Despite having no conclusive evidence, then does that mean that you also believe in:
The Loch Ness Monster
And does not believing in these things make me in some way inferior? Because, whilst I have no problem with those that do believe in each of these things, I place 'God' alongside the five other 'entities' on this list as mythical things that I firmly do not believe in. Ghosts is a grey area, I have seen a couple, I am 99% sure that they were hallucinations, sleep paralysis or semi-concious dreams though.
Feel free to discuss?
I would probably believe if I had experience with those things you listed. Since I haven't, I neither believe nor disbelieve because anything is possible.
Creator, termed by most as an entity, is not.
Comparing the sum-substance that is the Universe equal to a thing in the universe seems odd. Even so, as a non-theist, non-atheist and most certainly a human being, I would in no way consider you inferior -unless you actually believe in the term of god and the others you mentioned.
I feel Its not really a matter of whether i believe in a god, as much as a feeling of knowing their is one! Think of the word god as a label, a name etc
There is a major difference between believing in something and knowing something to be true.
A believe can change tomorrow, ( it can be influenced by an assortment of different views and aspects!)
To know something-is a truth that resonates in you. (knowing some form of truth (what ever the subject), has profoundly change some peoples
I think we need to find our own truth through our experiences in our lives, evolve and project, our individual truth ( through intentions.) Be true to your self and live your truth, what ever that may be....
I believe that they (all your listed) are exit, but can not be compared with the God whom I believe.
It means I believe in love, mercy, compassion, and kindness. Maybe if more people tryed to mimic spiritual principles, we would have a better world. Ya think?
i've dated at least two of those creatures
Maybe people want a God they can attribute some miracles that looks like them - the figure of a God - Jesus Christ is a white person, he looks good with well chiseled nose, etc. They don't want those mythical things you have just enumerated even though maybe some also believe in them.
What REALLY Concerns me is that Wiki Leaks provided some references on all those things that you just listed here!
Interestingly though, Nothing on God could be found worthy of the release... Wonder Why?
How's this for a twist. I believe that space is infinite. Couple in the strong probability of parallel dimensions this creates infinite possibilities. Anything anyone has ever imagines can and should be out there, being played out. Unicorns? Sure! UFO's? You Betcha!
God, sure why not? Somewhere out there there is a universe that was created by a God, possibly in 7 days time of course, but is this that one? This is where belief comes in, some think so, some think no. Does it make that big a difference to the person you are or the choices you would make, really? It's really just for fun
Actually, I think the reason people believe in anything is because they believe the evidence they have is conclusive. Whether it can be proven to the guy sitting next to them is beside the point. I'm with you though. Why get worked up over it? Who cares what the other guy thinks?
Indeed, and believers should be free to believe. If you believe in God then you should be free to believe in God, if you believe in UFOs then you should be free to believe in UFOs. It's just that believers of UFOs, Nessie and Bigfoot don't go through quite the same lengths to convince you to believe. We are free to assume those are a hoax or a myth, yet are challenged when we suggest that same about the existance of a God.
On some levels I agree with you. But, in fairness to those that feel the need to attempt to make you religious, I think they probably do it out of some idea of love. Maybe they just want to hang with you on heaven. I don't think you can equate belief in an afterlife with Bigfoot.
Although I firmly believe in tolerance, I think everyone has the right to stand up for their beliefs. That's all I see in this forum. Except for the occasional loose screw. I mean, some of the threads are hilarious. They're simply thrown out there to get a reaction.
I don't believe in those you listed.
They are a fun idea.
But, they are not in the same class as God.
I doubt anyone worships Yet etc.
Well, maybe UFO occupants but hey...whatever.
The question is 'belief' or 'faith', isn't having a 'belief' or 'faith' a universal concept? Have believers and those with faith lost sight of what belief or faith mean by very definition? Belief and worship are too very different things, you can believe in something without worshipping it. Belief is defined as "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something". I believe that lions exist, because I have seen them like most, but that doesn't mean I should worship them.
It would appear the "class" defined in the OP is that of conclusive evidence. Yes, your god is in the same class, that is, unless you've defined a different class than that of the OP.
No - they have a whole range of classes to differentiate. A belief in the Christian God is "perfectly rational," whereas a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just "silly."
I wouldn't say it is silly. I would just say I don't share your belief.
And then you have the stuff like the fact that there is more historical evidence to suggest Jesus was real than most "accepted" historical figures.
I havent seen ANY evidence to ever suggest there was ever any significance to a flying Spaghetti monster.
I agree there is historical evidence that the man Jesus lived. There is absolutely none that he was the son of God.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest Jesus is everything the Bible claims he was.
That being said, I realize that "evidence" is not fact. In crime scenes, the evidence often points investigators to a certain decision. But sometimes, additional evidence or new evidence makes them realize they mis interpreted the original evidence.
My faith is not a brick wall that I feel I must defend all the time. It is more like a trampoline. It is something I enjoy and invite others to join me if they like. I love my God and I love my faith. You do not "defend" the things you love. You do not take pictures of your kids and shove them in someones face and try to convince them how great your kids are. No, you don't. You lovingly share pictures of your kids with other people and invite them to enjoy them with you.
That is my faith. Faith is not Fact. If it were, then it would stop being faith.
To think people who believe in nothing are standing in judgement of those who at least are willing to consider the possibly.
So if you do not believe in god you do not believe in anything? I believe in myself, I believe in my friends, I believe in my favourite sports star, I have plenty of 'belief'; it just so happens that one thing that I do not believe in is god, just like I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster. People can believe in one thing and not another.
The point being who are you to also not be able to disprove the exist of God means you're right!
I am not claiming to be right or wrong in respect of the existance of god, I am stating that a lack of belief in god is no different from a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. I am also stating that a belief in god is no different from a belief in the Loch Ness Monster; there is a possibility that the Loch Ness Monster does exist, I cannot discount that, but I do not believe that he exists. In order to "believe" in the Loch Ness Monster I would need "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something". I am not going to believe in the Loch Ness Monster unless I see him, in person, else I contravene that very definition. Do those who believe in something that they cannot prove, those who believe in anything not just god, also question the accuracy of this definition? And if so, how would they define "belief"?
I am asked if I have a belief in god, by people who cannot themselves define "belief" or explain "belief" as a concept, in the all encompassing sense. Remember that belief is not a word or concept associated only to god but to our everyday lives.
To classify someone's religion to unproven speculation is implying one has enough knowledge to deem themself something of an authority in this matter which is saying I know better then you thereby saying you are making a right and wrong distinction.
People can believe any thing and many times they have, people use to worship animals and I believe Satan do or did worship cats. People believe in little green aliens and though I don't agree with these concepts I don't spend my days trying to tell them since you don't think like I do you are wrong.
But you are now classifying things that others believe in as unproven speculation; therefore as guilty in the eyes of a Bigfoot believer as I apparently am to a believer in god. Again, I am not discounting the possibility of the existance of any of the things listed (including god or bigfoot). The objective of my thread is not to tell people that they are wrong in their belief, the fact that I don't believe is irrelevant to my point, the objective of my thread is to point out that the belief or non-belief in god is no different to the concept of belief in the Loch Ness Monster or non-belief in the Loch Ness Monster. I will not be dragged away from the intended direction of this thread.
Understand this those are your opinion but your statements sounds like it's your facts. You are making the comparsion from belief of an object to that which is beyond human conprehension and unless one is expert in both fields I frankly don't see how they can make such statements.
you believe something you can't comprehend!!
the above one is something you will never comprehend, so believe in it
Thats because the comparison is there. whether its the belief in an object or the belief in a God.
When it comes down to it, its still just a belief in something.
Whether it is an object or a belief in something that is beyond human comprehension it is still just a belief in something.
It is not the word belief, its just a word!
it is the depth of the passion that drives the individuals belief which makes one belief more important then the other. (its still just a belief)
To address your thread. I think it is very safe to say that there is more evidence of Jesus Christ and God than the above listed items.
And if you believed in any of those things I would say "OK, whatever." I do not see a benefit in believing in UFO's, bigfoot, loch ness, or any other thing we can't prove at this point.
And if it did come out that any of those things were true I would say "cool" and that's about it. There are no "eternal" implications in belief in these things no matter which way I fall.
There are eternal implications to a belief in God so I was prompted, not by fear mind you, but sheer fascination and curiosity.
I examined numerous studies and historical works and came to the conclusion that there had to be something more out there than just a "cosmic accident."
I can easily see how someone could take the same investigative steps I did, but come up with the exact opposite conclusion.
I do not judge those people or tell them how wrong they are, or how evil they are, or that they will burn in hell. I am quite confident that I will see the most adamant and loud atheist in heaven with me.
In other words, you ignored all the evidence science has discovered that shows it was just a "cosmic accident" so to speak?
What caused the "cosmic accident"?
You're on weak footing if you claim that current science has all the answers. We're still trying to figure it all out.
We very well may have that answer some day. But, to resort to claiming "someone" did it is more ignorant and delusional than simply stating we don't know yet. So far, the evidence would suggest it occurred entirely on it's own, no gods were required.
It's reasonable to say that you don't believe it was some divine being. It's also reasonable to say you believe it was some divine being. Reasonable in this case should mean reasonable to yourself.
In either case, there shouldn't be any prohibition against investigation into understanding it further.
It isn't reasonable at all to invoke a magical being that waved his magical hand and created it all when the evidence suggests something completely different.
Why would you want to waste time and resources looking for something that doesn't follow the evidence? Where is the sense in that?
How so? What's unreasonable to say that something might have preceded the Big Bang or created it? For those things that science does not have an answer, you can either be agnostic, atheist, or believe in something.
Furthermore, you can't really help what you believe. Someone screaming at you, insulting you, or demeaning you for believing or not believing the "right thing" can't change your mind. Some things are disprovable, and some things are not.
Not all people who believe in God believe in the whole hand-waving magic fairy-dust sort of story.
Perhaps, an education into logical fallacies might answer those questions for you.
Yes, you can. It's called breaking your indoctrination and thinking for yourself.
Are you certain of that or just falling back on your religious indoctrination?
Yes, the indoctrinated will never agree with each other as far as their religious views are concerned. The reason for that is because those beliefs have been handed down from one generation to another.
And, you wonder why there have been so many religious wars over the past many centuries.
You have to be careful with your assumptions.
A couple of centuries ago, it might have been considered a logical fallacy that energy and matter were different forms of one another. For things there is evidence for, you have to accept the evidence. For things that we don't (yet) have the evidence for, it's helpful to have an open mind. Logic hasn't explained how existence came into being, and we're clearly not capable of understanding it yet.
I was raised nominally Catholic but not religious at all. I'm a Jew now, and converted out of my own free will. So I was not indoctrinated by my upbringing, and if you really anything at all about Judaism, you would know that indoctrination and dogma are not part of the religion. So, while you might be an ex-Christian, you shouldn't assume everyone thinks about "the divine" in the same way you were brought up to believe it.
People start wars for many reasons, and religion is just the excuse they ascribe to it. Tribalism and greed are the usual reason for it, and they're the reason wars start even when religion isn't involved at all.
Yes, but an open mind does not need to invoke magic to explain something that has yet to be explained.
Yes, once again, please speak for yourself when referring to that which one is incapable of understanding.
Yes, you were, by your own admittance to having been raised Catholic. The fact that you choose another belief system does not preclude your indoctrination.
Religions enforce and fuel tribalism and greed. Yes, people start wars for many reasons, and religions are most certainly one of them, lest you choose to ignore history.
Mankind needs to eradicate all the reasons for starting wars, religion included.
You're right, it doesn't.Really? Don't be shy. Explain to us how existence came into being.I said nominally Catholic. I didn't attend Sunday school or mass, and didn't discuss religion with my parents. Was I raised with less religious indoctrination that you were? Probably.
Like I've said before, (ex-)Christians really don't know much about Judaism.You really drank the Kool-Aid if you believe that. Religion is a flimsy justification for war. It's something people say to make themselves feel better about doing something awful. It's not the actual impetus. Do you think the Crusades were really about bringing Christianity to the Levant? Yes, let's get rid of private ownership and money, too, since they're more seriously implicated in fomenting violence and conflict than religion is.
And yet, you invoke magic as an explanation.
The universe came into existence entirely on it's own according to the evidence we have so far. Absolutely nothing infers invisible gods were at work.
It would appear that energy was borrowed from a source and not returned, but instead gave way to the conservation of energy and expanded into an ocean of radiation.
Perhaps, if I was an ex-Christian. Judaism is as readily available to understand as any other religion. Didn't you know that?
Perhaps, you would like to correct history and tell us "Kool-Aid" drinkers what the Crusades were all about.
One step a time. Religions reduce the capacity for people to think, hence it must go first in order for people to gain back their intellects. We can work on other problems once people focus on mankind rather than their hatred of mankind and their love of their gods.
Really? I certainly don't remember "invoking." Are you trying to get into my head?
It infers that the universe came into existence by a process we certainly don't understand. How do you explain that energy being "borrowed from a source and not returned" is not a violation of what we understand about the relationship between matter and energy? Sounds like magic to me. Why not just say, "We don't knkow?" Scratch an angry atheist, and you have an ex-Christian (occasionally an ex-Muslim). It's also very common for people to jump from Christianity to a rejection of all religion, without having studied other religions. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems prudent to not make assumptions about things you don't really know about.The history is clear, even if you're not: a land grab by those who organized them, and pillaging opportunities and "remission of sin" (i.e. afterlife booty) for those who participated.You are still understanding all of religion through the prism of Christianity, a dogmatic religion. I'm all for a liberation from dogma.
Not at all, are you a believer in gods or not? If so, you are invoking magic.
Uh, yes it is a process understood, perhaps not by you, though.
Yes, I understand that believers consider science as magic while they consider their invisible gods as reality.
Energy does not have to be returned to it's source as long as it is conserved. We find many examples of this in physics.
You mean, for example, your lack of understanding of the world around us yet you invoke magic to explain it?
Hilarious. Where did you get that nonsense?
That much is abundantly clear. Where did the universe get its energy from, then?Do you believe repeating a lie is justifiable in an ends-justify-the-means sort of way?
That is the answer scientists are trying to find out. There are a few theories on that, but none which currently provide the evidence.
Again, invoking magic at this time would be irrational and illogical.
I thought you said you understood that? I suppose that was another lie. It seems you don't know any more than anyone else does about the origin of existence.
And I have to say (so you don't fabricate yet another lie about me) that I strongly support scientific inquiry into it.
I do understand that. I never said I or anyone else knew the source.
No, it wasn't lie. But, I'm sure you'd like to believe it was.
In response to my statement: "Logic hasn't explained how existence came into being, and we're clearly not capable of understanding it yet."
You said: "Yes, once again, please speak for yourself when referring to that which one is incapable of understanding."
You seem to be saying that you (and other presumably atheist people) are capable of understanding the origin of existence, yet you admit that the energy/matter used to create the universe seems to have been borrowed from another source that we don't even know exists, which begs the question, where did that source gets its matter/energy?
As I stated before, it is an answer scientists are seeking. While the entire process is well understood, it is the source of the energy that remains a mystery. And again, there are several theories as to the source of that energy.
Well, it's well understood up until a point. As I asked earlier, if the source of energy was from another source, then that source had to get its energy from somewhere, too.
Because, with what we know now, it looks like a paradox, it's safe to say that the origin of existence would have to violate what we currently understand about how matter and energy work. (Matter and energy will have had to come from nothing) It's hard to even wrap our heads around the idea.
Several theories indeed.
Possibly, but we are jumping to conclusions there.
No, it's not safe to say that, but again we are jumping to conclusions. One step at a time.
Maybe you can use logic to explain how the origin of existence - in our universe or across all of them - does not violate how we understand matter and energy.
I will also note that this might be the first religious discussion that has evolved into a scientific one, instead of the other way around...
Well I would not like to have such an open mind that my brains fall out
I look at all the evidence. Now, when it comes to evidence, it is not a fact. "Evidence" is not fact because "evidence" can be very subjective. Also, evidence can be wrong. You see it at crime scenes all the time. Initially, it looked like suicide. But upon further review and additional eveidence we found out the wife killed her husband and then staged it to look like suicide.
It goes both ways. There is very credible evidence for Jesus. I am not going to list it here, you can google it.
There is evidence for a creator and there is evidence for a cosmic accident. Even if we found out that evolution was 100% true, that wouldn't shake my faith. My faith is not a brick wall that I feel I have to defend all the time. My faith is more like a trampoline. I enjoy my faith and I invite others to join me if they wish. I love my faith and you don't defend the things you love. You don't take pictures of your kids and shove them in peoples faces and hope to "convince" them of how great your kids are. Instead, you share pictures of your kids with other people and invite them to enjoy them with you.
Yes, I think you need to take the time to understand the difference between subjective and objective evidence.
Yes, just like we find that religions have staged the origins of the universe as creationism, but upon further review and additional evidence, of which there are mountains, we found that the universe came about entirely on its own.
Yes, I understand you won't list it here, there isn't any, googling or otherwise.
So, where is this evidence for your creator?
Yes, I understand that a believers faith is unshakable in light of reality.
Yes, and like a trampoline, it is forced to shape itself to reality when encountered, only to eventually wear out, filled with gaping holes and soon tearing to shreds.
I also don't share pictures of my kids and then threaten others with eternal damnation if they don't accept to view them.
The Loch Ness Monster
All of the above reside in my back yard.
Damn, what's with all the non-believers suddenly making forum threads in the religious section? I am too, but I keep my mouth shut,,, most of the time.
In answer to your question Ryan, the simple reason they believe in a God yet not in bigfoot is acceptance.
Most people are brought up and told that yes, there is a god. It's universally accepted as truth, as fact. To not believe makes you an outsider.
If your parents tell you something is the fact, and all your friends say it is, and you see all your town going to church and believing it is,,, then damn,, you think it must be right and true!
However believers of bigfoot are small and ridiculed, so you say they are not true. Humans accept what they are taught.
Which brings up my saying "everything is relative". If you were born into a Muslim family in the middle east, chances are you would believe in Allah or whatever.
If your born into a Catholic family, you most likely grow up believing,, uh,,,, whatever the believe.
We all, for the most part, grow up believing what our parents, friends and culture tell us. Those who change their minds often still think there is a god because that whole principle, a god made us, is so universally accepted.
Everything is relative. We all view things and the world relative to how we are raised or go through.
I don't give a damn what people believe in. However the trouble with most religions is that in many ways and even in legal ways, they DO force their believes on all others.
Bed time here now, nighty nite!
You believe there is no conclusive evidence there IS a God. However, in the words of President Bill Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”
Logically speaking, failure to prove there IS a God does not prove that God does not exist. It is impossible to logically prove a negative.
I, however, believe IN God with out having to believe there IS a God. I can understand God as a symbol, a figure of speech, a metaphor for many aspects of life that no one has YET been able to explain. As such, it matters not if I can prove God does or does not exist because I can clearly see what God represents.
If the metaphors used by some religions are of value in my search for the truth, then I believe in the metaphors and don’t insist that they be proven facts. There is much to be learned about living from the Koran, and the Bible, and a Good Housekeeping magazine. When I find it, I use it.
I believe in God and UFOs. I think Bigfoot and Nessie are possible. I don't believe in goat suckers.
I believe in most probabilities events or things had happened unless someone can disprove it to me.
I believe God is love, and it,s not only possible, its work in my own life, just don't know how to putit into words.
I believe greater intelligent life forms on other planet, as you can see, these Alien have not yet arrived.
As far as one and only right way to universal god Religion, = hogwash.
I'm not entirely sure why someone else's beliefs should matter to anyone else except the person who believes them.
If you're against proselytizing, that's another matter entirely. But not all people who believe in God believe in proselytizing (and not all people who believe in God are Christian). And, as it's very clear here, there are plenty of atheists who also believe in proselytizing. I think the behavior is obnoxious, and a sad way to try to control other people's minds.
What you do is ultimately what matters. If a belief in God, or yourself, or a giant purple hippo, or nothing at all, is what motivates you to get up and do some good in the world, then what should that matter to anyone else?
And if you think all the bad that happens in the world is due to religious belief, then you couldn't be more misguided. Ideology doesn't always have religious underpinnings. Sometimes that's just the window dressing.
So many wars and destructive things have happened in the world, simply because someone believed something. And, then you go and say something like why should it matter to other people what people believe.
The consequences have been devastating to say the least and I'm saddened that anyone would have a belief that other people's beliefs don't affect anyone other than themselves.
That's not true. You can believe all the most horrible things but not actually do anything bad. In that case, I couldn't possibly care what someone's personal beliefs are.
And there are lots of people who do horrible things out of a sense of selfishness or greed. Many of them say they do so because their religion tells them to, and that turns out to be utterly unsubstantiated. Do you think those plundering the Levant during the Crusades were doing so because of their religion or out of greed?
Belief does not necessarily translate to action. Action is what matters.
Actions come from beliefs in most cases and not based on true knowledge or wisdom. Any action that is taken from a belief that is selfish based is dangerous, even if no action is taken, because the underlying action of forming the belief was made, for which, is selfish. So, anything that happens, either action or none(no action is still an action), because of a belief that is selfish is still and remains detrimental to the survival of humanity.
Do you think selfishness, greed and malice are religious beliefs, or beliefs at all?
Selfishness, greed and malice are not beliefs, but are descriptive words for actions that can be judged.
Not all beliefs are selfish or made from greed nor have malice intent.
Example: The rare instance, I am going to share one belief I consistently hold- the Boston Redsox are going to win the world series.
That belief has no selfishness, greed or malice to it and it harms no one.
I once wrote a philosophy paper likening God to Santa. I made the argument that Santa gave children something to look forward to. It also gave parents disciplinary authority and a way to keep their children in line. and to me, that seemed much the same thing that God was doing for us. In my bitter adolescence, I thought that God was a concept conceived by authoritarians to keep the population in check and to keep people hoping and wanting to live.
I have since scrapped that belief, realizing that my bitterness is what colored my view of everything. I now know that I cannot deny His presence in my life and in the people around me. its impossible. and it doesnt matter to me that other people dont see it or feel it. I do, and thats all that matters.
There are many historical documents that are considered accurate with only a few copies.
Do some research on the copies and accuracy of the New Testament. You'll find it's the most accurate collection of historical documents the modern world has knowledge of.
There also tons of other proofs I've been through during my personal lifetime. But they're just that... personal. You wouldn't believe it even if I told you buddy.
Those who don't believe it just don't want a God.
Those who don't want God, will certainly find a way for Him and Jesus to not exist.
What I found about the NT is that each gospel was written by unknown authors (probably church clergy) who named them after disciples & each was written several decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived ie no eye-witness accounts
Yes, your personal experiences are exactly that which don't follow reality in that regard.
Everyone is free to do that, just like you are free to present it here to substantiate your wild claims.
Of course, we know that ain't gonna happen.
Everyone... Please do your own research. Some will attempt to tell you what they want you to know rather than letting you look.
Trust your own work...
yes, but beware of biased sources eg the creationist websites that have a pile of BS about evolution, like monkeys giving birth to humans
That is true.
They spread lies.
Even science books get it wrong when they describe our evolution as an accident that happened overnight when it was a gradual change.
I guess you have to read as widely as possible. It seems Facebook, gum wrappers and Cereal boxes are not adequate resources.
yes, terms like 'cambrian explosion' are misleading
Damn! You just dist all my research resources!
The evidence is all around you.AS it is written,For this they are Willingly ignorant of.
In supernatural existence,celestial existence,and spirituality,which have No DNA,no cells,no atoms,no elements,no neurons nor matter.It is in that which have no brains nor heart,but yet have intellect,personality,like a lot of sea creatures.
You ask the question ...where,and I ask the question...where is it not?
I'm no expert, but here's my opinion. I am a Christian so yes I believe in God, but I'm also a Dreamer/Fiction Writer, so I believe in the Loch Ness, Big Foot, Fairies, Unicorns, Ghost's, UFO's-Alien's, Leprecaun's, Santa Claus, etc. I believe that God made them all. I mean if He can make messed up old me-then why not.
I think it is up to each person as to what they believe or who they believe in. I believe that your walk with God is just that-YOUR walk with God. It's not for me or anyone else to say what is right or wrong for you. You are free to believe or not believe what ever you want. It's your life to live not mine and certainly not anyone else's.
I think that is part of the world's problem, we've become to PC and to worried about the person next to us to really see the problems in our own lives. Perhaps we're afraid that if we did step back and take a good look at ourselves we'ed find we aren't as smart or as brave as we'ed like to BELIEVE we are.
I think that many of the responses in this thread are ironic because they are based on the following unproven believe or something similar to it.
"The only way I can know/believe something is if there is scientific evidence or I've experience it personally."
by LINEOFPROGRESSION6 years ago
Believers of a god: What (if anything), would lead you to stop believing?Non-believers: What (if anything), could convert you to belief in a god?
by Jenna Ditsch5 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
by Claire Evans6 months ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can...
by little johnny5 years ago
Give 3 good reasons why you DO believe in God or you DO NOT believe in God.
by secularist104 years ago
Let the madness begin.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar6 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.