FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: keith27m1985 on August 25, 2012, 12:08:13 pm
-
is there really a god
-
Is there really a Big Foot or a Loch Ness Monster?
-
is there really a god
Is there really a Big Foot or a Loch Ness Monster?
Since you're answering a (rhetorical) question with anotehr rhetical question; there's slightly more pseudo-evidence for "bigfoot/nessie" than for "g-d", (which is none, making the distinction a subtle one).
-
Yes, God exists. There is too much evidence to believe otherwise. I can just look around me at His creation to know He exists. Putting faith in man only leads to disappointment.
-
Yes, God exists.
There is no valid evidence to support such a claim.
There is too much evidence to believe otherwise.
On the contrary, there is no attributable evidence to substantiate such a religious belief. Such non-reasoning is circular and therefore, invalid.
I can just look around me at His creation to know He exists.
Such non-reasoning is circular and rests upon unsupported attributions, (one may as well attribute such things to 'invisible pink unicorns' and have as much - zero - supporting evidence). The attributions to a hypothetical supernatural egregore are therefore specious and unwarranted,
Putting faith in man only leads to disappointment.
Putting "faith" into a supernatural egregore which no attributable evidence supports leads to the same disappointment in addition to self-delusion.
-
Putting faith in man only leads to disappointment.
The naivety in your post is laughable. How so? Look at your computer. Look at your screen. Look at your router. You use these amazing man-made instruments to bash mankind and our ingenuity. Pretty scummy look on life if you ask me.
-
[fundiequote]Putting faith in man only leads to disappointment.[/quote]
The naivety in your post is laughable. How so? Look at your computer. Look at your screen. Look at your router. You use these amazing man-made instruments to bash mankind and our ingenuity. Pretty scummy look on life if you ask me.
Excellent point. Blind religious faith never produced a technological or, medical advance. It has, however, inhibited such before, (and probably now).
-
It all depends on your belief if you believe god exists than yes he does. It is your faith and beliefs.
-
It all depends on your belief if you believe god exists than yes he does. It is your faith and beliefs.
No, the existence or non-existence of something is not dependent upon an evidenceless belief/faith that it exists or not. Existence is independent of a faith/belief, (since a lack of evidence does not support the existence of something, whereas evidence for the existence of something doesn't require faith/belief).
-
Excellent point. Blind religious faith never produced a technological or, medical advance. It has, however, inhibited such before, (and probably now).
Thanks. I just get sick and tired of people complaining about 'mankind failing' when they really don't look at their own luxuries produced by mankinds advancements. They put their faith in a feeble myth about a guy walking on water, curing blindness, and altering a little food to make it a bit more for a group of people. Yet we've walked on the moon, erradicated entire diseases/plagues, and engineered food to feed billions. Gotta get their priorities straight.
-
I just get sick and tired of people complaining about 'mankind failing' when they really don't look at their own luxuries produced by mankinds advancements. They put their faith in a feeble myth about a guy walking on water, curing blindness, and altering a little food to make it a bit more for a group of people. Yet we've walked on the moon, erradicated entire diseases/plagues, and engineered food to feed billions. Gotta get their priorities straight.
Not only that but, their 'magical attribution credits' are unsupported hearsay, (in that the only "basis" is faith without evidence). Further, they are expressing these 'complaints' against rationality, (while promoting religious proselytizing-propaganda), using technological devices which were most emphatically not products of religious superstitious beliefs. That is irony, (despite the misrepresentations of some xtian apologists).
-
Excellent point. Blind religious faith never produced a technological or, medical advance. It has, however, inhibited such before, (and probably now).
Thanks. I just get sick and tired of people complaining about 'mankind failing' when they really don't look at their own luxuries produced by mankinds advancements. They put their faith in a feeble myth about a guy walking on water, curing blindness, and altering a little food to make it a bit more for a group of people. Yet we've walked on the moon, erradicated entire diseases/plagues, and engineered food to feed billions. Gotta get their priorities straight.
Who is this? falcon9's brother?
-
Excellent point. Blind religious faith never produced a technological or, medical advance. It has, however, inhibited such before, (and probably now).
Thanks. I just get sick and tired of people complaining about 'mankind failing' when they really don't look at their own luxuries produced by mankinds advancements. They put their faith in a feeble myth about a guy walking on water, curing blindness, and altering a little food to make it a bit more for a group of people. Yet we've walked on the moon, erradicated entire diseases/plagues, and engineered food to feed billions. Gotta get their priorities straight.
Who is this? falcon9's brother?
Who was that; the sister of ignorance? Those who are unaware of the past are 'doomed' to remain ignorant of repeating it, (assuming that similar 'nyms and general attitudes imply anything constitutes jumping to conclusions).
-
Maybe