is, ghosts can't be measured. We may use our senses, but they're flawed (illusions, hallucinations, etc.). This is where scientific rigor comes in to study whatever we want to observe in such a way that the flawed human observation is factored out. Seeing something and interpreting it in some way does not make it reality, in your case, thinking you saw a ghost.



It may not be exactly the way we think, but it doesn't mean our observations were wrong.



I only replied to what I felt needed replying to. You want me to waste time arguing with you about every little point you bring up? Some things you say are just irrelevant and pointless to mention.



Unfalsifiable hypothesis, gotcha. Still no valid logic in god arguments. Even worse is using that argument as if it has any factual basis in reality. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should give it credence.



How does this necessarily make god good? He's responsible for the existence of good and evil, but I don't see how that magically makes him benevolent. A douchebag god remains.



Because it is trivial after you see the paradox that claiming such a thing creates. The idea of all powerful implies infinity, so no, it isn't neglected. If god is infinitely powerful, that doesn't mean the paradox goes away.



Trying to rationalize how it would happen misses the point of the paradox. It's a mindfuck, and in either case, being infinitely powerful is an impossibility.



Who knows, maybe it was a force beyond our comprehension that wasn't god. Maybe it didn't always exist, we don't know, but using god in the place of atoms causes just as many problems, except in god's case, he is made exempt from scrutiny by apologists who say he doesn't need a cause. He doesn't need a cause because it's convenient for the theist. This bias created in god's favor is justified by made up bullshit that has no merit. Point being, saying that god is the cause of everything, and that he doesn't need a cause is a piece of shit argument that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and should instantly be dismissed as garbage.

It wouldn't be making many new assumptions about the world at all, actually. It's very well established that people die. And that parts of their lives linger after death, by way of memories and legacies. All we'd need to add is that they retain some part of their consciousness as well. Secondly, it would be easier to assume that he’s crazy, assuming he's wrong/cold reading, which is rather easy to identify. But what do we do when he actually does it without that kind of preparation, first? (which, I have seen, for all that means to you)

You do have to remember that there are well-documented cases of this kind of event. While most of these are frauds, when confronted with a legitimate case, skeptics are quick to turn a blind eye.



While its true our senses are innately flawed, there’s something to be said for continuity. Each brain works differently (which is a statement of fact more than an opinion) so any †˜hallucination’ of a ghost would look different to each person. There’s something to be said for the continuity with all ghost sightings… hell, you hear more about skeptics-turnd believers than you do believers-turned skeptic, and there’s a reason for that… But that’s off track. We’re talking about god, remember?



But that does mean the actual truths behind these forces can what we don’t expect. Remember an earlier point I made? Science isn’t the explanation, it’s merely the observation and the continuity.



Actually, I made several very good points that you simply ignored. And by calling them 'irrielevant', you're simply proving my point when I say that Athiests can and will minimize any point that's made agains them they can't argue against.




Sarcasm? Really? Don’t you think we’re both above that? Besides, in insulting me you forgot to make a valid point other than “ it's illogical” or prove how it's illogical. You’re faltering, buddy.

I'll also take this time to say you're talking all about finding proof god dosn't exist, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that tells us he DOSEN'T exist. Evidence works both ways.




If you recall, I never said god was good. I said god could just as likely be good as he is bad. And your assumption of him being doushbag is just as valid as mine in assuming he’s benevolent. If god exists, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. And, to add, the above has nothing valid in it to dispel my point ABOUT good and evil.



Can you even begin to fathom what infinity entails? Clearly you can’t wrap your head around how exactly powerful a being with infinite power would be. Here’s a hint: you can do whatever the fuck you want. What’s more, Infinite, you have to remember, is a number, it grounds its existence in math: to simplify the concept for you, infinite is simply an eternally growing number. Try to think about it in those terms.

What's more, there's no guarantee by any means that God is, in fact, infinitely powerful. God could be a conscious being who made us and our souls, but bear in mind the ability to create matter, energy, and life is just a small feat compared to what someone with infinite power could do. Sure, for all PRACTICAL purposes he could be all-powerful, but could he necessarily have infinite power? not by any means.



If I can rationalize it, it’s not a paradox, now is it? I can’t miss the point if I decide to show you your reasoning is flawed.



A force behind our comprehension that wasn’t god? Seriously? I think you’re struggling to counter me more than any reasonable person should. Rather than pointlessly argue my ideas as quickly as they show up, try thinking about your retorts first: or better yet, try thinking about my points first.

The beauty about god is that he can go either way. He could have always existed or he could have been created by another higher power. Who was created by another higher power. Who was created by another higher power. It’s been a very well-established idea in philosophy, the idea of a looping reality. Or a reality trapped within itself in a perpetual cycle akin to the perpetual energy machine.

Ultimately, the thing you’re forgetting is the existence of god can coexist with science, logic, and fact. God himself may be something of an enigma, but he created order in this universe so we might as well play by those rules, and try to figure them out as best we can. The existence of god doesn’t mean ghosts or bigfoot or the afterlife exists, either.

Thanks!

Established by what? Support your claim. Why don't famous skeptics like James Randi know about this? That's because it isn't established, and there is absolutely no evidence that anything remains of a person's consciousness after death.



Doing it without preparation is what cold reading is. The guy pretending to speak to dead people spouts some vague bullshit until they get a response, and when cold reading a specific person, they constantly try to find clues from their reactions.
All shown here: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6HL7IFHQ



The best thing about being a skeptic is that I will not believe a single claim you make until you provide justification for them. Show a legitimate case. How would we know it's legitimate apart from the other bullshit?



I'll assume by "continuity" you mean consistency. It's consistent because it's in our culture. When people get it into their minds, they see the kind of things they heard other people were seeing. Just like how "alien" sightings are sometimes consistent with what other people have seen, it's all just something these people took out of our culture. You don't have to leap to the conclusion that these phenomena actually exist, because you still have no actual evidence for their existence.



Once again, I am pressured to not believe a word you say, and no, I've never heard of skeptics becoming believers.



You're the one going on tangents here.



Yea, they can, but we don't really have a good reason to think so.



Okay, if you really feel like these points are super fucking epic, then quote them to me so I know what important business I've been missing out on.



That was not sarcasm in the least. I meant every word I said. Your "philosophical train of thought" was an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it contains bad logic. If you need that pointed out for you, I'll gladly demolish your argument and show it as the illogical mess that it is.


Yes, we can experience reality through our own perspective, but where did you get the information that we alter reality by observing it? Or do you mean how our minds can create certain things we perceive in reality, for example, colors don't exist outside of our minds, our brain creates them depending on the wavelength of the visible light. That still says nothing about our minds being able to affect anything outside of itself.

How the fuck could you possibly know that? What do you have to justify that claim? Why couldn't reality exist outside of our minds? Sure, nothing conscious would know about its existence, but that doesn't mean it just magically disappears. What's with this false dichotomy: either reality exists as long as something is observing it, or it doesn't exist. That's bad logic, since, as I mentioned, it could exist without anything to observe it.

The conclusion is bunk since it was derived from an unjustified assumption and bad logic. By the same logic, how the fuck did god exist without something to be aware of his existence. Now we're stuck in an infinite regression of causes.



No, it doesn't. You see, you're the one making a claim for the existence of god, not me. You're the one who claims he exists, so if you want others to believe you, you're the one who should provide the evidence. Also, there's no evidence disproving the existence of leprechauns, therefore leprechauns exist? No, that's stupid and completely illogical. Just because there's no evidence to disprove something, doesn't make it a good idea believe in it.



Because it was irrelevant. Saying there's good AND evil doesn't say anything about the disposition of god. God may be good and he might be evil, but the reason why he isn't benevolent is because that entails being inclined to do good. His actions do not show him to be benevolent. If you think we're both right, then you might as well drop the subject and quit arguing about it.



I don't need to wrap my head around it, because no matter how you think about it, the paradox never goes away. It only shows infinite power is impossible. Oooooh, they use it in math. It doesn't magically grant it the status of "something that happens in reality".



Okay, there's no guarantee, so why claim god is all powerful if you're not too sure yourself?



Attempting to rationalize it doesn't make the paradox go away. If there's an infinitely heavy rock, and an infinite force trying to lift it, saying one will win over the other makes no sense as both are infinite.



The whole point of bringing that up was to show that there are a whole bunch of possibilities out there that don't have to be god, as theists would argue that it has to be god.




These are all fascinating possibilities, but that doesn't mean they're true or that they deserve any kind of credence.



No I'm not, stop pulling bullshit out of your ass.



How did you come upon this knowledge, sir?

I'm just gonna go ahead and pull out a third-document that supports what Rbz is saying, which is called creating false memories: http://cogprints.org/597/1/199802007.html

is there a god.... kill yourself and find out.

is there a heaven... this will prove it



and of course the damn vid won't work so link me
life after death

I do believe that there is a higher power than me out there, however, I do not believe that this "God" exists in the sense of the traditional conceptions of a God. I believe that the laws that govern our world, the laws of physics, are the equivalent of "God." They are all powerful, all knowing (as much as a set of physical laws can "know" something), and they are morally neutral as well, so they can be both good yet allow for evil to exist in this world. In the end, though this is just one possible conception of "God" and may be incorrect, so I welcome anyone to agree or disagree with me. I do not truly know if there is a "God" in the more classical sense, but I do know that the set of physical laws which govern our universe do exist and unless we ever truly learn the answer to whether or not there is a "God" in the more classical sense, I think that these are the closest to that existence that we can know of.

I have a question, if you say that you´re so religious and believe in god, why are you posting on fakku, or seeing hentai?, all what is here is against any actual religion. You´re going to Hell, and Devil will torture you for eternity!!

I know, IS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT YOUR RELIGION (obviously, if you like this page).

[For the religious people around here]