I'm not an astronomer, but I play one on TV. Two reasons (according to me) why it's ok to believe in God:

1/ Due to "inflation" of the universe, space expanded faster than the speed of light. Therefore, there is tons of universe out there we can never (according to our own laws) ever observe.

2/ About 95% of the observable universe is dark matter, which for some reason, has not yet been observed directly--only it's gravitational effects.

So this is no time to get cocky.

Believing in God has nothing to do with believing in Religion.

You don't need any religion to have this basic understanding of the Universe and Space, Dark Matter, Black Holes and Aliens.

(which are real btw)

One good reason is because there is a God.

Also, sistertwister is right the true God does not have anything to do with any bible or Bom or any religion ------ Isn't that obvious?????

It only took me 38 years to come to this easy conclusion;)

You are lucky it only took you 38 years ------ my brain washing was much better and it took longer for me.

never said it was the same...

Don't understand it, assume God fallacy.

All I'm saying is people don't need to be totally apologetic for believing in God considering our perceptions are so limited.

Granted, it's probably not the logical default conclusion. But it's not totally batshit crazy.

I have looked into virtually all religions. There is less to them than meets the eye, for me, at least.

People do not need to be apologetic for believing in Santa or the Easter bunny either/.

I'm just saying there does not need to be a fault position. It is okay to say I do not know yet.

Translation: "There are some things in the universe that I don't understand, therefore, God did it."

Okay. Whatever.

Most believers don't need an excuse to believe.

I recently had confirmation of my beliefs, based on psychic/medium direct experiences.

An ex-atheist Doctor in Psychology recently wrote a book and has a video out of the 'proof' of what I believe (through experiences) through his use of hypnosis. He now believes in God, an after life, that we are eternal beings, reincarnation, no Hell, no devil, etc. etc. Just watch some of his videos and show me others that have any proof of NO god!

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AikrqIRj.gTS37vkCPaucLebvZx4?p=Dr.+Newton+souls+journey&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=hp-avast&type=odc179&fp=1

Why is it "OK" to, in your formulation, say:

"There are things we don't know, therefore there's a magical supernatural being."

??

Look, you can "believe" anything you want. Whatever gets you through the day, as long as it doesn't harm others, is "OK."
But such an idea is not at all reasonable, in fact it's a blatant fallacy.

By the way, Aspiritualist -- there is no evidence any of the tens of thousands of claimed "god" things exist. Therefore claims such things DO exist are worthless. There's no need to "prove" they DON'T exist, when the claims about them are worthless.

I claim I have had experiences to support/prove we are eternal beings, there is an after life/heaven for all, there is a God, there is no devil or hell, etc. I assert everyone with a desire can have similar experiences.Additionally, a Dr. of Psychology has the same claims (see above post) based on hypnotizing people and getting them to regress into past lives and past lives between lives (after life/heaven).

I believe the Doc's evidence is a lot better than mine and should be able to be defeated by a trained psychologist and hypnotist saying he can't validate that.

If you don't have that kind of proof that the Dr. is a quack then:

Believers 2 Atheists 0

Of course we know you can't get your own 'proof of no God or after life' because their is a God and an afterlife!

What you "believe" is not evidence.

Atheist 1 Aspiritualist 0

The evidence I have obtained is sufficient for me especially in light of Dr. Newton's results through a completely different approach. God is not trying to hide this knowledge. I worked hard to get it but it is not as impressive or provable as Dr. Newton's who used an acceptable scientific method (hypnosis) to arrive at his conclusions.

Just because someone, like myself currently, cannot prove my experiences to a 3rd person does not mean I just believe this stuff without any proof. I have had numerous spirit experiences.

I personally have only met one person with similar beliefs and read about others. I am feeling pretty good a Doctor of psychology using hypnosis was able to better prove this stuff about after lives, other lives, God/God force, spirit guides, life missions, etc. etc.

What you claim as "sufficient for me" does not mean it is sufficient for anyone else. "Do" had evidence that was "sufficient' to convince the members of Heavens Gate to commit suicide. It does not mean that all the committed suicide are off riding on the commit.

Gathered by "different methods"? Really? Just because they are different does not mat them valid.

Atheist 3
Aspiritualist 0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2014 08:36PM by MJ.

I agree it is fair to say "I do not believe in any gods, but I don't actually know". However, it seems to me that most atheists on this board are saying a whole lot more!

Statements such as "there is no evidence of God", "claims of God are worthless" ----- that seems like that is a step beyond the mark and would require evidence! (see above ificouldhietokolob remarks).

Am I wrong????

Yes, we are asking people that claim there is a god for evidence of such a positive statement of fact.

We also question claims that there had to be a creator that started it all. In order to start it all, the creator would have to create the creator. Absurd I know, but people claim that a creator created it *ALL*.

Aspiritualist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I claim I have had experiences to support/prove we
> are eternal beings, there is an after life/heaven
> for all, there is a God, there is no devil or
> hell, etc. I assert everyone with a desire can
> have similar experiences.Additionally, a Dr. of
> Psychology has the same claims (see above post)
> based on hypnotizing people and getting them to
> regress into past lives and past lives between
> lives (after life/heaven).
>
> I believe the Doc's evidence is a lot better than
> mine and should be able to be defeated by a
> trained psychologist and hypnotist saying he can't
> validate that.
>
> If you don't have that kind of proof that the Dr.
> is a quack then:
>
> Believers 2 Atheists 0
>
> Of course we know you can't get your own 'proof of
> no God or after life' because their is a God and
> an afterlife!

Keeping "score," how mature. :)

You claim to have "experiences." Nobody can verify them, or your "interpretation" of them. Your "doctor" has no evidence to present, either. Both of you have beliefs, not evidence. Fine, have them. If they make you happy, terrific -- enjoy. But if you go around in public claiming they're "real", don't be surprised when people call you on it :)

I can accept that (s)he has had experiences, I question that those experiences justify the claim they are evidence of God.

The unknown or the unobserved are not reasons to believe in God.

Of course it's okay to believe in God. I only have a problem when people make the absolute assertion that God exists, without providing any proof of that statement.

"I don't understand it," is not a reason to insert a god into the equation, because then you must explain where God came from. You only complicate the situation.

It simply means that we don't know the answer yet.

And generally you don't set out to prove a negative. If I turned around and made the statement, "There is no god," then I've shifted the burden of proof onto myself.

I only say that I do not believe in any gods, but I don't actually know if there are any, or not.

Please see my comments above and question.

I am curious as to your reasons to believe in God. I'm not saying God isn't there, but there is no evidence so far.
Some say that a flower or a sunset is proof there is a god. But a flower and a sunset just prove there is a flower and a sunset.

Space inflation and dark holes prove there is space inflation and there are dark holes. There does not seem to be anything specific about those two items to indicate the presence of a supreme being, a God.

Believe in God all you want. But saying its OK to believe is starting from a very apologetic stance and supplies no credible reason.

If you've ever looked in a mirror, you have seen God. Whether you believe that you exist is another matter.

Some people and their egos . . .

Exactly. How dare people say it's not okay to believe in the Flying Spaghettiball Monster when they don't even know where 95% of the matter is and we can only see a small portion of the universe.
I have personal experiences that testify the reality of the FSM to me. So unless you can prove my personal experiences were false, he is obviously a real being. I have felt his noodly appendage touch my heart.

I am atheist, for lack of a better term.

It is my opinion that belief in god in itself is not harmful and is sometimes helpful to some individuals. It is only when that belief is exploited by religion and its dogma that belief becomes harmful, dangerous and evil, if you will. Religion ensnares and enslaves individual thought. It destroys the will to find one's own purpose and a fulfilling and meaningful life.

Belief in religion and its dogma is the enemy, including the dogma that is the Bible and other so-called holy books, the authority to act for God, prophets, seers and revelators. It's all bunk.

I guess that's the only part of mormonism that ever made much sense to me - that we could become gods.

As far as I can see, we are the gods. Or the closest thing to it.

It's amazing that so many people have come to some certainty that there cannot be a god and those who offer such a proposition are worthy only of contempt.

There is a centuries-long discussion on the existence of a deity and worthy arguments have been waged both for and against. There's certainly no problem with taking sides, but when you become arrogant in your position, you display ignorance of the contrary positions.

Labeling a god-belief as similar to Santa or the Tooth Fairy indicates an argument that assumes it has some undeniable foundation of certainty. That's simply foolish. As long as "I don't know" remains the atheist' answer for the existence of basics such as the origin matter of the emergence life, there is no ground for arrogance.

Arrogance is seldom found among those whom both sides deem their most knowledgeable on the topic. Arrogance is more commonly found among the less informed intent on pressing an agenda through bullying rather than truly rational thought and discussion.

It really is okay to believe in God.

It amazes me that questioning a positive claim that there is a god is falsely represented as a certainty there is no god. I, for one, have not said that there is, for certainty, no god. I have said that it seems ludicrous to claim that there is a god that started everything since that would mean that a non-existent god would have had to create itself.

Nice straw man. Claiming that the evidence does not support the claim so there is no reason to accept the claim is not the same as saying the claim is false.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2014 09:35PM by MJ.

MJ, you actually exemplify my point. Your false dilemma about a god who must create itself shows you have no understanding of even the basic arguments for the existence of god.

Can you name any argument for the existence of god that starts from a position that the deity created itself? If you wish to locate a straw man argument, you've done quite nicely.

Funny how you say I have everything wrong, but do not actually say why.

Creationism states that things of high level of complexity demand a creator. A creator capable of designing and creating a high level of complexity would have to be of a high level of complexity thus require a a creator.

But then again you misrepresent what I say. Why do you do that so often? Are your arguments that weak? If you read what I wrote, I was talking about a claim I made that was in response to people that claim that God created everything.

Of course the bible talks about god creating "ALL" things. God could not have created "ALL" things without creating himself. If God did not create himself, god did not create all things.

http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-16.htm
http://biblehub.com/john/1-3.htm

Oh, that's right, we are not supposed to quote the Christian Bible as if it were what Christians believe, right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2014 10:48PM by MJ.

I was an atheist in my twenties. At thirty, I had a personal encounter that caused me to believe in God. I couldn't prove He didn't exist. I can't prove He does. I just know He exists for me.

raindancer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was an atheist in my twenties. At thirty, I had
> a personal encounter that caused me to believe in
> God. I couldn't prove He didn't exist. I can't
> prove He does. I just know He exists for me.


Therein lies the problem for most of us as Mormons. If the deity actually exists in a personal way, part of our belief will often be a personal experience. But the Mormon testimony and Moroni's promise falsified that experience for many of us. God could literally tap us on the shoulder, and we would ignore it as something false like a testimony we had as a Mormon.

You can assert something all you want. You can claim something all you want. But unless you can present that evidence, it means nothing to someone who hasn't experienced it.

Greyfort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can assert something all you want. You can
> claim something all you want. But unless you can
> present that evidence, it means nothing to someone
> who hasn't experienced it.


No argument here. Experiences can be persuasive, but are most persuasive for those who actually experience them.

The ability to integrate the seemingly mystical with the terrestrial is a struggle for anyone who has powerful experiences. Mormonism shows we should rightly test those experiences. But we cannot necessarily extrapolate that one false experience falsifies all religious experiences.

I'm cockier than Hell on this matter, there's no God..
Ever was ever will...

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm cockier than Hell on this matter, there's no
> God..
> Ever was ever will...

I have a sense you may well have recited your Mormon testimony with similar certainty.

Regardless of whether anyone won or lost ------ I certainly enjoyed the open and honest discussion and have no hard feelings against anyone! I really wanted to know what nonbelievers would say given what I agree was inflammatory (on purpose).

It is great to be in a discussion where no one knows each other and we can get frank/maybe inflammatory remarks to interesting questions or propositions.

The one thing I think most of us agree on and will continue to agree on is that Mormonism is a scam!

Thanks again!

It's OK to believe in God

It's OK to believe there is no God

It's OK to be on the fence.

Seriously, everybody has a belief system of some sort, and it doesn't much matter which one you adopt as long as you can live and let live.