Do you believe in God?

[Spicoli]

I believe in many and some I have never even heard of from people who have never actually met them I think to say there is only one god strictly is as misguided and shallow as saying there is no one at all.

[Gandalf]

I believe in many and some I have never even heard of from people who have never actually met them I think to say there is only one god strictly is as misguided and shallow as saying there is no one at all.

Why is it misguided or shallow? Saying one only likes hot chicks is shallow, arguing that God doesn't exist is merely following all the available evidence. How is that misguided or shallow? Only someone who believes in something inherently illogical could suggest such a thing.

[VictorCharlie]

More importantly wtf is shallow about only liking hot chicks?

[IamInuit]

I believe in many and some I have never even heard of from people who have never actually met them I think to say there is only one god strictly is as misguided and shallow as saying there is no one at all.

Why is it misguided or shallow? Saying one only likes hot chicks is shallow, arguing that God doesn't exist is merely following all the available evidence. How is that misguided or shallow? Only someone who believes in something inherently illogical could suggest such a thing.

But you are arguing that the religious God does not exist or one that models him/it/herself after us. The one in religious text. That is fine but it does not logically follow that therefore there is nothing. Even Einstein said that some day Physics would discover God. So in that sense to dismiss all possibilities is shallow.

[Gandalf]

I believe in many and some I have never even heard of from people who have never actually met them I think to say there is only one god strictly is as misguided and shallow as saying there is no one at all.

Why is it misguided or shallow? Saying one only likes hot chicks is shallow, arguing that God doesn't exist is merely following all the available evidence. How is that misguided or shallow? Only someone who believes in something inherently illogical could suggest such a thing.

But you are arguing that the religious God does not exist or one that models him/it/herself after us. The one in religious text. That is fine but it does not logically follow that therefore there is nothing. Even Einstein said that some day Physics would discover God. So in that sense to dismiss all possibilities is shallow.

But you struggle to comprehend basic English. What I actually said was that the chance of God existing, certainly in the way defined over the past 2000 years, is likely 99.9% gibberish. Now I don't disagree that science will tell us more, but it has nothing to do with God as defined by religious man.

Dismissing God based upon evidence is not shallow as there is zero evidence to support the claims that an all governing God with the power to starve, kill, and condemn exists. Now that doesn't mean that it is 100% no chance of existence, but to rely on 0.1% or less is in itself pretty shallow.

[VictorCharlie]

But you struggle to comprehend basic English. What I actually said was that the chance of God existing, certainly in the way defined over the past 2000 years, is likely 99.9% gibberish. Now I don't disagree that science will tell us more, but it has nothing to do with God as defined by religious man.

Dismissing God based upon evidence is not shallow as there is zero evidence to support the claims that an all governing God with the power to starve, kill, and condemn exists. Now that doesn't mean that it is 100% no chance of existence, but to rely on 0.1% or less is in itself pretty shallow.

Seems to be you are the one struggling w/basic English. Spicoli didn't say anything about a "god" defined over the past 2000 years. In fact I'd say his post suggested a lack of definition. I'd say the evidence that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a definitive starting point suggests a catalyst to the Universe that we currently and more than likely never will be able to comprehend. I don't really like using the term "god" to describe this ambiguous and infinite concept but I don't begrudge others that do.

[Gandalf]

But you struggle to comprehend basic English. What I actually said was that the chance of God existing, certainly in the way defined over the past 2000 years, is likely 99.9% gibberish. Now I don't disagree that science will tell us more, but it has nothing to do with God as defined by religious man.

Dismissing God based upon evidence is not shallow as there is zero evidence to support the claims that an all governing God with the power to starve, kill, and condemn exists. Now that doesn't mean that it is 100% no chance of existence, but to rely on 0.1% or less is in itself pretty shallow.

Seems to be you are the one struggling w/basic English. Spicoli didn't say anything about a "god" defined over the past 2000 years. In fact I'd say his post suggested a lack of definition. I'd say the evidence that the Universe is expanding and therefore had a definitive starting point suggests a catalyst to the Universe that we currently and more than likely never will be able to comprehend. I don't really like using the term "god" to describe this ambiguous and infinite concept but I don't begrudge others that do.

But that has nothing to do with God. God is a word is it not and it is a word that has been defined by religious doctrine and so it is only right to use it in that context. If there is some other expansion of the word then you need to explain that otherwise it is just a random word. To be attacking my comprehension skills when it was IamInuit trying to attack mine when he was obviously wrong is just a weird bamboozle deflection.

Now if Spicoli was talking about science then fair enough, but science has NOTHING to do with God or God's. Science has systematically destroyed concepts of God for centuries and religious people keep on moving the goalposts. 'Okay, maybe wrong here, but you still haven't answered that. That could be God'. So, here we are at 0.000032% of a chance and still there is clinging. But let's just call it science and forget with the God nonsense. To use the word God means that they were semi right, when that is blatantly untrue. They have always made it up and changed the goalposts.

All I ask is what is the problem with just being happy with what you have and to use it well and that just be it for you. It's a selfish, selfish thing to cling on to the belief that there is more and that I must be part of it. Maybe there are more dimensions, maybe much more to know, but you as a conscious person are likely nothing to do with it. We are born into lives and live them through and that is what we do here. Nobody comes back from the dead and says 'Hi, It's lovely here in the 8th dimension, avoid the 10th one'. No evidence at all.

[VictorCharlie]

But you struggle to comprehend basic English.

To be attacking my comprehension skills when it was IamInuit trying to attack mine when he was obviously wrong is just a weird bamboozle deflection.

Pot, Kettle, Black

But that has nothing to do with God. God is a word is it not and it is a word that has been defined by religious doctrine and so it is only right to use it in that context.

As an agnostic I use the word "God" when referring to an unknown/undefined higher being b/c it is easier when speaking w/theists and atheists b/c that is the word they use/understand. I'm not sure what you are saying has nothing to do w/god? If you are referring to the expansion of the universe, I'd argue that the universe having a distinct starting point challenges a purely secular viewpoint.

[Spicoli]

I believe in many and some I have never even heard of from people who have never actually met them I think to say there is only one god strictly is as misguided and shallow as saying there is no one at all.

Why is it misguided or shallow? Saying one only likes hot chicks is shallow, arguing that God doesn't exist is merely following all the available evidence. How is that misguided or shallow? Only someone who believes in something inherently illogical could suggest such a thing.

I think its said pre determined and over simplified, shallow. Of course we cannot show physical 'proof', as far as I know, that god walks among us. On either side its a belief often turned into a diatribe beating ditractors over the head. Religion, a god, is put into physical form...for some in the form of a friggin super hero...but its misguided to think not seeing means that there is nothing there. Now hot chicks, you know them when you see them, and if they are not around we as men adapt and make sense of the ones available. We are much more flexible with women than we are with religion and more easily excepting.

[VictorCharlie]

Shallow my ass

[Spicoli]

Shallow my ass

Wow, Jesus fuckin Christ !

[Spicoli]

Shallow my ass

Wow, Jesus fuckin Christ !

Wait, is that a dude

[Dark Lord Al]

I was raised a catholic , and as soon as I could ( age 15 ) I binned it , so my answer is NO I do not believe in any higher power / god or otherwise.

[VictorCharlie]

Shallow my ass

Wow, Jesus fuckin Christ !

Wait, is that a dude

No, but for some eye candy I don't even care.