How can you honestly believe in God.

Originally posted by ghostryder21
I have come to the conclusion that I don’t care what anyone believes as long as they don’t try to shove it down my throat. It’s a peaceful existence that way. Joe believes in god, Gerry believes in Buddha, and tom believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really don’t care. Let them believe whatever they want to believe. Let them have their own choice in the matter but don’t criticize them for believing what they want to. I have a friend in California that is a scientologist. That’s the weirdest religion I ever seen but hell I still speak to him and I don’t chastise him for it. And he knows to not try to convert me over bc I wont be. His friends might try and do try when I visit him but he tells them not to.

Why care about that someone else believes? Believe what makes you happy and full. Believe what lets you move throughout the day, but don’t force it on someone else.

Thats what I was saying, I never thought Atheists would try to shove
no God stuff down my throat. Think about it though Atheism=Religion
for scientist. Science is your God but you don't want to admit it, or you
admit it and who cares.

The concept of God is that he/she/it is not of the physical world. Science is based on the observations of the physical world, so for me trying to use science to disprove the existence of God is not valid.

Originally posted by TheCosmicSerpent
If it's such an easy concept, then why don't you believe in it?

Just because it's an easy concept I should believe in it? Ah... I see why you believe in it. It's easy.

I like to think about things before believing or not in them. And besides not existing any shred of evidence of any of those magical claims, I reached (my) the conclusion that such claims are illogical, irrational and unsubstantiated.

Yes, it's convenient for atheists like yourself because you need that kind of physical proof in order to believe in something. However, I don't.

Actually, it's not convenient to require proof to believe in something. It's rational. So, sorry to disagree but having to proof things is anything but 'convenient'.

You know what's convenient though? Believing that some magical being created everything, is 'protecting' and looking out for people, in order to get some comfort and peace of mind about all the unknowns of the universe and our purpose.

Truly believing in God also requires things to be researched and proven, at least for me. I don't just take things as truth based on nothing.

I would like to hear about those things that were proven that assert the existence of god. Could you please share it would us?

I believe in God because all my contemplation and thought on the matter as led me to believe that God existing is a much more likely scenario than God not existing.

Wait.. what? Contemplation and thought? 'Led you to believe that god exists'?

I thought you said things need to be researched and proven...

Originally posted by 11 11
You are wrong. Magnetism is inside of atoms. Magnetism is smaller than atoms, thats why magnetism can pass through solid things. Without magnetism you don't have atoms.

No, you are wrong. Magnetism is a by product of matter. Magnetism is a reaction.

Originally posted by danx


Atoms are everywhere. Everything is made of atoms. Atoms must be god.

but... there is also this space in between atoms, and this is God for it is spread out through the whole universe?!

Originally posted by Equinox99
Think about it though Atheism=Religion for scientist. Science is your God but you don't want to admit it, or you admit it and who cares.

I think you are confusing things. Science requires proving and testing. In that way, I (and all scientists I assume) believe in science. That has nothing to do with religion, because religion and faith in god and other magical beings does not require proving and testing.

In fact, religion/religious/faithful people claim that god is impossible to prove. Two completely different things...

Originally posted by 11 11

It is said God = Magnetism.

Magnetism is our God. A force you can't see, but you can experience it, and feel it, and it is EVERYWHERE.

Good day, hope that proof doesn't hit to hard.

is consciousness magnetic? YES it is!

Originally posted by danx
No, you are wrong. Magnetism is a by product of matter. Magnetism is a reaction.

No, you are wrong. "neutrons and electrons" are magnetism. Without electrons and neutrons, you have no atoms.

Please research.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
being put in the position of wanting proof of God, is delusional.

And being in the position of saying that god exists is not delusional how? Because it's your belief?


delusion

noun
1. an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

sorry, I made my statement clear by editing this post.

I mean God is Everywhere. that's how I somehow believed wanting proof of Him is like delusional.

So you have no faith in science finding the big bang theory?
Testing or not, you still have faith in science. From finding new
planets, to figuring out the cause for cancer.
Some have faith in scientists to find cures, some have it for them to build
a new innovative ship.
I have faith in God to help me in this life, I have faith in God to come
and deliver us from the sins.
But that's how I feel it's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
but... there is also this space in between atoms, and this is God for it is spread out through the whole universe?!

Firstly, I was using the atoms example merely as an example to show how flawed I think 11 11's theory is.

Secondly, I never claimed that science has the answer for everything. In fact, if you read one of my posts you will realize just that.

And what's your point exactly? Because science can't explain (of yet) what you are referring to, therefor it has to have some godly/magical origin?

We also didn't know of anything on the atomical level until recently.

Originally posted by TheCosmicSerpent
The concept of God is that he/she/it is not of the physical world. Science is based on the observations of the physical world, so for me trying to use science to disprove the existence of God is not valid.

that, I find, a good argument.. well hm

Originally posted by 11 11
No, you are wrong. "neutrons and electrons" are magnetism. Without electrons and neutrons, you have no atoms.

Please research.

You didn't exactly respond to my point. Are you denying that magnetism is a reaction and a by product of matter?

Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Sekhemet
GOD God god...

all that aside... God isnt a name its a lame little TITLE for such a (supposedly) divine creator? that just so happens to spell DOG backwards.

Our 365 day calendar is based on the rising of Sirius (the DOG STAR ... constellation Canis major/minor) straight out of Egypt, the sothic calendar, ANUBIS the jackal (dog) headed Diety all ties into this mis'story of God.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Sekhemet]

How does our calendar revolve around Egypt?
I didn't it takes Earth 365 days to revolve around Sirius, Oh please
do elaborate.

Do your research. Did i say our calendar 'revolves around Egypt'? i said our calendar is based on the rising of Sirius.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Sekhemet]

Originally posted by danx
Firstly, I was using the atoms example merely as an example to show how flawed I think 11 11's theory is.

You think its flawed because you don't have the correct knowledge of what I am explaining to you.

The greatest force in the universe is magnetism. Magnetism is what atoms are created of. We all know what happens when we split atoms right? We get a force greater than anything we can imagine.

God is magnetism. The all mighty powerfull force, that we can't see, we can feel, it is everywhere, it creates everything, without it nothing would exist.

Prove me wrong, no one has yet.

Don't make the mistake of always associating God with organized religion.

People can be religious without touching a bible or stepping foot in a church. The church and the bible is a business organization run by old white guys for old white guys to appropriate money and power and control.

They prey on the backs of the downtrodden, uneducated, and poor.The people looking for any hope or glimmer of an easier life.
If the church were truley concerned about the sick and the poor, they would give them skills for a better life. Instead of handouts. But handouts instead of real skill keeps them dependent.

And 95% of those who attend are hypocrates themselves. They are only religious for 1.5 on Sundays. Using their religion as a shield, they justify bad behaviors under a religion that offers redemption no matter what they do.

What you have experienced is the religion of those who are not truley religious. Who offer a horrifying example.


Those who truely believe in God, or whatever your deity is.Do so whether or not there are rewards or repercussions. Every decision is made with honesty and integrity whether for work, home, or religion.
I have met truley religious people who never utter anything about God.They don't need too.

For those who are secure,and confident, don't need to prove their beliefs, to sell it like a tacky sales pitch, or try to convince others of its existence. They just believe.

You can't prove your own beliefs, you can't not prove them. You can't see your deities. You just feel them. You either choose to believe, really believe, or your don't.

In my case as a pagan, there is a God and Goddess.

I don't see them, or dream of them. Or claim too either. But I feel it. I can't prove it too you. But then, I also don't need too. I am secure enough in my beliefs that I don't have to justify it.

Originally posted by danx
You didn't exactly respond to my point. Are you denying that magnetism is a reaction and a by product of matter?

Yes I am denying that. Prove to me that magnetism is just a reaction. Oh wait you can't do that without a human scientist right? Everything you know was handed to you, wrong or not, you believe it.

Electrons and Neutrons = magnets.

I highly suggest you read about Ed Leedskalnin. He proves science is wrong about electricity, and that electricity is not electrons, they are very small invinsible magnets that can pass through anything.

Atoms are made from magnetism. Magnetism is NOT just a reaction.

People are different from one another. Everyone perceives reality differently. How we determine our perceived reality is likely through a combination of conditioning, affinity, evidence, persuasion, and outright conscious choice. Someone may be conditioned to believe in something, they may perceive what they personally feel falls into the category of evidence supporting those beliefs, they may have a personal affinity for certain beliefs or ways of thinking, or they may simply choose to believe in something of their own accord. Those factors differ from one person to the next, and if there is one thing that we as human beings excel at, it is a lack of consistent uniformity of thought. Even two people who believe in the same thing can have their own take on it, their own affinity for one aspect of it over others, or their own lens through which to view it. This applies to everyone, and to scientists as well as theologians in my opinion.

I personally believe in faeries, for instance. The word "faery" conjures different conceptualized notions and imagery for different people. Some view it in a mystical context, others a mythical one, and still others see it as ridiculous or as the product of fiction. Then you have to decide what notion of "faery" I'm referring to. The popular cartoon-like "tinker bell" caricature that most are familiar with? Mystical energy beings? Nature spirits? Without even knowing which (if any!) of those I'm speaking of, some will already have assumed one or all of them from the moment they read the word "faeries," despite my intentional lack of elaboration or clarification. Some of those will be people who consider themselves scientific. Such assumptions are hardly scientific, though.

Why does it concern some that people choose to believe what they will? Faeries might not exist. There is no scientific evidence for their existence. What do I care, though? I choose to believe in the existence of faeries. That belief isn't hurting anyone. If it was, that would be different, and I would hope that action would be taken to prevent such harm. I don't want to convince anyone else that they exist. After all, I myself don't know that they exist. I choose to believe that they do, however, as it enriches my existence to do so.

When it comes right down to it, we can't even irrefutably prove that we're sitting here right now discussing this. We can only conclusively infer that something somewhere exists that is doing something that results in the perception of information consistent with that conclusion. Whether the conclusion is accurate cannot be proved irrefutably with existing evidence. We choose to believe we are sitting here discussing this, however, because it is the easiest and seemingly the most efficient and utilitarian conclusion we can reach at this time. Belief works the same way, but requires less - or no - evidence. Both are still choices, and I respect them. I only take issue with them when they directly cause, or seek to cause, harm.

I don't go to church because they are being run terribly.
And the Gregorian calendar is what we have today because thats
how long it take us to revolve around the sun.
You can be right about Sirius, but it won't mean I will believe
in him. And that is like Atheists I can be right or wrong about God
but you don't care because you will not believe in him.
That is the same thing as me you can be right or wrong about Atheism
but I will still believe in God.
Why? Because we are humans and we are hard headed.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
People are different from one another. Everyone perceives reality differently. How we determine our perceived reality is likely through a combination of conditioning, affinity, evidence, persuasion, and outright conscious choice. Someone may be conditioned to believe in something, they may perceive what they personally feel falls into the category of evidence supporting those beliefs, they may have a personal affinity for certain beliefs or ways of thinking, or they may simply choose to believe in something of their own accord. Those factors differ from one person to the next, and if there is one thing that we as human beings excel at, it is a lack of consistent uniformity of thought. Even two people who believe in the same thing can have their own take on it, their own affinity for one aspect of it over others, or their own lens through which to view it. This applies to everyone, and to scientists as well as theologians in my opinion.

I personally believe in faeries, for instance. The word "faery" conjures different conceptualized notions and imagery for different people. Some view it in a mystical context, others a mythical one, and still others see it as ridiculous or as the product of fiction. Then you have to decide what notion of "faery" I'm referring to. The popular cartoon-like "tinker bell" caricature that most are familiar with? Mystical energy beings? Nature spirits? Without even knowing which (if any!) of those I'm speaking of, some will already have assumed one or all of them from the moment they read the word "faeries," despite my intentional lack of elaboration or clarification. Some of those will be people who consider themselves scientific. Such assumptions are hardly scientific, though.

Why does it concern some that people choose to believe what they will? Faeries might not exist. There is no scientific evidence for their existence. What do I care, though? I choose to believe in the existence of faeries. That belief isn't hurting anyone. If it was, that would be different, and I would hope that action would be taken to prevent such harm. I don't want to convince anyone else that they exist. After all, I myself don't know that they exist. I choose to believe that they do, however, as it enriches my existence to do so.

When it comes right down to it, we can't even irrefutably prove that we're sitting here right now discussing this. We can only conclusively infer that something somewhere exists that is doing something that results in the perception of information consistent with that conclusion. Whether the conclusion is accurate cannot be proved irrefutably with existing evidence. We choose to believe we are sitting here discussing this, however, because it is the easiest and seemingly the most efficient and utilitarian conclusion we can reach at this time. Belief works the same way, but requires less - or no - evidence. Both are still choices, and I respect them. I only take issue with them when they directly cause, or seek to cause, harm.

well said.....