• Yes

  • No

55% 69 votes
45% 56 votes
  • I used to be an identify as an atheist for one reason: I despised God. Now I've come to my senses and have realized I need to face reality. God is real, and He is love. All the struggles I have been through aren't caused by Him, rather they are caused by myself. The bottom line is: get over yourself, God is real and you can't change that . . .

  • In my beliefs, yes.

  • Everything is evidence of a God. Flowers, children, our bodies, the universe, etc. I know with out a doubt in my mind that God is real, and that he knows me, and loves all of us no matter what. Without him, my life would have no purpose. Also on every penny, nickle, quarter, and bill says, "One nation under GOD".

  • Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G‑d, the L-rd is One! Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever. You shall love the L-rd your G‑d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates. And it will be, if you will diligently obey My commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, to love the L-rd your G‑d and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, I will give rain for your land at the proper time, the early rain and the late rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be sated. Take care lest your heart be lured away, and you turn astray and worship alien gods and bow down to them. For then the L-rd's wrath will flare up against you, and He will close the heavens so that there will be no rain and the earth will not yield its produce, and you will swiftly perish from the good land which the L-rd gives you. Therefore, place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul, and bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, to speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. And you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates - so that your days and the days of your children may be prolonged on the land which the L-rd swore to your fathers to give to them for as long as the heavens are above the earth. The L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner. They shall be to you as tzizit, and you shall look upon them and remember all the commandments of the L-rd and fulfill them, and you will not follow after your heart and after your eyes by which you go astray - so that you may remember and fulfill all My commandments and be holy to your G‑d. I am the L-rd your G‑d who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G‑d; I, the L-rd, am your G‑d. True.

  • Most Definatly

  • GOD IS REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Evidence is a profound argument against this prolonged question: "does God exist". Yes, He does. Although, I believe the evidence is right in front of you. Everything comes down to the existence of God, for example. A human. What are humans, (or any human being, for that matter), made out of? What are cells made out of? Organelles, DNA, etc. What is that made out of? Atoms. What created atoms? (Insert any scientific theory on how atoms existed). What caused this? (Crickets). Science says nothing can just appear out of nowhere. Everything traces to God being of existence. God works in mysterious ways.

  • If a speck of matter created the big bang and everything with it, that's technically a god. I just like to believe that a dust particle created this vast world with all its jungles and deserts, and that it takes some insane amount of knowledge and power to be able to make a race of humans who evolve and debate their ideas on a website. :D

  • God is considered by many to be the divine architect of the universe. The god people seek is taken to many kinds of aspects, for example in ancient philosophy the ancient mysteries thought that knowledge could turn man into gods and illuminate them to a higher level, God is around us in science, philosophy and in culture. The real question is what god id the true god and if he controls the way human choose to live.

  • How is such an intricate universe formed from nothing?

  • There are a lot of "coincidences" that are brought up with this topic. Think about water. It is odorless, colorless,and tasteless, and yet it happens to be the perfect substance to support life. Is this miracle liquid an accident? Also, we are just close enough and just far enough away from the sun that we do not burn up or freeze. The odds of that are very unlikely. And lastly, we are the only planet with life that has ever been discovered. We look around, and there isn't another living thing... ever. Clearly, our purpose is confined to this Earth, and something has its hands in every aspect of our lives. This is God.

  • I do believe that their must be some kind of superior being to have created such an explosion such as the big bang but I do not believe in any of the world religions.

  • Giving my life to Christ was the best decision I've ever made. Been growing ever since :) Amen Also with all we know/see in our lives & science, it makes more sense for there to be a God!

  • The bible.

  • Yes, God exists. But do not get me wrong, I do not believe in the bible because a human wrote it. Humans lie, so the bible is not a credible source for the religion. Church is not the place to 'worship' God. Organized religion is another way to twist God's message.

  • If God doesn't exist, why does the world never end?

  • Catholic and proud. can't change me.

  • the more I look into it, the more likely God exist.

  • God is really exist! Only one god created everything and he is able to do anything! Just think about it human was made so perfect! It's impossible to think that we were created from none, for example 0+0+0 can't possibly even give you One!

  • A state requires causation.

    Posted by: reece
  • Show me the evidence and I'll convert instantly.

  • Awful question. How would I know if he exists? You can't even define what he is. Is there any point to assuming he exists? Then the answer is no... why should I allow an ancient practice of manipulating the masses with fear and superstition to control me?

  • No. Now don't be confused when I say no, I am not saying it because I want to spite Christians, or the religious, but rather because I am being truthful. Now I am an atheist, meaning I have a lack of belief in a god. Keyword: "Lack." When I lack the belief, that means I have few belief of there being a god, so of course that doesn't mean it is the complete disbelief in a god. Of course when evidence is brought forward, and it is sufficient... then I am indulged to begin believing in a religion, however nothing has been brought forward. So in the end, no... I believe there is a low probability of there being god. Reasons? Well when I was but a young boy, I questioned what I was taught... regardless of the fact I was raised religious. I asked questions, read the bible, was baptized, all that jazz. However, when I started to question my religion at the age of 11-13, I started comparing the arguments Christians had, compared to what atheists had. Then I decided I was agnostic. After that, I slowly began reading more "holy" scriptures from Islam, Israel, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Soon I compared the arguments they had with atheistic arguments, and soon theirs crumbled. So I decided for myself to become an atheist. Regardless of what I thought to be miracles, regardless of what I thought to be belief because of gut feelings, but due to the lack of evidence. I am an atheist, but I believe in the low probability of there being a god, compared to there being any god.

  • I haven't seen a god and haven't been convinced by any arguments for one. I'm not quite confident enough to say "God doesn't exist", I'd say "I don't believe in any God".

  • BECAUSE SCIENCE SCRUB

  • Literally how can you even say yes when the country you are born in is the primary factor for what religion you are. Science is founded on evidence, God is founded on nothing. It is a placeholder for questions we don't know the answer to. Idiots.

  • In probability.

  • God is an easy excuse for the explainable that humans have historically come across. People are foolish, gullible, indoctrinated, and cultured, and religion/god, while historically and scientifically important (i.e. Newton created calculus in pursuit of God through numbers), is as obsolete as a soggy nine month old pancake in a cardboard box shipped to French Guiana. We need a culture of skepticism, critical thought, active learning, and the pursuit for truth in nature. Not one bound to crusty old books about made-up bullshit.

    Posted by: Horsey
  • Lack of evidence is not evidence for a god.

  • There's no evidence of His existence. If He exists we would never know, for His realm is out of physical experience: if He can be experienced then He's a physical phenomenon and can be studied scientifically, which means His existence could be proved. Also, evil exists. God can't be omnibenevolent. He either is evil, not omnipotent or doesn't exist.

  • God is a bells and whuistles explanation for phenomenon in the universe either he exists or he doesn't his existence is very unlikely a. K.a. Ockham's razor newtons falaming laser sword burden of proof . however god is a sciuentiufiuc hypothesis like any other an therefore testable certain goods are disproivebn by the evidence e.g. Christianity Judaism islkam prime mover\ first cause creator\ designer gods inbtervenbtionist gods gods who care iuf we beleivein there exustenbce or not iam there foire 99.9% sure there is no god although I cannot disprove all gods there is no need for example iuf iu said there was a chinba teapot in elliptical orbit between earth and mars so small our most powerful telescopes could not see it and its existence was taught AS the sacred truth every Sunday and many people raised and prayed to and worshiped the teapot and bvelkeicpved it existed could you disprove it no but that doiesnt make it ether 50\50 or even true god isd just as unkuikely ad the celkestial teapot so while tectonically iam teapot agnostic iam an ateapotist just ASD iam technically agnostic but alkso atheist and a strong atheist at that.

  • there is no proof of a god in any terms or interpretations, furthermore i know some will say you have no proof he doesnt exist...well ok how about santa clause i guess we should all believe in him too oh wait cant forget the Ju Ju monster at the bottom of the sea...

  • You can't prove to me that God exists, if you can find any undeniable evidence of God, then I'd be pretty convinced. Even if God is real, Christians, hes done some pretty horrible stuff. If God did create everything like your religion says it does, that means God created AIDS, rape, murder, and anything you can think of. You can say that Satan created all that, but didn't God create Satan?

    Posted by: kt302
  • saying that "everything around us" is proof of god doesn't prove anything it could just as much be proof a big bang

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-11T22:34:58.5316267Z
@reece So, you can say -- with all certainty -- that God DEFINITELY does not exist? Do you think that view might be, at the very least, slightly flawed?
reece says2016-03-11T22:39:04.2889921Z
@NewLifeChristian Are you certain that there isn't a pink magic dragon in my garage?
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-11T22:43:09.2699499Z
@reece Using that "argument" again, are we? Yeah, I'm certain there's not a "pink magic dragon" in your garage because there aren't millions claiming to have seen and experienced the works of your "pink magic dragon", unlike God who has millions of witnesses globally.
reece says2016-03-11T22:47:02.7299359Z
@NewLifeChristian No, but the pink magic dragon in my garage is God.
Mister_Man says2016-03-11T22:54:47.8402615Z
Haha rekt
Mister_Man says2016-03-11T22:59:56.6650201Z
NLC, have you heard of the "Flat Earth Society"? They're basically a group of people who believe the Earth is flat, like a pancake. Despite all the evidence (including pictures and videos...) that PROVE the Earth is not flat, there are still groups of people who believe it is. Does this mean they're right, simply because there's a lot of them? No. I'm sure you'd agree with me. So what makes religion any different? Because a large group of people want to cling to the idea that something exists after life doesn't mean God exists. Just because a billion people BELIEVE something doesn't mean it's true. Going back to my flat Earth example... The majority of the Earth's population truly believed the Earth was flat before Columbus sailed to 'Murrica. Were they right? Nope. Were they right because the majority of the population believed they were? Well according to you, they were right simply because a whole lot of people believed they were. This argument easily falls flat. I can list a hundred things that a huge percentage of people believed in (Zeuss, Earth being the center of the Universe, Sun Gods, etc) which turned out to be untrue. Just because a lot of people have faith in something (most Christians can admit the only "evidence" is faith) doesn't make that claim true.
snkcake666 says2016-03-12T00:03:47.4376023Z
@Mister_Man @reece I believe you two are currently guilty of the Straw Man fallacy. It would be best not to blow NLC's beliefs out of proportion and to stick to specifically his claims, not claims created in false representation to mock him.
reece says2016-03-12T00:11:49.5154664Z
@snkcake666 Yeah, we all believe.
peetaur says2016-03-12T00:26:11.3117907Z
Awful question. How would I know if he exists? You can't even define what he is. Is there any point to assuming he exists? Then the answer is no... Why should I allow an ancient practice of manipulating the masses with fear and superstition to control me?
peetaur says2016-03-12T00:26:33.8383351Z
Awful question. How would I know if he exists? You can't even define what he is. Is there any point to assuming he exists? Then the answer is no... Why should I allow an ancient practice of manipulating the masses with fear and superstition to control me?
snkcake666 says2016-03-12T01:14:48.9364687Z
@reece Does not change the fact that you are guilty of such a verdict.
PetersSmith says2016-03-12T01:58:37.1046559Z
Too bland http://www.debate.org/opinions/polls/which-conception-of-god-do-you-think-is-true-do-you-follow
harrytruman says2016-03-12T04:59:19.2271313Z
I will debate you tomorrow morning,
Akhil.k says2016-03-12T10:29:56.0608845Z
Ditto to Mister_Man i won't believe until i get more than enough evidence-it has to be believable. 5 billion people who believe doesn't count
harrytruman says2016-03-12T14:36:37.9456479Z
@Akhil Christians, I tells ya.
snkcake666 says2016-03-12T17:46:28.5354784Z
@Akhil A nice start. It would be unwise to take public opinion as mere fact, considering the overwhelming tendency of people to contribute to mass groupthink.
reece says2016-03-13T01:28:34.7207880Z
@snkcake666 You said you believe. You don't have knowledge.
reece says2016-03-13T01:29:59.0253496Z
Belief =/= fact.
snkcake666 says2016-03-13T03:54:42.8646449Z
@reece It was used it as a euphemism. Not exactly difficult to note that.
reece says2016-03-13T04:18:01.5316773Z
@snkcake666 So you believe you do have knowledge?
reece says2016-03-13T04:20:10.4533829Z
Where did i straw man? With my rhetorical question?
reece says2016-03-13T04:22:37.7211589Z
Belief of knowledge is still a belief.
SpreadingTruth says2016-03-13T05:50:25.7422329Z
Hey guys do you hear that... It's God laughing at us debating among ourselves as out planet crumbles from pollution. How bout we argue in heaven, see you there :D
snkcake666 says2016-03-13T05:59:19.1657696Z
@reece And if not Straw Man then False Equivalence?
snkcake666 says2016-03-13T06:01:34.5902377Z
But yes, Straw Man remains. You are assuming that you understand NLC's logic for his belief in deity, and thus the purpose for the False Equivalence fallacy. It was a double fallacy.
reece says2016-03-13T06:28:09.3446725Z
@snkcake666 You backtracked a bit, and then you reconstructed your argument. It just goes to show how confident you are. My rhetorical question would only be a straw man if it's a false Equivalence. So do you know for a FACT it's a false equivalence? If so, how?
reece says2016-03-13T15:28:25.3774492Z
@snkcake666 Remember, i'm not the one claiming knowledge. But it's funny NLC didn't try to correct me. It seems he understood the analogies relation to his own words.
snkcake666 says2016-03-15T17:29:39.4130869Z
@reece As fact as the English language. But bear in mind that English contains no universal truth. Unlike space and time, its dependence and meaning waver in due length. However, you close onto wording too quickly, and assume the most literal interpretation. Yet the nature of fine language is its ambiguity. Not to say you alone follow such reasoning; immeasurable others interpret a path, a wording, or a concept as single and not as multiple. Of course the more straightforward term for this is convergent thinking. So I backtrack? Perhaps my initial interpretation was not as solid, I might admit. But by backtracking, I do note that the conclusion was not the flaw. And my verdict remains the same: You are guilty of Straw Man and False Equivalence.
reece says2016-03-15T17:35:31.8406935Z
@snkcake666 And again i ask how am i guilty of a false Equivalence?
snkcake666 says2016-03-16T01:56:56.6365716Z
@reece Because the notion of a God is a widely accepted phenomenon, whereas, dragons are not. Even in terms of a mere analogy, this was a blatant assumption of the opponent's claims. You assumed that they did not have a qualifying statement which might logically support his statement. This said, there was both Straw Man and False Equivalence in which were violated- as God is considered an origin, not simply a plain figure (in most modern cases, that is).
reece says2016-03-16T08:14:20.1543968Z
@snkcake666 You're assuming my assumptions wrong. Is that right? And again, it's funny he didn't try to correct me. Your first and last part of what you said is irrelevant to my analogy. Try to stay on point. You're trying to defend something that's indefensible
snkcake666 says2016-03-16T12:56:27.7761065Z
@reece I never claimed your statement was necessarily wrong, simply illy stated in context, hence the fallacy. Whether or not someone refutes that statement is not a matter of debate; and technically, he did actually address it in a similar fashion. Just without the fallacy note. You might just wish to consider arguing with logic and not contradiction in the future.
reece says2016-03-16T19:24:53.6311844Z
@snkcake666 What was the context?
reece says2016-03-16T19:28:29.0883088Z
I didn't say you thought what i said was wrong. Come on...
snkcake666 says2016-03-17T14:44:30.2957419Z
@reece The context was a rhetorical mockery and misrepresented comparison among points.
reece says2016-03-18T00:21:15.5216465Z
@snkcake666 How was it a misrepresentation? You're not actually answering the question.
snkcake666 says2016-03-18T03:17:39.8586739Z
@reece Because again, the nature of the question assumes the argument on behalf on NLC, that his argument is built upon inconclusive evidences or theories, hence the comparison to the mythological creature. You did not wait for a reiterated proposal, but instead, you assumed his beliefs nonsensical based on a preconceived belief of your own. This is Straw Man. The False Equivalence comes from a disproportion in claim. As of modern day, the notion of a God is widely accepted. Now of course, certain gods have been abandoned with time, to the point that general humanity considers them 'myth'. But what one must consider is current circumstances. The reason it is false equivalence is because, to NLC, God is real. Comparing what is generally accepted as a mythological creature, by the vast majority of the public, to NLC's belief (and a belief adopted among innumerable others- more than a few) does not hold up. Whether you believe in God or not, you should understand the proportion of a claim.
reece says2016-03-18T04:31:01.2307267Z
@snkcake666 Do you agree that it's only a Straw Man if it's a false equivalence? If so, stop making your arguments unnecessarily complex. Now, For the "false equivalence." How does him thinking god exists relate to the context i write my rhetorical question in? In other words, how does it make my rhetorical question void.
snkcake666 says2016-03-20T05:30:49.7105650Z
@reece No, the Straw Man remains independent of the False Equivalence. The point I additionally made concerning the false equivalence was societal acceptance of the notion of a God. But in addition, the potential abilities and inabilities to measure such a being. On note of the dragon, such a creature is grounded- it is physical. It can be measured, comprehended, and is usually confined to a certain region in space. This said, the comparison lacks equivalence, as the two identities are supposed inequals by their very nature. It is both the mixture of- the qualities we describe them through, and the modern acceptance of the identity's existence.
reece says2016-03-20T07:11:27.0653650Z
@snkcake666 How is the Straw Man independent? Obviously you don't understand the analogy. Carl Sagan described the discussion as follows: "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
reece says2016-03-20T07:16:08.8015562Z
@snkcake666 I was pointing out how easy it is to special plead.
snkcake666 says2016-03-20T16:25:54.4645192Z
@reece The Straw Man is independent because your statement implies that NLC's beliefs are automatically based on nothing more than pure faith (faith through widely understood mythology), and that perhaps he does not have a second foundation for his beliefs, say, through a combination of sciences and philosophy. So yes, that is a Straw Man fallacy, as your statement assumes that NLC's beliefs are substantiated on no more than mythical faith. Unfortunately your later analogy is still based upon False Equivalence. Because, you are attempting to equate something perceived as finite to something perceived as infinite, regardless of whether or not they are real. And surely you are aware that neither people nor science can perceive or prove infinity, correct? This is why God can absolutely never be proven nor disproven- since infinity can be neither proven nor disproven. After all, I honestly doubt many people are looking for God in their trashcan.
reece says2016-03-20T22:22:11.4382253Z
@snkcake666 It isn't a Straw man because i just told you that i was pointing out how easy it is to special plead. That's the foundation of the analogy. My statement isn't "assuming" anything... You are. It seems you still don't understand the analogy by your response of the False Equivalence claim. You can make anything infinite if you special plead enough. Your third and second to last sentences are spot on. You can say the same about my magic pink dragon.
reece says2016-03-20T22:29:21.3301810Z
If God's infinite, why can't he be my magic pink dragon? Look at my second reply to NLC. It becomes meaningless. If something is infinite, what's the point of saying it exists?
reece says2016-03-20T22:34:16.7804749Z
"It's all part of God's plan"
snkcake666 says2016-03-21T01:49:00.2456629Z
@reece A rhetorical question, by nature, is an act of expressing a preconceived ideology. This said, your question cannot be rhetorical by nature without a prior assumption. This is a simple literary concept. And in regards to the latter, you would be claiming the dragon in equivalence to God, or rather, God in the equivalence to the dragon. I do not agree with NLC's claim to necessarily define God as automatically 'existent' either, and if he so chooses, then I shall discuss such flaws with him as well. However, I simply pointed your statement out because it was stained with logical fallacy. Well, at least the manner he does perceive God as real (via conformity to popular belief)- not the actual belief in itself. NLC's point was concerning your certainty in the disbelief of a deity. Unfortunately, your equating the dragon to a fragment of 'God', really does not fit into this conversation. We both fully well know what your statement was implying (second statement, included), and frankly, it was just a poor comparison, in attempt to mock. One does not require a literary or composition major to understand the intent of the statement. Within that context, understanding of the device is no more than a test of lingual communication. But on the note I mentioned before, he did have one point which added to context of the equality (even though I do not necessarily agree, it did call for the lack of proper equality between the dragon and God)- the modern acceptance rate. Whether or not something is sincerely true, there still remains a level of contextual equality by population alone. And believe me, there are few people who despise groupthink more than I do, but give credit where credit is do. The masses may not immediately prove credible, but nor are they always wrong.
reece says2016-03-21T02:31:34.9141479Z
@snkcake666 I thought you meant petitioning an assumption. But by your logic, you can base everything on an assumption ("by nature") when using deduction. All things are based on multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. You're just bringing up ridiculous rhetoric. Mockery or not, the logic of my case still stands. "Unfortunately, your equating the dragon to a fragment of 'God', really does not fit into this conversation" You said yourself God's infinite. I think you still don't understand the analogy. Why don't you ask me what you don't understand. About the last of what you said: "God" is just some loosely defined omnipotent being without any limits. Of course it will stick around. All it is, is a word.
Nirvanna says2016-05-04T11:20:09.8685302Z
No I don't Mr. New life christian
NewLifeChristian says2016-05-04T20:02:51.4257324Z
@Nirvanna Don't what?
DiEgO123100 says2016-05-26T02:08:43.7489394Z
Mister man, i have the same right to say the same thing about evolution. Give me evidence that I can see with MY own eyes just by looking out the window. No fossils, charts or microscopes. If we are going by seeing, then give me evidence that evolution is happening right now that I can see with my own eyes. The reason? Evolution is a theory. Scientists believe in evolution. That doesn't mean that it exist. That's why its called believing. Same with God. We don't know he exists, which is why we believe in him. Yet there is evidence, but unlike evolution, it happens before our very eyes. Miracles, medical miracles, survival stories, heroes. Who's rekt now?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.