I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

But it is a delusion to have the sort of unshakable belief that many theists have without any shred of evdience whatsoever.

First off I would like to point out that people who believe in a God or Gods have at some point had personal doubts. The belief in God is not without work. At least in my opinion. When one stumbles its generally due to the pain and suffering they see around them regardless if it directly or indirectly impacts thier own life. Anyone who at any time has not questioned everything they believe in is either kidding themselves or a robot. Its human nature to fail, as through failure one finds success. I would also go as far as saying that someone who has not questioned thier faith in regards to being a Christian has thier eyes closed tight and are probably further from a relationship with thier God then they express.

As far as evidence of a God or Gods or lack there of, I would like to point out that what one would accept as evidence would not always be enough "evidence" for another.

Without getting into my beliefs on a personal level Ill point out that I have seen pictures that prove the earth is frisbee shaped and flat, and I have seen computer models that show it as round. I have seen more proof that the earth is flat, yet I believe its round.

I understand those who choose to not believe in a higher power, and I understand most who do believe there is one. What I dont understand is how someone can state they are a Christian and then speak as if they are full of intolerence to what they feel is a non-believer when everyone knows that the bible would consider that a downright sin.

Best stick to matters of faith. Your post shows you misunderstand the meaning of the word proof. Pictures are 2 dimensional, and can not prove that anything is frisbee shaped or flat. They can only give a representation in 2 dimensions. You need 3 dimensions to prove something is flat.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[philh 0]

"The realibility of the New Testament is quite good. Look at the number of copies and how closely they are dated to the original in comparison to any other writings of that era."

Since we dont have the original this is of course impossble.
I was at the British museum and I believe they have the oldest complete NT, its dated to the 4th century. Quite frankly even if we did have the original and every subsequent copy was identicla how would that prove tht a single word in it was true?

"that fact along with they were the writings of a race of people (Jews) who had no voice in the powers of their world (Rome) and it is even more remarkable. "

again why does that make it true? substitue the word Jew there with Mormon, Muslim, Jainist whatever, it still doesnt make something true. Statements should be considered true when thy have high leveles of evidence not when they are copied or the words of a minority.

[pirana 0]

Quote

"The fact that God exists in peoples heart and has since the dawn of time is evidence enough"

Actually, there is very strong archaelogical evidence that belief in a diety or dieties evolved from honoring natural forces and physical objects sometime around 6,000 BC. Prior to that reverence was paid to tribe or clan leaders. The reverence to the old man of the tribe during life evolved to reverence of the old man in death.

This reverence of the old man is the basis for the earliest cult (Yahweh). IIRC, this was a multi-god cult (because there were many many dead old men of the tribe) adapted by the Semitic tribes that at one time occupied pre-historical Mesopotamia. This then in turn morphed into a single diety system; probably what can be seen as the first religion as we think of them.

How ironic that a relatively insignificant cult of an almost forgotten little band of nomads came to form the foundation of the 3 great warring faiths. And if you ever want to get under the skin of any of them just remind them that it was not that long ago that they were all one happy little band of Arabs.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

it is very rare and unlucky for an AFF student to broke the leg in two places

once at the mockup, and then again in the parking lot

Sounds like you need to rethink your landing pattern. Try the big open grassy field.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly and genuinely beleive that god (no capital G) orchestrated this guys whole entire life so that he would be at the DZ for you when you hurt yourself?

I don't believe in coincidences. I'm not trying to make a believer out of you. If you choose not to believe in God, that's your decision.

I'm curious as to what your direct answer to the question is. Yes or no?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Questioning truths about God tends to move us closer to him not farther away.

Not for everyone.... I was raised catholic, switched to Presbyterian when I went to college. Did Bible studies 2-3 days a week, vespers on Saturday, church on Sunday, led youth groups, etc... I was very active in the church until my early 20s. The problem was that the more I learned, read, and questioned, the less sense the whole thing made and the farther I felt from Christianity. Over the course of years, I eventually got tired of pretending I believed in something that neither my heart nor brain could find truth in.

I still believe that there is some greater force that links all of us together, and that force could easily be called god, I guess, though I see it more from a mother nature perspective.

A Naturalist. Welcome to the club.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[steveorino 7]

With authentication of ancient writings more weight is given to those writings that are closer to the date of origin. There are many manuscript portions that are lot closer than 300-400 years.

Of course none of this means anything if you are not willing to exercise some amount of faith.

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

Quote

if you are not willing to exercise some amount of faith

With out any evidence at all I think it requires a lot of faith.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

"The fact that God exists in peoples heart and has since the dawn of time is evidence enough"

Actually, there is very strong archaelogical evidence that belief in a diety... evolved from honoring natural forces and physical objects sometime around 6,000 BC.

Hey... that fits nicely with the Young Earth Creationism timeline.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The large frontal lobes (LBL's) evolved as the result of, and in a tricky twist, as part of, the 3-way feedback system of the genes, the brain, and the environment. They gave us the power to dominate and manipulate our world like no other creature before or since.

Prove it.

[billvon 3,107]

>Prove it.

Prove what? That we can manipulate our environment? As yourself that same question next time you're taking a shower in your hotel room in Vegas, or peeing in the bathroom of a 757 doing 450 knots at 31,000 feet.

Or that we have large frontal lobes? Find a radiologist friend and have him MRI your brain, then your dog's brain. Compare and contrast.

Or that intelligence arose? Could be hard to do here . . .

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Prove it.

Prove what? .. .

yeah, that one got me too...

Royd, what's your perspective on the short response? What are you disputing?

Of course, the "before or since" bit confuses me. How do we know the "since" part?..... C'mon, Don, you know you got in a typing flow and just slipped that one in....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Royd 0]

>Prove it.

Prove what? .. .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


yeah, that one got me too...

Quote

Royd, what's your perspective on the short response? What are you disputing?

He was saying that we have developed a spiritual, albeit, twisted view on life because, over time, we have developed large frontal lobes. There is no way that he can prove any part of that statement, therefore he is taking his own statement totally on faith, which the scientific types claim to be a wasted part of the human psyche.

[philh 0]

"With authentication of ancient writings more weight is given to those writings that are closer to the date of origin. "

Yes but you dont any complete texts that are less than hundreds of years later. But even if you did have the originals, which you dont, why would that make them true?

[billvon 3,107]

"He was saying that we have developed a spiritual, albeit, twisted view on life . . "

Hard to prove because no two people are going to agree on what a "spiritual albeit twisted view on life" means. It is certainly true that our view on life comes in large part from our frontal lobes, because that's where a lot of our emotions and personality come from. We know this because when people's frontal lobes are removed/damaged (intentionally or unintentionally) they often show marked changes/losses of personality and emotive expression.

"because, over time, we have developed large frontal lobes."

That statement is definitely provable. Our ancestor's skulls contain larger and larger frontal lobes as we moved from ancient time to current times; you can tell because, well, your brain size determines your skull size - and we've found the skulls.

>therefore he is taking his own statement totally on faith, which the
>scientific types claim to be a wasted part of the human psyche.

?? Where do you get that?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"With authentication of ancient writings more weight is given to those writings that are closer to the date of origin. "

Yes but you dont any complete texts that are less than hundreds of years later. But even if you did have the originals, which you dont, why would that make them true?

Legend takes time to develop. Writings within 30-40 years after an event is typically not looked at as having time for legend to develop.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Legend takes time to develop. Writings within 30-40 years after an event is typically not looked at as having time for legend to develop. "

where do you get that from? Just go on Snopes.com you will see many many modern day legends that are only a few years old. Alternatively the book of Mormon was finished in 1829, less than 30 to 40 years later there was certainly a strong legend concerning Jospeh Smith and his golden plates.

Even if we accept yet another assertion with no evidence we dont have any complete manuscripts from AD70 so it would be irrelvant anyway.

[steveorino 7]

In the Gospels JC predicts the fall of Jerusalem. if they had been written after the fact (70AD) you don't think they would include that little tidbit?

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

Quote

In the Gospels JC predicts the fall of Jerusalem. if they had been written after the fact (70AD) you don't think they would include that little tidbit?

You are just assuming they wouldn't write about the fall of Jerusalem after the fact. ASS U ME

People do all kinds of strange things.

[steveorino 7]

The gospels have other clues they are not the product of legend, besides their exclusion of an event that would have given them credence had they included it.

For instance: At that time why put the only eye witnesses to empty tomb of JC was women when their testimony was invalid in their culture? The only reason to do that is it was the truth. Had legend or myth created that fact Peter or one of the other disciples would have been the one to discover the empty tomb, not women whose testimony had no value.

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

You are still basing your reasoning on an assumption. People do strange things.

[steveorino 7]

To no atheist in particular. Someone sent me this and I thought it was pretty funny given some of the replies I have read here in this thread and others from THE thread ...
Existence of God
You may be a fundy atheist if....

1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, (or in some cases six) based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

2. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

3. You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

4. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

5. You can make the existence of flying spaghetti monster the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

6. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".

7. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."

8. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".

9. You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.

10. While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness!

steveOrino

[beowulf 1]

very funny and yet there has yet to be any evidence of the existence of any god anywhere.

[philh 0]

"The gospels have other clues they are not the product of legend, "

Other clues? We havent had any clues yet , all weve had so far is it takes more tthan 30 -40 years to make a legend which weve shown to be nonsense and the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem which since we have no idea when the gospels were written could easily have been inserted after the fact.

So now we have your new "proof" that is women that found the emty tomb, so what? You say that women tesimony was not valued but there was no legal case here so from the perpective of the law its irrelevant. My understadning of old Jewish law was that a woman could give testimony if no man was present so I think your just wrong on that. You should look up in the Mishna (Yebamoth 16:7; Ketuboth 2:5; Eduyoth 3:6) to verify. From the perspective of culture maybe thier testimony was not valued in Jewish culture but was valued in the weird little sect that Christianity once was, maybe they thought thats what happened and they were wrong but others believed them, maybe they never found it and the story was a later insertion, maye they never existed,who knows? What I know is the "fact" of female testimony does not prove a man rose from the dead. Does Isis discovery of Osiris prove he resurected also? Youll have to come up with some proper evidence if you expect you myhtology to be taken serosuly.

[philh 0]

Im just about to go to bed so I dont have time to go thru all your hilaroious top ten so I hope you forgive me if I just take the last two :

"9. You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith. "

To see how dumb this reasoning is Ive replaced the word god with Santa Claus , lets read it again and c if its quite as cutting:

"9. You say that there is no Santa Claus and that those who believe in Santa Claus do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no Santa Claus also rests on blind faith. "

You can play along try substuting Santa Claus with Thor, Osiris, the tooth fairy etc



"10. While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness! "

Agaiin lets play the substition game this time lets try Allah :

10. While you don't believe in Allah or the Koran , you feel justified on bashing Allah (and his prophet Muhhamed) or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness! "

Lets just develop that last point; your saying even discussing a non existent being is the sign of mental illness? Urm no,only if you beleve in it. Is a psychotherapist who discusses his patients halluciantion suffering from mental illness? I dont think so.