nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you believe in God?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I'd like to think I do. Light candles in a church for people that have passed away in my life. And I certainly identify as an Irish Catholic for ethnicity purposes.

Having said that, I'm firmly of the belief that when you die you're absolutely gone. If an afterlife does exist, it makes no sense how anyone would actually know what it's like there.

The church have been responsible for the most heinous crimes against individuals since the state got independence. And suicide bombers are mostly influenced by religion to carry out what they do.

I think I believe in God, but not in religion, while also thinking an afterlife doesn't exist.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Professor Moriarty

realitykeeper wrote: »

God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three are called God.

Oh right. So there's three Gods. How about Allah?

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. The problem starts when people make up their own stories and sell them as truth and reality.

That's different alright and I agree with you, wasn't referring to your posts in what I wrote.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three are called God.

You wrote earlier

I know God exists without a shadow of doubt and on this I am resolute.

There are billions of people all.over the world who would use the exact same words as you have above but will be talking about thier god. What makes your god more believable then thiers? Do you concede that thier god also exists or are they following/worshiping a false god?

[Deleted User]

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Lots of ignorant offending bashing as to be expected here.

I dont think I believe anymore, but did.

It brought me great comfort in bad times. And in general its a good way to lead your life.

People should respect other peoples believes.

People should respect other people.

[Deleted User]

peddlelies wrote: »

What I don't get is how certain people can be so dismissive. There's a huge universe out there that had to have started somewhere and had a beginning. Why isn't there just pure nothingness. I'll never wrap my head around it and Science can't explain it either.

Have you any idea why your God created a universe where children die of cancer on this particular planet?

realitykeeper

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Oh right. So there's three Gods. How about Allah?

Three persons in one God like three leaves in the shamrock.

Professor Moriarty

realitykeeper wrote: »

Three persons in one God like three leaves in the shamrock.

Okay. How do you know this?

realitykeeper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There are billions of people all.over the world who would use the exact same words as you have above but will be talking about thier god. What makes your god more believable then thiers? Do you concede that thier god also exists or are they following/worshiping a false god?

Billions of opinions do not make billions of truths. The truth may sometimes elude people I grant you but there is always only one truth.

Some people think that Schrodinger`s cat proved there can be more than one truth but of course it did no such thing. The cat was not both dead and alive, it was either dead or alive. You see? Only one truth.

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Billions of opinions do not make billions of truths. The truth may sometimes elude people I grant you but there is always only one truth.

Some people think that Schrodinger`s cat proved there can be more than one truth but of course it did no such thing. The cat was not both dead and alive, it was either dead or alive. You see? Only one truth.

So your truth is the only truth because you say so? The reality is that your "truth" is in fact really only your opinion and as you say yourself "opinions do not make truths"!

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

Billions of opinions do not make billions of truths. The truth may sometimes elude people I grant you but there is always only one truth.

Some people think that Schrodinger`s cat proved there can be more than one truth but of course it did no such thing. The cat was not both dead and alive, it was either dead or alive. You see? Only one truth.

Can you please explain the need for childhood cancer within your 'one truth'?

skooterblue2

kildare lad wrote: »

A camel has more chance of going through an eye of a needle than a rich man has of going to heaven.

If you are going to quote it then quote it correctly. Its the "eye of THE needle". The "eye for the needle" is a passage into Jerusalem that is only 3 or 4 feet wide. A camel can get through it but you have to off load them bags first.

jaxxx

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you please explain the need for childhood cancer within your 'one truth'?

That has got to be one of the most overused and utterly ridiculous arguments ever for the 'no God' argument. I'm not religious, at all. But I try and see things from both points of view. F@ck it, I had cancer as a kid. I'm not saying that for the sake of it, I did. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. I've never blamed that on a god or gods. I put it down to sheer bad luck, end of. Why does cancer exist at all? Let me answer that question, with a question: how much more overpopulated would we be as a species if cancer did not exist?

And there's the answer: cancer is the leading thing in the world that tries and keeps the human population in balance. We've transcended passed the normal food chain of nature. And in the absence of that, cancer has become one of the only things that keeps our numbers somewhat in check. Whether that's down to some giant anthropomorphical being(s), or just pure chance is irrelvant. Whether there's some sort of actual consciousness or not of nature, there's usually always something to maintain balance.

There has to be bad to balance the good, and vice versa. Cancer is a necessary evil, regardless of whatever age you get it. Countless 'child' animals are hunted every day in the wild. How is that any different to childhood cancer with your argument for it to be a factor in there being no god? As I said, a necessary evil.

lola85

jaxxx wrote: »

That has got to be one of the most overused and utterly ridiculous arguments ever for the 'no God' argument. I'm not religious, at all. But I try and see things from both points of view. F@ck it, I had cancer as a kid. I'm not saying that for the sake of it, I did. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. I've never blamed that on a god or gods. I put it down to sheer bad luck, end of. Why does cancer exist at all? Let me answer that question, with a question: how much more overpopulated would we be as a species if cancer did not exist?

And there's the answer: cancer is the leading thing in the world that tries and keeps the human population in balance. We've transcended passed the normal food chain of nature. And in the absence of that, cancer has become one of the only things that keeps our numbers somewhat in check. Whether that's down to some giant anthropomorphical being(s), or just pure chance is irrelvant. Whether there's some sort of actual consciousness or not of nature, there's usually always something to maintain balance.

There has to be bad to balance the good, and vice versa. Cancer is a necessary evil, regardless of whatever age you get it. Countless 'child' animals are hunted every day in the wild. How is that any different to childhood cancer with your argument for it to be a factor in there being no god? As I said, a necessary evil.

I’m sorry but childhood cancer has nothing to do with natural selection like you’re implying.

jaxxx

lola85 wrote: »

I’m sorry but childhood cancer has nothing to do with natural selection like you’re implying.

It's not natural selection, it's just sheer bad luck. Nonetheless it's a necessary evil.

[Deleted User]

jaxxx wrote: »

That has got to be one of the most overused and utterly ridiculous arguments ever for the 'no God' argument. I'm not religious, at all. But I try and see things from both points of view. F@ck it, I had cancer as a kid. I'm not saying that for the sake of it, I did. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. I've never blamed that on a god or gods. I put it down to sheer bad luck, end of. Why does cancer exist at all? Let me answer that question, with a question: how much more overpopulated would we be as a species if cancer did not exist?

And there's the answer: cancer is the leading thing in the world that tries and keeps the human population in balance. We've transcended passed the normal food chain of nature. And in the absence of that, cancer has become one of the only things that keeps our numbers somewhat in check. Whether that's down to some giant anthropomorphical being(s), or just pure chance is irrelvant. Whether there's some sort of actual consciousness or not of nature, there's usually always something to maintain balance.

There has to be bad to balance the good, and vice versa. Cancer is a necessary evil, regardless of whatever age you get it. Countless 'child' animals are hunted every day in the wild. How is that any different to childhood cancer with your argument for it to be a factor in there being no god? As I said, a necessary evil.

Wouldn't a loving God have found a more humane way of keeping the population under control than giving cancer to children, so their parents watch them wasting away over months and years?

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is how it is for the faithful, we know God exists. We just cannot prove it.

"prove" seems too lofty for me. I generally ask theists for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends ANY credence to the claim that our universe was created by a non human intelligent and intentional agent.

They can not even do that much. Forget "proof". I stopped asking for "proof" a long long time ago, cast a wider and more forgiving net, and you people still have nothing.

Alas as usual the only keeping of reality you do is keeping it OUT of the conversation.

realitykeeper wrote: »

God is three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three are called God.

Wow it is like Jesus and Mo predicted our conversation. This is their current toon!

peddlelies wrote: »

Why isn't there just pure nothingness. I'll never wrap my head around it and Science can't explain it either.

Interestingly however no one can explain either why you assume there SHOULD be nothingness. It is a very human way of thinking to assume "nothing" must be the default automatically, and therefore the "something" must be explained.

But is it a valid assumption based on anything but flawed human intuition? Why is there something rather than nothing we ask..... when perhaps a better question is why should we expect there to be nothing rather than something?

dashcamdanny wrote: »

People should respect other peoples believes.

No. They should not. Especially, but not limited to, ludicrous and ridiculous beliefs.

Respect people, not beliefs. The two are not the same thing, no matter how many with to conflate the latter with the former.

nozzferrahhtoo

pearcider wrote: »

The only parts of the world that have become less barbarous are the Christian parts but unfortunately that doesn’t fit with your narrative.

Which narrative? The one you made up and put in my mouth that I never actually said?

pearcider wrote: »

As Jesus said by your fruits you will know them.

Indeed and you proved that on this thread already didn't you? With your personal attacks and your dodging my posts and points. And you do it again here by shoving YOUR words into MY mouth.

pearcider wrote: »

Atheists can’t stand the fact that of all ideas, it was Christianity that finally civilized the world and the overwhelming majority of the great western philosophers politicians and scientists were devout Christians.

The only one who "cant stand it" is you given I already addressed this point multiple times, rebutted it totally, including directly to you personally, and you simply ignored that as per your usual MO.

Suffice to say however it is a correlation causation error for which you offer NO supporting evidence or argument, merely the assertion that Christianity had anything to do with it.

pearcider wrote: »

Now that Christianity is becoming persecuted again

Ah yes the persecution complex of the majority. Are you the only persecuted majority in history?

lola85

jaxxx wrote: »

It's not natural selection, it's just sheer bad luck. Nonetheless it's a necessary evil.

Grand.

So are we now talking about satans work?

Ipso

jaxxx wrote: »

It's not natural selection, it's just sheer bad luck. Nonetheless it's a necessary evil.

Grade A turd polishing.

o1s1n

jaxxx wrote: »

That has got to be one of the most overused and utterly ridiculous arguments ever for the 'no God' argument. I'm not religious, at all. But I try and see things from both points of view. F@ck it, I had cancer as a kid. I'm not saying that for the sake of it, I did. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. I've never blamed that on a god or gods. I put it down to sheer bad luck, end of. Why does cancer exist at all? Let me answer that question, with a question: how much more overpopulated would we be as a species if cancer did not exist?

And there's the answer: cancer is the leading thing in the world that tries and keeps the human population in balance. We've transcended passed the normal food chain of nature. And in the absence of that, cancer has become one of the only things that keeps our numbers somewhat in check. Whether that's down to some giant anthropomorphical being(s), or just pure chance is irrelvant. Whether there's some sort of actual consciousness or not of nature, there's usually always something to maintain balance.

There has to be bad to balance the good, and vice versa. Cancer is a necessary evil, regardless of whatever age you get it. Countless 'child' animals are hunted every day in the wild. How is that any different to childhood cancer with your argument for it to be a factor in there being no god? As I said, a necessary evil.

I suppose the question I take from the whole childhood cancer thing isn't whether it's a 'necessary evil' or not, it's would you want to worship a god who created such a horrific thing?

I know I wouldn't.

jaxxx

F*ck me. I'm out. People reading only what they want to read. It's like trying to reason with left/right wing fanatics. So fixated on their own beliefs that anything that upsets their own status quo is completely unacceptable to them. Not even a little bit of room for compromise. Newsflash: humans are not special, not some 'divine' race. Human life is no more nor no less important than anything else. About time some of you copped onto that. Good luck.

lola85

jaxxx wrote: »

F*ck me. I'm out. People reading only what they want to read. It's like trying to reason with left/right wing fanatics. So fixated on their own beliefs that anything that upsets their own status quo is completely unacceptable to them. Not even a little bit of room for compromise. Newsflash: humans are not special, not some 'divine' race. Human life is no more nor no less important than anything else. About time some of you copped onto that. Good luck.

Not able for a different point of view?

Panrich

jaxxx wrote: »

That has got to be one of the most overused and utterly ridiculous arguments ever for the 'no God' argument. I'm not religious, at all. But I try and see things from both points of view. F@ck it, I had cancer as a kid. I'm not saying that for the sake of it, I did. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. I've never blamed that on a god or gods. I put it down to sheer bad luck, end of. Why does cancer exist at all? Let me answer that question, with a question: how much more overpopulated would we be as a species if cancer did not exist?

And there's the answer: cancer is the leading thing in the world that tries and keeps the human population in balance. We've transcended passed the normal food chain of nature. And in the absence of that, cancer has become one of the only things that keeps our numbers somewhat in check. Whether that's down to some giant anthropomorphical being(s), or just pure chance is irrelvant. Whether there's some sort of actual consciousness or not of nature, there's usually always something to maintain balance.

There has to be bad to balance the good, and vice versa. Cancer is a necessary evil, regardless of whatever age you get it. Countless 'child' animals are hunted every day in the wild. How is that any different to childhood cancer with your argument for it to be a factor in there being no god? As I said, a necessary evil.

If I'm an omnipotent being that conjured up a universe out of nothing, then I'd be sure to allow an expansion of the planet and resources to accommodate ever increasing needs. No need for childhood cancers in my world.

jaxxx

lola85 wrote: »

Not able for a different point of view?

Oh the irony. Hehe. Good luck..

nthclare

Why do these debate's always focus on the sand demon from the middle East called Jehovah ?

[Deleted User]

jaxxx wrote: »

It's not natural selection, it's just sheer bad luck. Nonetheless it's a necessary evil.

So all the good stuff is 'God's divine plan' and the bad stuff is 'sheer bad luck'.

Why would a loving God create a world where children get cancer because of 'bad luck'?

dashcamdanny

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. The problem starts when people make up their own stories and sell them as truth and reality.

To believe there may be a creator of everything actually makes sense. Had to start somewhere.. Who knows

Professor Moriarty

dashcamdanny wrote: »

To believe there may be a creator of everything actually makes sense. Had to start somewhere.. Who knows

Indeed. I have my own thoughts on that. I'm not going to blindly believe stuff made up by other human beings though.

uck51js9zml2yt

gctest50 wrote: »

That's why christians was in inverted commas/quotes , they were a group of scum that saw that there might be a lot of money in that craic, they called themselves christians later on

Stupid comments ? It's a story of an affair that got legs and outta hand

They were called Christians which was a derogatory term by the people of Antioch.

You really need to keep your hysteria to the conspiracy forum.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

uck51js9zml2yt

gctest50 wrote: »

That's why christians was in inverted commas/quotes , they were a group of scum that saw that there might be a lot of money in that craic, they called themselves christians later on

Stupid comments ? It's a story of an affair that got legs and outta hand

They were called Christians which was a derogatory term by the people of Antioch.

You really need to keep your hysteria to the conspiracy forum.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.