Believe First and You will See
Many got lost over the long post and forgot the thought;
"If you dont believe you can, you cant, coz you wont"
How convenient it must be to arbitrarily discard people's responses because you think they "got lost over the long post". But I'll answer this directly. A person who doesn't believe they can do something can still end up doing it, and doing it well. Confidence smooths the way, but it isn't the kind of absolute requirement you seem to think it is.
When I discussed about my business, Some say, "no its not true", "no thats not how it works" or "thats how cons work".
First, id like to say it works, and im thankful coz it works that way, otherwise if it doesnt, id be broke and a lot of people would be suing me.
Another thing, I dont make business proposals, I go to the prospect partner which i believe would need my business and tell him straight the basic thing he need to know, which is how he would earn. If he believes the system, then we start working and he start earning if he doesnt, i leave him alone for a while, I come back again when I think hes ready. Coz I believe everyone wants to earn, some are just not ready yet.
No offense, but you're going to need to present some actual evidence here to support your statements. Anyone can make claims.
Some say, Trust or Confidence is what you give in Business and Not Belief.
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?
Would you really put your money out on a business you dont believe would work?
Another postulated that before you enter a business, you study it first, gather data, etc. And the moment you do that, youre already past the Believing Before Seeing part.
There's a subtle distinction here that you're missing. A business is something that exists in the real world. It's something you can analyze, that you can give unambiguous proof for. But nobody's ever been able to show that gods exist in the real world - that they can be analyzed, etc.
I ought to thank you for implying that you believed first before doing the research, by saying you are "past" that.
But I still have a question left about that;
During the times of gathering the data for the Feasibility Study for the preparation of your business, is your business already there? I think not yet, right?
Completely and totally irrelevant. A prospective business may not actually be a business yet, but it is something that can be modeled and predicted. One cannot do that with a god.
For the one who asked if its true that i have cured cancer patients, and wouldnt believe me coz i said i only earned a few grand out of it.
Yes i did, why i didnt earn millions out of it? well not yet, first coz i only had 5 patients and second its very very cheap compared to the pther stuff they use today like chemo, cobalt ,etc.
But as ive said, our company earns Billions a year for helping out curing not just cancer but a lot of other diseases, and thats just part of their program among other things.
This is simply your unsupported word. If you have not already figured it out, the people here are not credulous. They don't believe things simply because someone says so. They require evidence to support claims like yours - evidence which is in extremely short supply in your case.
God and Morality
I gave an extreme example on the topic of how having a god or diety defined the norms of countries and society.
Most (but not all) gave me the "sick jerk" reply.
Most seems to focus on the Example and not the thought, just as they did on the "believe and you will see" part.
You know why people called you a sick jerk? It's because you said that if you believed that gods did not exist, you would do whatever you liked because you wouldn't have to worry about being punished after you died. And that's horrific. Compared to that, most of the atheists here are paragons of virtue, because they've concluded that they need to treat others morally regardless of whether gods exist.
Ill give a very short review on what we studied in Elementary, I dont know if its the same with what they taught you then.
The IDEA of a Paragraph is on the First Sentence. A sentence ends with a period.
What does this have to do with anything?
You currently live in a society of norms of good and bad if you backtrack and seek its source it starts with a belief, you cant take that away or disregard that.
Actually even the "Golden Rule" is a belief, which actually is partially wrong. It came from the "an eye for an eye" belief.
Why do I say its a belief? Would you do it if you dont believe it? or if you dont believe it possible to be done?
Frankly, why should anyone care about this philo-jumbo
that you're spouting? It doesn't really have anything to do with the idea that atheists can be moral without believing in gods.
Why do I say its partially wrong? Well beyond that, at certain circumstances, "impossible" even. Why?
Coz if someone killed you, would you kill him in return? How are you going to do that when Youre already dead?
Thats an old college discussion.
I kind of thought this was obvious, but I guess you're a little too busy spouting philo-jumbo to take the time to think about it. Because, really, it's simple. Someone kills me. I'm dead - I can't punish them. But I have friends and family who are able (and likely willing) to kill the other guy. And it just spirals from there. It ends up with a lot of people dead and groups which hate each other with a passion, and will look for any opportunity to kill or hurt the other side.
About Atheists and Skeptics
One defined Atheist as
"simply a lack of belief in a god"
Another defined it as
"doesnt believe in the existence of a god/diety"
"people who don't believe in gods"
On the other hand.....
Someone defined Atheist as
" they're skeptical of the existence of gods."
"Atheist=Skeptics as to whether a god exists or not"
Please settle this one. I mean, what is it really?
What is an Atheist? and What is a Skeptic?
Are they the same? or are they different?
People define atheism and skepticism differently, thus why you're getting different definitions. You're not going to get a single hard and fast definition here.
The rule of Knowing God is Obeying his Commandments
1 John 2:3
"And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments."
Knowing that fact changes the scene, How?
If the people or country some say proposes themselves as Christians yet are in chaos or internal conflict or is filled with crimes.
You are talking of "people who dont know God"
So what's your case there? Nothing
You do know that every single religious group ever believes that if only everyone believed the same as them, there'd be no strife, right? So this isn't really an effective rebuttal. Because what you're describing is a group where they have differences of opinion - which crop up very frequently when you have something as amorphous as religious beliefs.
Show me a group of people who "really" knows God and show me how they could be in chaos?
A Group of people, who obeys God
Loves each other as brothers and sisters in faith.
Doesnt Curse, Doesnt Steal, Doesnt covet his neighbor's wife.
Eats what is commanded, and doesnt eat what was not.
Among other things.
How can this group be in chaos?
Oh, easily. Because nobody's ever content to just focus on their own small group of people who believe the same as they do. No, they have to try to get other people to follow them as well, especially in a belief system like Christianity which (generally) holds that people who don't believe get punished for eternity. So they do it to themselves.
One say Love Hope among other examples I mentioned , doesnt count for the proof of God.
No it doesnt, but the postulation is that if God dont exist simply because they are not Demonstrable or are Intangible, what more are these things. At least God had a book written of his claim of existence, Love, Hope, Knowledge, Belief, Future, etc didnt.
People are awfully fond of pointing to a holy book and claiming that their god (or someone important to their religion) wrote it, and therefore it proves their religion is true. But that isn't actually how it works.
One said you could demonstrate Love (example: giving roses)
You mean if i gave you a rose, it would mean im in love with you or something?
So the hot girls from this Vegas Hotel gave me a bunch of roses when I entered and I didnt notice that theyre making a proposal of Love.
And therein lies the problem - not everyone demonstrates concepts the same way. Some people use roses to signify love. Other people use gifts of chocolate to do so. Still others use kisses, and so on and so forth. There's no truly hard and fast way to demonstrate a concept like that, but the point is that people can demonstrate concepts in their own ways (subjectively, as it were).
By the way, God is not a "thing", and is not of the mind too but of Spirit and not a concept. I just used the "Love Hope Fate" stuff in the terms of Intangibility and Non-demonstrability
God is something that exists, according to you...but can't be demonstrated. Indeed, you've outright said that people have to believe first. Do you see the problem here?
Past Present and Future
If one says the "Past" is in existence. What is your proof?
If its "past" then that means there is no more of it.
Some may give a Classic Movie, but the movie is still here so its not really "past".
Do you actually expect such facetious and fallacious logic to fly? The past is not "in existence", the past "existed". Note the change in verb tense. I realize the concept might be difficult for you to grasp, seeing as you're still trying to spout this philo-jumbo of yours, but perhaps if you stop trying to spindle and mutilate logic so you can try to fool others into believing in your god, you might have a bit of an easier time with it.
If one say the "Now" is in existence. What is your proof?
If you i say Now this "Now" is written, thats a few seconds ago so that Now is not Now
So what is Now?
Much Worse if you believe in the "Future", what is your proof?
At least the past has a Classic Movie to hold on to.
This is just more of the same. Perhaps you should stop fixating on your beliefs and actually take some classes in logic.
The point is, you wont have Physical Proof of these yet you can factually say it has, it is, and it will be.
Actually, we do have physical proof. Take a snapshot of a bird in flight. That snapshot demonstrates the past, the present, and the future all at the same time. The image captured by the photo demonstrates the present. The fact that the bird is flying thus demonstrates both the past and the future - the past is where the bird was before the photo was taken, and the future is where it will be afterward. It is that simple.
Gods existence is close. Only God's proof of existence is from the things he manifested.
Some would say, "God didnt manifest that, it happened on its own."
If you ask how and ask them up to the very source of it, they end up with an "I dont Know".
Actually, I would ask how you know that your god manifested anything. Because the fact of the matter is that you don't actually know. You believe that he did, but you don't know that he did. Until you can actually show evidence that your god did something, there's no reason to believe you when you say he did. Better - far better - to admit that we don't know for sure and attempt to figure it out, rather than blithely claim something which you can't possibly prove and play logic and word games to try to justify your belief.
About the Fusion
The main topic of that is Belief, not the Fusion Reactor's usefullness or sustainability really.
I dont know why people concentrated on the Example and forgot about the Idea.
Please read the previous posts.
People are focusing on the example because your idea that belief makes a difference makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter if someone believes something - that something has to be possible in the first place.
It keeps people from losing money, YES
But it also keeps them from earning money, when they doubt everything specially a Good Business.
I said that business owners doubted things that were outside their own control. That is not the same as them doubting everything. Seems to me that these giant digest replies of yours aren't working very well - you just end up with a horribly jumbled response, and you're clearly missing things by so doing.
Big Bang Theory
Ill discuss this for the sake of those who cant get over it and keeps mentioning it.
Big Bang is Big Flop
A theory where no proof was given that shows that Order can be a byproduct of Chaos.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The Big Bang is not "order from chaos". For one thing, chaos actually refers to complex systems where slight changes early on cause drastic ones as they progress. In actual fact, the universe immediately after the Big Bang would not have been chaotic. It would have been fairly simple and straightforward (at least compared to the universe that now exists).
In a smaller scale, you cant build a doghouse by simply throwing a grenade at your backyard
And this proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Indeed, I wonder if you've ever read anything about the Big Bang (aside from Christian creationist parodies) to begin with. For one thing, the Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion - just a really big one. For another, there was nothing in the universe to be 'disordered' to begin with. All of the stuff that makes up the universe came from the Big Bang.
Yet so many people believe it and its in many books taught in many schools.
Point is, its easy for a person to believe in the Big Bang where most of the evidence points against it.
Yet its not easy to believe in God due to the supposed lack of Physical evidence of his Non-Physical Status.
Its Logically Illogical
You know why people accept the Big Bang theory? It's because it explains the observable evidence without introducing totally unnecessary wrinkles. Compare that to your religious belief, which doesn't explain the evidence (except in a generic "goddidit" sense) and introduces things (like a deity which preexisted the entire universe) which may well not be necessary.