You **** off green, I pray before and after hoping I don't get a sore arse from the ****ting experience.
To answer your question - no i don't believe in anything that can't be disproved - but when i see something every day I believe it is there - it is proven to at least be there! Assuming its always been here and nothing created it, in my view, a far bigger leap of faith than believing in God - in fact I would say that not believing something was created that is around you every day is ludicrous.
You see god every day? You should see a mental healthcare professional about that. Your belief that something created everything and that it was always in existence adds a step to the belief that the universe has simply always existed, in some form. We know that the universe exists. We don't know that god exists. It's clearly less of a leap of faith to believe in an eternal universe than it is to believe in an eternal creator who magicked up the universe.
This was actually a great discussion/debate untill the GC 'atheists' got hold of it. Shame really as they kind of destroyed it with their usual rubbish. Here is my take on it. Atheism is as much a religion it seems for those on here as is religion. If by religion we are talking about belief structure/s. In fact on the definition of what constitutes a religion, atheism today fulfills over 90% of the criteria. There are some atheists outside the definition but not those on here, based on what I am reading. Most of what is being argued is being settled by 'science makes no claims about a deity' or 'we dont know from science' etc , that is agnostic not atheist Saying why does 'god' allow bad things to happen is like saying science was responsible for foot and mouth and the destruction of those animals. Not to mention the whole AIDS thing in Africa. IF gods law as we understand it is to be taken literally (and I do dispute this) then Aids wouldnt exist or would be contained to a very small minority. Science actually is more responsible for the spread of AIDS than god The 'atheists' need to decide which platform they are basing their arguments on. It seems to me they use religion as it suits. If you believe in science so much then the probability of a 'God' is better than what is being perpetuated by some as fact with regards to the beginning, Big Bang etc The whole 'Abrahamic God' thing, from both sides, is ridiculous and shows a lack of knowledge on religious teachings. All go back to the same God Most of the atheist and religious arguments are based on religion as we know it today, again showing a lack of knowledge/understanding. If you take each thing and trace it back to its religious roots you will see the discrepancies. Noah and the animals was quoted above, those who believe or use the 2 by 2 story are both showing a lack of knowledge I love how the whole 'government propaganda' arguments get used for Mao etc, what do you think is happening with the taliban? I guess you all believe we are liberating women form the Taliban? conveniently forgetting what karzai has made law As for Gods omnipotence, its because he is omnipotent that he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift And as for the whole 'magic' and 'fairy tale' comments, a frog turning into a prince is a fairytale but also evolution. Making something appear from nothing is magic but also the Big Bang
You show a complete lack of understanding of atheism, evolution and the big bang theory. If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is a sport. If you don't believe in a god or gods, then you're an atheist.That's it. No dogma, no belief structure and no leaps of faith. Sorry. Science is responsible for AIDS? Are you the Pope? As for GoonerCymraeg's comments about the communist leaders, I think that you'll find he was joking.
Apology accepted Got to say reading all the posts, you show the most lack of understanding. Tell me you dont purport to be atheist?
lad to have impressed you, albeit in anegative manner. Strange how you felt the need to respond but didnt
