Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of arguing that God cannot exist unless we can prove he exists is futile. When you get right down to it, we can't even prove we exist.

Atheist OP please provide the proof that both you and I actually exist.

Actually, there is an internet record of of all those logging in to this blog, and responding to specific posts. Alas, if God has an IP address, he isn't advertising it

Im not 1st PP, but what if the Internet, even your whole body, is just an idea or abstraction that exists in your mind? Whatever your mind is.... (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

Signed, a Christian.

PS. See, this sort of discussion is way more interesting than dealing with "Christians are stupid and Jesus wasn't born on December 25th" repeated a gazillion times.

so start a thread on that subject

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of arguing that God cannot exist unless we can prove he exists is futile. When you get right down to it, we can't even prove we exist.

Atheist OP please provide the proof that both you and I actually exist.

Actually, there is an internet record of of all those logging in to this blog, and responding to specific posts. Alas, if God has an IP address, he isn't advertising it

Im not 1st PP, but what if the Internet, even your whole body, is just an idea or abstraction that exists in your mind? Whatever your mind is.... (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

Signed, a Christian.

PS. See, this sort of discussion is way more interesting than dealing with "Christians are stupid and Jesus wasn't born on December 25th" repeated a gazillion times.

so start a thread on that subject

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one has said atheists are stupid for not believing in God.

There are people who have said that PP's (PPs'?)arguments against God and religion are poorly argued and full of logical fallacies like non sequiturs, reductio ad absurdem, red herrings, ad hominem attacks.

On the contrary, the atheist PP(s?) has repeatedly written that those of faith are illogical and stupid.

perhaps not on this particular thread, but "on these threads" for sure. Some Christians (not all) think atheists are stupid for not accepting the truth of the gospels -- and think they are stupid and arrogant at the same time for saying that there is no evidence for god and little evidence for bible stories.

Even deeply faithful people will say openly that their belief is not logical. "That's why they call it faith" they will say. They know you can't "prove" god and they don't care. He lives in their hearts. They know that if Jesus ascended into heaven as it says in the bible, that at some point he would be out of oxygen, but they don't care. They say it was a miracle, like the virgin birth, etc. Some people who call themselves Christian don't believe in the miracles, but are sure there is a pace in heaven for them and their loved ones.

There is a faith-based and sometimes a personal, individual response to anything in religion that is not logical. It's very simple in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of arguing that God cannot exist unless we can prove he exists is futile. When you get right down to it, we can't even prove we exist.

Atheist OP please provide the proof that both you and I actually exist.

Actually, there is an internet record of of all those logging in to this blog, and responding to specific posts. Alas, if God has an IP address, he isn't advertising it

Im not 1st PP, but what if the Internet, even your whole body, is just an idea or abstraction that exists in your mind? Whatever your mind is.... (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

Signed, a Christian.

PS. See, this sort of discussion is way more interesting than dealing with "Christians are stupid and Jesus wasn't born on December 25th" repeated a gazillion times.

so start a thread on that subject

C'mon, it's way more interesting than you're silly tangents on Horus and Mithras, as tangents go.

Also, it directly responds to your point about our existence being proven in log-in records.

So what's the problem? You don't want to talk about substance (literally!), instead you just want to troll?

[Anonymous]

^ your not you're. Hate spellcheck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ your not you're. Hate spellcheck.

"start another thread" comment is not from OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole line of arguing that God cannot exist unless we can prove he exists is futile. When you get right down to it, we can't even prove we exist.

Atheist OP please provide the proof that both you and I actually exist.

Actually, there is an internet record of of all those logging in to this blog, and responding to specific posts. Alas, if God has an IP address, he isn't advertising it

Im not 1st PP, but what if the Internet, even your whole body, is just an idea or abstraction that exists in your mind? Whatever your mind is.... (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

Signed, a Christian.

PS. See, this sort of discussion is way more interesting than dealing with "Christians are stupid and Jesus wasn't born on December 25th" repeated a gazillion times.

It may be that not too many religious people find that subject very interesting, but if you do -- why not start a thread on it and see what happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ your not you're. Hate spellcheck.

"start another thread" comment is not from OP

Who cares?

Who knows if the Horus/Mithras stuff is from OP? People gave that poster the courtesy of responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It may be that not too many religious people find that subject very interesting, but if you do -- why not start a thread on it and see what happens

Why are you such a petty bureaucrat? Seems like you have no objection to atheists spewing random junk on this thread, in fact you may be one of the junk spewers on this thread. Yet when an *actual philosophy* is dragged into this thread, you refuse to respond to it.

Maybe there are two sets of rules?

Rules for OP and Atheist Troll (if these are different people, which isn't clear):
1. This is a thread to troll against religion.
2. OP/Atheist Troll must proceed by introducing completely random subjects.
3. Random subjects may include red herrings, ad hominems concerning believers' stupidity, quick subject changes when the argument isn't going her way, hamster-wheel repetition of points that have been debunked on this or other threads, and pseudo-philosophy involving reductio ad absurdum arguments.
4. Frequent reference to the brilliance of the trolling are encouraged ("Seems like I struck a nerve, huh? Didn't I? Huh, huh, didn't I?")

Rules for Religious People:
1. Despite the thread header, which sounds very philosophical, this is not a philosophical thread.
2. You may not introduce actual philosophical arguments.
3. Even when you're responding to another poster, you may not introduce actual philosophical arguments.
4. It hurts OP's head to discuss actual philosophy.

[Anonymous]

talk about a petty bureaucrat -- setting out a list of rules based on a simple suggestion to start a new thread -- something people do all the time.

talk about striking a nerve!

[Anonymous]

Yay for the 1.2.3.4. PP!

Why believe in God, the thread name, is closely related to the ontological question, which atheisit OP has raised many times in this thread, does God exist?

When OP rejects all answers because there is no proof, it is completely fair from a discussion point of view to point out that there is a related ontological question, do we actually exist, for which there also is no ironclad proof.

No need for a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:talk about a petty bureaucrat -- setting out a list of rules based on a simple suggestion to start a new thread -- something people do all the time.

talk about striking a nerve!

Uh, you missed that the "rules" were a joke.... It's called "sarcasm" and you were the butt of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay for the 1.2.3.4. PP!

Why believe in God, the thread name, is closely related to the ontological question, which atheisit OP has raised many times in this thread, does God exist?

When OP rejects all answers because there is no proof, it is completely fair from a discussion point of view to point out that there is a related ontological question, do we actually exist, for which there also is no ironclad proof.

No need for a new thread.

This is all that theists are left with and a great example of the modern theist argument. When confronted that there is not evidence for god, deny reality and or if reality exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay for the 1.2.3.4. PP!

Why believe in God, the thread name, is closely related to the ontological question, which atheisit OP has raised many times in this thread, does God exist?

When OP rejects all answers because there is no proof, it is completely fair from a discussion point of view to point out that there is a related ontological question, do we actually exist, for which there also is no ironclad proof.

No need for a new thread.

This is all that theists are left with and a great example of the modern theist argument. When confronted that there is not evidence for god, deny reality and or if reality exists.

^^^ good example of a "reductio ad absurdem" argument. Note the complete lack of interest in debating the point about whether we do, indeed, exist.

[Anonymous]

So your argument for god is, there is no "ironclad" argument the reality exists, and therefore one can't get around hard solipsism, therefor god. Yet you wonder whey there is lack of debate when you admittedly deny reality to support your god claim.