Quote:Do we need evidence to believe in something.

Yes.

Of course we need evidence to believe in something. I think this is universally true.

What isn't universal is the degrees of certainty people will accept as evidence.

For some, the Bible in addition to personal experience is more than enough evidence for them to justify a religious belief.

For some, the word of their parents or pastor is enough.

For some, nothing short of hard physical evidence will suffice.

Nobody woke up one day with Christian faith implanted in their heads. It always takes some level of convincing and justification.

(October 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Proving God exists is logically impossible.

So I take it you don't believe in the validity of the TAG argument? Or if you do (which I thought you did for some reason...), how can you argue that proving God exists is logically impossible when TAG tries to do that.

(October 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Proving God exists is logically impossible.

So I take it you don't believe in the validity of the TAG argument? Or if you do (which I thought you did for some reason...), how can you argue that proving God exists is logically impossible when TAG tries to do that.

You missed my subsequent get out clause: "(To qualify, God can just not be proven scientifically)"

(Yes I realised that I'd boobed there )

@fr0d0

It is not silly to be an athiest if I dont believe in god, it would be a waste of my time for me to practice a religion.

When did god last come to earth publicly? Back then everyone who met him was convinced and they thought it as proof of god; now we don't know what to think because the bible is so old that we don't know if its true or not. If god came over to your house and you sat at the kitchen table with him and drank coffee, you would be pretty damn sure he existed.

Why would god not be god if he was known to exist as fact? Does having no proof of something you belive in's existance make it god? I have a cat named larry, it sat on my kitchen counter and ate fish.
you have absolutely no proof that I have a cat (unless you are a very creepy stalker), by your logic my cat is god.
So I suppose if the christian god was somehow proven, that would make us all athiests pagans? Not that we aren't already, as a pagan is just someone who is a non-christian, but still...

Belief in a deity constitutes religion, so athiesm still means non-religious.

(October 8, 2009 at 10:32 pm)theblindferrengi Wrote: When did god last come to earth publicly? Back then everyone who met him was convinced and they thought it as proof of god;

Stop right there - No they weren't & didn't!!! ...which affirms the idea that he can't be provable in this way.

(October 8, 2009 at 10:32 pm)theblindferrengi Wrote: now we don't know what to think because the bible is so old that we don't know if its true or not. If god came over to your house and you sat at the kitchen table with him and drank coffee, you would be pretty damn sure he existed.

No it wouldn't. there is nothing that would scientifically prove to you that God exists.

(October 8, 2009 at 10:32 pm)theblindferrengi Wrote: Why would god not be god if he was known to exist as fact? Does having no proof of something you belive in's existance make it god? I have a cat named larry, it sat on my kitchen counter and ate fish.
you have absolutely no proof that I have a cat (unless you are a very creepy stalker), by your logic my cat is god.

Just because God, by his nature, cannot be scientifically proven does not mean that everything also not scientifically proven = God. God has other definitions to satisfy.

(October 8, 2009 at 10:32 pm)theblindferrengi Wrote: So I suppose if the christian god was somehow proven, that would make us all athiests pagans? Not that we aren't already, as a pagan is just someone who is a non-christian, but still...

Belief in a deity constitutes religion, so athiesm still means non-religious.

It would make all us Christians atheist too

Paganism can mean a believer in a deity so no. A non Christian can also be a deist/ theist. Like I said, Buddhism is a religion and can be correctly followed by an atheist.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Write 100 times...

Then what would you consider pagan frodo?

Paganism can be the belief in gods or involve gods and/ or goddesses.

Wikipedia Wrote:In its broadest definition, pagan denotes all non-Abrahamic religions, that is to say it denotes all religions other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Nice. Thank you frodo for telling me that.

I had read a little bit more on wikipedia about paganism and found it interesting.

I want to read about paganism furthur on, but I will do this later on.

(October 8, 2009 at 3:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Proving God exists is logically impossible.

So I take it you don't believe in the validity of the TAG argument? Or if you do (which I thought you did for some reason...), how can you argue that proving God exists is logically impossible when TAG tries to do that.

You missed my subsequent get out clause: "(To qualify, God can just not be proven scientifically)"

(Yes I realised that I'd boobed there )

So if there WAS some proof of gods existance you'd discount it, because it can't be proved by science yeah.

Bet it wouldn't play out like that eh Frodo