Do you believe in God etc?

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

But they are not believing everything exists. They are believing their God exists. Do not try to tell me which one is better. So far, I see nothing wrong with a person believing in God and a person not believing in God. What I cannot understand is the bitterness between non-believers and believers. I know you love to be right, and you will do anything to be so, but this is one argument that you cannot be right about.

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Jessu

The Old Testament's rituals and beliefs were rendered useless once Jesus came along and proclaimed a new promise from God. The New Testament is what should be followed, not the entire Bible (unless, again, there are references in the OT that point to some parts of the NT).]

Oh I was hoping someone would bring this up.

This is not the case at all. Jesus specifically states in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This quote shows that not only does Jesus approve of the law of the prophets, it shows that he doesn't object to them at all. Therefore, the Old Testament should be followed just as strictly as the New Testament.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Orthar

Oh I was hoping someone would bring this up.

This is not the case at all. Jesus specifically states in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This quote shows that not only does Jesus approve of the law of the prophets, it shows that he doesn't object to them at all. Therefore, the Old Testament should be followed just as strictly as the New Testament.

You do notice how contradictory the Old Testament and New Testament are, right?

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

But they are not believing everything exists. They are believing their God exists. Do not try to tell me which one is better. So far, I see nothing wrong with a person believing in God and a person not believing in God. What I cannot understand is the bitterness between non-believers and believers. I know you love to be right, and you will do anything to be so, but this is one argument that you cannot be right about.

*facepalm*

I see you are still utterly failing at grasping my point...

So, explain this: If you believe in God because there's nothing disproving him, then why do you believe in God but not unicorns? After all, there's nothing disproving unicorns either?

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

You do notice how contradictory the Old Testament and New Testament are, right?

You do know that I'm refuting a point to someone who posted false information, right?

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Lusankya

*facepalm*

I see you are still utterly failing at grasping my point...

So, explain this: If you believe in God because there's nothing disproving him, then why do you believe in God but not unicorns? After all, there's nothing disproving unicorns either?

I don't believe in God, but I believe in the possibility of there being one.

And no, I totally get the point. But is there anything wrong with somebody believing in a unicorn if they want to?

Think of it like this. I could say there is a magical teapot that orbits the sun about the same time span we do, 365 days. Now, you cannot do anything to disprove it, and I cannot prove it, but it is not hurting anything.

Of course, you and your constant need to be right means you will bring up the many wars started by religious people. And of course, I will point out that there have been plenty of wars based on other things, that have been just as gruesome and aggressive, and you will totally deny the fact and/or find something absolutely obscure to counter it because YOU MUST BE RIGHT all the time.

@Orthar No, I did not. I apologize. I thought you actually believed the Old Testament was true.

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

There will come a time. It is up to humans, however, to accept it. One can hear all the evidence in the world and still be willfully ignorant, as I have seen much of that in my family.

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I don't believe in God, but I believe in the possibility of there being one.

Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black. Seeing it in your family is one thing, but you should be seeing it in yourself. By this logic, you being an Agnostic is just as "willfully ignorant" as a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Orthar

Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black. Seeing it in your family is one thing, but you should be seeing it in yourself. By this logic, you being an Agnostic is just as "willfully ignorant" as a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc.

What are you talking about? Believing in the possibility of there being one is the same as not believing in one, to an extent. While I find it perfectly acceptable for people to believe in a god, I will not deny it being ignorant if facts are telling them otherwise.

That, and I am a very white pot. xD

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

What are you talking about? Believing in the possibility of there being one is the same as not believing in one, to an extent. While I find it perfectly acceptable for people to believe in a god, I will not deny it being ignorant if facts are telling them otherwise.

That, and I am a very white pot. xD

You brought up the point of science and evidence. You then said that eventually, because of these two, people would eventually accept it. Obviously if you have thought up this notion, why have you not yet accepted it?

That is why I equated you being an Agnostic to being a believer of any faith.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

Originally Posted by Orthar

You brought up the point of science and evidence. You then said that eventually, because of these two, people would eventually accept it. Obviously if you have thought up this notion, why have you not yet accepted it?

That is why I equated you being an Agnostic to being a believer of any faith.

I was implying that it might eventually come to that point. However, I believe that I, to be as logical as one can be, must take a neutral standing. Agnosticism is great like that, because it is the only belief to have the balls to say, "I don't have a definite answer, so I won't act like I have one."

You can compare me to be a believer of any faith, just as I can compare any Atheist to it as well. Atheist believe in there not being a God, just as Christians simply believe there is a God. My opinion, however, is different. I know that there may or may not be some supreme being, for those are the only two answers to the question. But, since I do not know which answer is the correct answer, I do not attempt to answer it. I can, however, provide the beliefs of both sides and let the other person choose which his his/her cup of tea. The most wise decision, I think of course, would be Agnosticism.

Science is trying to unravel a very mysterious web of mysteries by exploring and answering. Religion simply attempts to answer, and forget to the exploring part. That is why I think that religion will eventually fall. While it does evolve, it does not evolve nearly as fast as science does.

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I don't believe in God, but I believe in the possibility of there being one.

And no, I totally get the point. But is there anything wrong with somebody believing in a unicorn if they want to?

.... no, you still aren't getting it. The belief is not the issue. The logic you use to back up the belief is the issue. When you admit that there is, in fact, no reason to believe in said unicorn, then the issue is resolved.

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I was implying that it might eventually come to that point. However, I believe that I, to be as logical as one can be, must take a neutral standing. Agnosticism is great like that, because it is the only belief to have the balls to say, "I don't have a definite answer, so I won't act like I have one."

That's one way to look at it. But, another way to look at it would be that Agnostics have no balls because they are unwilling to pick a side. You see, I have a definite answer because there is definitely no proof of any God.

You can compare me to be a believer of any faith, just as I can compare any Atheist to it as well. Atheist believe in there not being a God, just as Christians simply believe there is a God. My opinion, however, is different. I know that there may or may not be some supreme being, for those are the only two answers to the question. But, since I do not know which answer is the correct answer, I do not attempt to answer it. I can, however, provide the beliefs of both sides and let the other person choose which his his/her cup of tea. The most wise decision, I think of course, would be Agnosticism.

Read above.

Science is trying to unravel a very mysterious web of mysteries by exploring and answering. Religion simply attempts to answer, and forget to the exploring part. That is why I think that religion will eventually fall. While it does evolve, it does not evolve nearly as fast as science does.

The Caliphate was a time, early on, which showed a glorious mixture of religious following along with scientific advancement. Your point, is moot.

My responses are in bold.

[Teddiursa of the Sky]

I, in my opinion, think it takes more balls for any living being to admit that they don't know an answer to one of the most important debates in the world. It just makes you look like a fool when you say, "There isn't a God because there is no proof of one," when there is no proof that there isn't one either. It is a funny argument because, while both sides (Atheists and Theists) seem to quarrel all the time, they have NOTHING to back up there arguments with. Go ahead, fight all you want, but at the end of the day, they are nothing but beliefs.

@Lusankya Yep, sure you meant that. After all, you are always correct about everything.

[Orthar]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I, in my opinion, think it takes more balls for any living being to admit that they don't know an answer to one of the most important debates in the world. It just makes you look like a fool when you say, "There isn't a God because there is no proof of one," when there is no proof that there isn't one either.

You don't have to prove a negative in a debate.

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices

I, in my opinion, think it takes more balls for any living being to admit that they don't know an answer to one of the most important debates in the world. It just makes you look like a fool when you say, "There isn't a God because there is no proof of one," when there is no proof that there isn't one either. It is a funny argument because, while both sides (Atheists and Theists) seem to quarrel all the time, they have NOTHING to back up there arguments with. Go ahead, fight all you want, but at the end of the day, they are nothing but beliefs.

@Lusankya Yep, sure you meant that. After all, you are always correct about everything.

If all you're going to do is spout variations of "Neither me nor anyone else knows anything and I absolutely refuse to accept the idea that there might be a way to sensibly approach the subject", why are you even posting here?