• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do People Believe?

iguanaman said:
Because they don't want to die and cease to exist. Religion is really just that when it all is boiled down. We are the only animal that knows they are going to die someday.
Click to expand...

But the reality is, no matter what they want, that's exactly what will happen. They are going to die, they are going to cease to exist. For as smart as man can be, man can also be pretty damned stupid.
 
Ikari said:
Proving the negative is a common deflection tactic, but the negative is not what needs to be proven, or can be proven. The positive must be demonstrated. As such, burden of proof falls upon those claiming fate DOES exist.
Click to expand...

A negative claim is still a claim....and if one claim needs to be supported by demonstrable, empirical evidence, then ALL claims need to be supported with demonstrable, empirical evidence. So, have at it then......let's see you prove the unrestricted negative........give evidence that God does not exist.

Better yet, let's get more focused here......give me any BETTER evidence than GOD as the progenitor of "life as we know it" on earth and how it began from a combination of "raw materials."

This should be good......I can hardly wait for your primordial "soup" response.....:lol:
 
FluffyNinja said:
A negative claim is still a claim....and if one claim needs to be supported by demonstrable, empirical evidence, then ALL claims need to be supported with demonstrable, empirical evidence. So, have at it then......let's see you prove the unrestricted negative........give evidence that God does not exist.

Better yet, let's get more focused here......give me any BETTER evidence than GOD as the progenitor of "life as we know it" on earth and how it began from a combination of "raw materials."

This should be good......I can hardly wait for your primordial "soup" response.....:lol:
Click to expand...

Negatives cannot be shown. L2Science, but let's get to the heart of the matter.

So your response is that because we don't know, it was magic? OK. Here's a more rational response. We don't know at this point completely how life originated. That is not to say we can never now, that we will never know; but rather at this time we do not. But if you're going to ask me what is more likely, that life arose through some natural process we simply have no knowledge on right now, or through magic....I'm going with nature. Have fun casting Giga Slave.
 
Ikari said:
Negatives cannot be shown. L2Science, but let's get to the heart of the matter.

So your response is that because we don't know, it was magic? OK. Here's a more rational response. We don't know at this point completely how life originated. That is not to say we can never now, that we will never know; but rather at this time we do not. But if you're going to ask me what is more likely, that life arose through some natural process we simply have no knowledge on right now, or through magic....I'm going with nature. Have fun casting Giga Slave.
Click to expand...

Don't misquote or misconstrue please.....stay focused. I simply asked for you to provide stronger evidence than a Supreme being to explain the origination of the "spark" of life. As I assumed.....you've provided none. Thank You. :D

Until science can duplicate the "spark" of life from raw materials in a lab (with all of our "knowledge" we've yet to even come close)......I'll just go right on along with my "God theory." :D
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
Don't misquote or misconstrue please.....stay focused. I simply asked for you to provide stronger evidence than a Supreme being to explain the origination of the "spark" of life. As I assumed.....you've provided none. Thank You. :D
Click to expand...

I did not misquote, as I quoted the whole of your post (LOL). I did not misconstrue as I spoke to your intent.

Of course I can't beat you "supreme being" because we don't know why yet. You want my lack of knowledge to go up against your magic? Magic wins in the arena of ignorance. I can't beat your magic cause I ain't pulling **** out of my ass. I can ask for evidence for your supreme being, but you will give me none. That's why magic is always the best answer when knowledge is absent. But my point remains. Magic vs. natural cause; what is more likely? Have fun Lina Inverse.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I simply asked for you to provide stronger evidence than a Supreme being to explain the origination of the "spark" of life.
Click to expand...

Considering there is absolutely no evidence of any kind for the existence of a "Supreme Being", that's not hard to do. Any evidence at all is stronger than the evidence for God.
 
Ikari said:
Negatives cannot be shown.
Click to expand...
So Black Holes do not exist then right (since, according to most astronomers, they purport to represent negative space at their very core)? Okay thanks for that analysis. :lol:
 
I believe because I recognize the teachings of Jesus Christ as good.

When I read the sermons of Jesus, and what he taught, this is the epitome of what it is to be holy.

The words, the ideas, live inside my mind... and it is something we Christians call the "Holy Spirit."

The Spirit is God.

Wake said:
Really, why do they? Why is it that they cast their trust in a god that may or may not exist? It must be tough for Christians specifically, because they have to deal with more than a few major problems. For one, our current "Word of God" has been edited; it's not the same book from 2,000 years ago. There could have been numerous little mistranslations. That, and there could have been many additions and subtractions throughout the centuries. Lastly, there are over 20 sects of Christianity alone. Someone must have made a mistake somewhere, and if only one path leads to salvation people aren't gonna be lonely in Hell. How do we know religion isn't truly a tool used to manipulate and control others?

Simply put, religion is a symptom of irrational hope and groundless faith. Another thing I don't understand is why there are religious people in Academia. It makes no sense. In any sort of job that requires a functioning brain you rely on facts, logic, and reason to do it well. As Dean of Medicine you don't have your staff prescribe 3 sessions of prayer every day until the patients are cured. Praying doesn't heal sarcoidoma or neuropathy, etc. There's always an underlining reason(s) for a problem. The part I don't get is why a person with a job that requires rationality... decides to cling to an irrational faith.

Why do they believe? You wouldn't believe that 2 + 2 = 5, so why believe in a God?
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
Considering there is absolutely no evidence of any kind for the existence of a "Supreme Being", that's not hard to do. Any evidence at all is stronger than the evidence for God.
Click to expand...

So there IS evidence of some kind that shows life "springing into existence" from a random accumulation of raw materials? Hmmmm....okay....show me that evidence please.
 
Ikari said:
I did not misquote, as I quoted the whole of your post (LOL). I did not misconstrue as I spoke to your intent.

Of course I can't beat you "supreme being" because we don't know why yet. You want my lack of knowledge to go up against your magic? Magic wins in the arena of ignorance. I can't beat your magic cause I ain't pulling **** out of my ass. I can ask for evidence for your supreme being, but you will give me none. That's why magic is always the best answer when knowledge is absent. But my point remains. Magic vs. natural cause; what is more likely? Have fun Lina Inverse.
Click to expand...

So as humans, we are "intelligent" enough to completely rule out any possibility of the existence of God, but we're obviously not "intelligent" enough to perform a seemingly "simple" lab experiment in creating a "spark" of life from a combination of the unlimited supply of raw compounds, elements, and energies we have at our disposal? Wow...... :lol:
 
FluffyNinja said:
So Black Holes do not exist then right (since, according to most astronomers, they purport to represent negative space at their very core)? Okay thanks for that analysis. :lol:
Click to expand...

O_O

Seriously? I'll give you some time to recant this argument.
 
FluffyNinja said:
So there IS evidence of some kind that shows life "springing into existence" from a random accumulation of raw materials? Hmmmm....okay....show me that evidence please.
Click to expand...

There is evidence of abiogenesis, it goes back to the Urey/Miller experiments, Sydney Fox did considerable work on it in the 70s, work is going on to this very day, all of which shows that it is entirely possible that life can come from non-life.

So where is your evidence for God? If you have none, then you lose.
 
FluffyNinja said:
So as humans, we are "intelligent" enough to completely rule out any possibility of the existence of God, but we're obviously not "intelligent" enough to perform a seemingly "simple" lab experiment in creating a "spark" of life from a combination of the unlimited supply of raw compounds, elements, and energies we have at our disposal? Wow...... :lol:
Click to expand...

You misconstrue me. I did not say "completely rule out", I said nature was more likely the correct answer. Please learn to read.
 
Cephus said:
There is evidence of abiogenesis, it goes back to the Urey/Miller experiments, Sydney Fox did considerable work on it in the 70s, work is going on to this very day, all of which shows that it is entirely possible that life can come from non-life.

So where is your evidence for God? If you have none, then you lose.
Click to expand...

Check out his argument with black holes
 
Ikari said:
Check out his argument with black holes
Click to expand...

He has no clue what he's talking about, which is hardly a surprise, look at utter crap he believes is true. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
He has no clue what he's talking about, which is hardly a surprise, look at utter crap he believes is true. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's true. The concept of positive and negative argument seems to have escaped him.
 
Ikari said:
It's true. The concept of positive and negative argument seems to have escaped him.
Click to expand...

It escapes most theists, considering the number of them who are utterly unable to comprehend the difference between lacking belief that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.
 
Cephus said:
It escapes most theists, considering the number of them who are utterly unable to comprehend the difference between lacking belief that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's necessarily "most". But there are certainly some who wish to attack atheists at any turn and then sometimes make bad argument. Fluffy here gave a fluffy argument, one based on misinformation (either intentional or not) that could not stand up. I'm not sure if the blackhole comment was made in jest, I'm leaning towards yes at this point cause otherwise it's an absolutely retarded argument. But his comments to me haven't exactly been outside that realm either, so who knows.

I don't know why some theists have to be so aggressive and militant as to throw out logic and reason when making arguments.
 
Cephus said:
It escapes most theists, considering the number of them who are utterly unable to comprehend the difference between lacking belief that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You're the one getting that wrong. As a simple matter of definition, atheism is an affirmative disbelief, agnosticism is a lack of belief.
 
Why should he prove to you that God exists?

To begin with, please define "God."

Cephus said:
It escapes most theists, considering the number of them who are utterly unable to comprehend the difference between lacking belief that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
 
I have my own personal reasons for believing. However, I think that people spend most of their lives in search of peace. Peace at home, peace at work, peace abroad, peace within one's self......and religion provides that perfect peace or at least the hope of one. There has never been perfect peace across the planet. God provides hope for that perfect peace.
 
Cephus said:
There is evidence of abiogenesis, it goes back to the Urey/Miller experiments, Sydney Fox did considerable work on it in the 70s, work is going on to this very day, all of which shows that it is entirely possible that life can come from non-life.

So where is your evidence for God? If you have none, then you lose.
Click to expand...

The Miller-Urey experiment relied on entirely too many assumptions. In order for this carefully controlled experiment to have been randomly duplicated on Earth there would have had to have been no oxygen present in the atmosphere and the "air" would have had to have been extremely rich in compressed hydrogen.......neither of these conditions is even remotely the case in our environment today. in the end, all that it proved is that certain compounds would form when "perfect" combinations of these compressed gases were "electrified." No where near close to producing a "spark" of life.......only those compounds which could possibly be combined under "other' perfect conditions to form an amino acid "chain". NONE of this research has shown anything other than the possibility of specific compounds being formed under ideal laboratory conditions........no where close to creating a living cell from "scratch." This is not "evidence" for abiogenesis.....Sorry. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You neglect to acknowledge the philosophia perennis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that wasn't always true until the modern dominate religions killed off everyone else and begun indoctrinating their citizens under a new religious rule.
 
Ikari said:
You misconstrue me. I did not say "completely rule out", I said nature was more likely the correct answer. Please learn to read.
Click to expand...

Well if "nature" is more LIKELY then you must have stronger NATURAL evidence to support it creating the "spark" for life. You've yet to provide it. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom