I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

"Red words" are statements of Christ in the NT, not necessarily events. Yes, I believe he said them. Notice I said "believe" It is an act of faith.

------------
So you admit you have no evidence he said them you just believe it on fath.and what is the difference between that and say a Muslim believing the angel gabriel gave Muhamed gods last cmmuincaiton to humanity or a Mormon believing through faith that Jospeh Smith got golden plates of wisdowm from heaven?

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. 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.

this is simply evidence of the bronze age version of kinko's, it says nothing about the truth of the events being copied, merely that the copyists were being held to a high standard of accuracy.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

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.

because it makes a better story??

lets add because it helps reinforce a core belief? hmm no they couldn't have been that smart??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[steveorino 7]

No, it would go against their core belief that women were reliable witnesses.

steveOrino

[maadmax 0]

I would like to commend DropDgorgeous on picking such and interesting topic and for the courage to express view points that has generated so many personal attacks. And to all of you who know their is no God. How can you prove that? Especially when the matter and energy that make up the stars and galaxies we see only accounts for 5% to 25% of the universe. Dark matter and energy accounts for 75% to 95% of the matter and energy that makes up the universe and nobody has any idea what it is.
How could any logical person make conclusions on the fabric of reality with such a large piece of the puzzle missing?

[Nightingale 0]

It's been an interesting topic, that's for sure. I just hope it doesn't turn into the "I'm a Christian...and proud of it" thread all over again.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

No, it would go against their core belief that women were reliable witnesses.

it would go against the JEWS core beliefs.. Christianity was creating a new model, one that clearly emphasized that the 'lowest' (women, lepers, meek etc) were the equals to the elite (inner circle, religious leaders etc.. aka the Disciples.) in the eyes of God. This particular detail helps illustrate exactly that.. the revelation came not to the initiated but instead to those who's voice had 'no value' in the status quo.

Christianity was appealing directly to the 'lowest denominator' in a way Judaism never had. As I've argued before the early church leaders were not Theologians they were Revolutionaries and well aware of what kinds of encouragement their growing religion needed to spread throughout the masses..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

How can you prove that? Especially when the matter and energy that make up the stars and galaxies we see only accounts for 5% to 25% of the universe. Dark matter and energy accounts for 75% to 95% of the matter and energy that makes up the universe and nobody has any idea what it is.
How could any logical person make conclusions on the fabric of reality with such a large piece of the puzzle missing?

the intellligent observer would not...


nor would they assume that the first religious text, person, experience that somehow touched them was "Divine Mandate"

Even assuming that many of the 'proofs' of the Existence of God expressed here are accurate, where in those 'proofs' is the Name JESUS 'written in the heavens'?

in simpler terms why is "your" God the "right one" (for everyone)? There are a multitude of options all with pretty much equally persuasive arguments (yet none so persuasive that they out shine all others for all of humanity as one would expect if Divinity were to truly reveal herself to mankind.)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

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?

no.. the reason being that you cant claim 'divinely inspired prophecy' after the fact.... if you only include the prophecy people can point to it after the fact and claim you were correct.. even if it wasn't actually recorded until said 'prophecy' had be fulfilled.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[philh 0]

Well Its morning so I can respond to your other "hilarious"critiques of atheism, sorry for only doing 9 and 10 in my previous post, was late.

"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. "

In fact the reverse is true, most theists believe in the religion of their parents. Going to Sunday school ( or a MAdrassa or hebrew school) is an attempt to brainwash children into religious belief. Overall its enormously effective.
Are you suggesting most religious people reject their childhood indoctrination and come to their religious belief through independent free inquiry? Thats athiest your thinking of there.

"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. "

Imperfections in the design of the universe dont disprove god but they do disprove the design argument for a perfect god. Theisst want it both ways, they want to believe the amazing design of , lets say the eye, implies a perfect designer. But when they dsicover the eye , whilst amazing , is not perfect , they still want to claim its evidence of a perfect desginer!

"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. "

Your assumption that its been disproved. You say god cant pit his omnipotence against himself but its like everthing else a theist "thinker" sasy is pure assetion without evidence.


"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"

Thats not "fundy athiests" thatsanyone at all whose got the slightest education in the scientific method. Science has shown again and asgain the testimony of this kind is not reliable. People educated in science believe in things becuase there is verifiable independent evidence, persoanl testimony does not fall into that category. What might impress me is personal testimony of jesus Christ from people of a culture that could not possibly have heard of him. Buit of course we never see that do we?

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

.. and what is wrong with that? Betrand Russel did the same thing with his orbiting teapot example and hes considered one of the greatest philosphers of the 20th century. Thats for a very good reason. The example of the FSM or the orbiting teapot demosntrates a very important point. That is becuase we have no evidence either way on somethigngs existence that does not mean existence or non existence is an equal proposition. We can imagine any number of things which have no evidence be they flying spaghetti mosnters or orbiting teapots, the fact that we have no evidence of them does not imply we should be "agnostic" on their existence. Moreover those that have faith in their existence should rightly be ridculed... as it is with all imaginary beings.


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

Typical to be so American centric , are Americans a master race and the rest of the world dont count? For your guide the vasy majority of the people on this planet reject the Christian god, the vast majority of the people on this planet reject the Msulim god, the vast majority of people on this planet reject the Hindu god. Atheist just go one god further.


"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".

No you dont get it. We do not say it must not exist we say with no evidence of existing we will not believe it exists. There's a difference there, think about it. Anyone who believes in something with no evidence and moreover belies in something despite the evidence against it is narrow minded.

[JackC 0]

Quote

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.

Since your add-in was clearly aimed at me, I'll bite.

Why is the story of god taught in sunday schools is so badly in need of correcting? Are the teachers intentionally lying to the kids or are they all just incompetent?

The fact is, god is probably the most documented character ever. Even in this small corner of the internet, there are plenty of people witnessing and posting sections of answersingenesis.org at every opportunity. I have access to exactly the same information about god that you do. I base my view of god on exactly the same information you do.

The only difference between us is that you have a prior assumption that god exists when you read that information and I don't.

[steveorino 7]

Jack, I'm sorry if I offened you. The top ten sent to me struck me funny. I guess everyone doesn't share my sick sense of humor. Please accept my apology.

I'm convinced we all have core beliefs that influence our thinking a lot more than we know. For instance, in the clinic where I work as an adolescent therapist there is a beautiful girl who believes she is ugly. Someone has taught her early on she is of little value. She views the world through this crappy lens. I also see it with anorexic girls; weighing less than 85 pounds they see themsleves as fat. Their core beliefs about themsleves is almost impossible to break.

I do have a core belief that I am wonderfully made by a creator that loves me. Dang if everything I see in this world isn't through that lens. That has brought me happiness and purpose.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Hey, no offence was taken so no appology necessary. I also thought it was funny but probably not for the same reasons you did.

Quote

I do have a core belief that I am wonderfully made by a creator that loves me. Dang if everything I see in this world isn't through that lens.

You see, I'm a scientist and as a consequence I have to pay a great deal of attention to removing the effects of the observers prejudice when I perform an experiment. If I let my own views or prejudices tint the results I get, then they aren't worth the paper they are written on and I'd get fired.

You must see similar effects through your clinic work. Anorexics are a prime example of a persons belief colouring their perceptions and giving a false result. The same goes for a prior belief in god. That lens puts a skew on the results you get and stops you from seeing the flaws in the hypothesis. If your evidence only counts as evidence when you want to believe the implications, it's nothing of the sort. That's my beef with religion, you have to believe the implications before the evidence becomes believable. But it's damn near impossible to get someone to see that when they're wearing God goggles.

[steveorino 7]

However, it is very hard or almost next to impossible to have an open mind for the supernatural if your core belief says it is impossible,

What would it take for you to believe in God?

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

What would it take for you to believe in God?

For faith to be unnecessary. What would it take for you to stop believing in god?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

What would it take for you to believe in God?

For faith to be unnecessary.

What would that look like to you?

Quote

What would it take for you to stop believing in god

Good question. Many things may change my perception of God, but I think it would be very hard for me to believe there isn't one (of some sort) ... back to that core belief thing.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What would it take for you to believe in God?

For faith to be unnecessary.

What would that look like to you?

Unambiguous evidence. For god to be the only possible answer to some phenomenon. Although you'd still have to come up with a self-consistent theory of what god is. No one's managed that yet.

Quote

Quote

What would it take for you to stop believing in god

Good question. Many things may change my perception of God, but I think it would be very hard for me to believe there isn't one (of some sort) ... back to that core belief thing.

So logic and evidence won't cut it then? That's a pity and an answer that is constantly given by theists to that question.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

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.

Prove it.

Is this a little clearer for everyone? Can anyone prove this?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What would it take for you to believe in God?

For faith to be unnecessary.

What would that look like to you?

Unambiguous evidence. For god to be the only possible answer to some phenomenon. Although you'd still have to come up with a self-consistent theory of what god is. No one's managed that yet.

.

Would JC talking to you after you saw him dead do this for you?

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Would JC talking to you after you saw him dead do this for you?

Depends. Plenty of people have been bought back from the dead, it's a routine medical procedure. It doesn't have the same impact it did 2000 years ago.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

What would it take for you to stop believing in god

Good question. Many things may change my perception of God, but I think it would be very hard for me to believe there isn't one (of some sort) ... back to that core belief thing.

So logic and evidence won't cut it then? That's a pity and an answer that is constantly given by theists to that question.

I see evidence of creator all around me. To take it to a level that implies the biblical God may take some areas of faith, but it does make logical sense for me to look at the order in creation and see some sort of divinity. I'm not a scientist, but I do think logically some of the time.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Would JC talking to you after you saw him dead do this for you?

Depends. Plenty of people have been bought back from the dead, it's a routine medical procedure. It doesn't have the same impact it did 2000 years ago.

Humor me. Describe a scenario that JC could convince you.

steveOrino

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

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

Prove it.

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

Quote

Is this a little clearer for everyone? Can anyone prove this?

I'm glad someone figured it out. It seemed pretty simple to me, but what do I know?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I just hope it doesn't turn into the "I'm a Christian...and proud of it" thread all over again.

Let's not be bashing "THE THREAD" - it was one of the most fun we've seen here. The quasi-semi-anti-almost-Christ will be outraged.

militant anti-Bobists unite

for the children

...
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

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

I just hope it doesn't turn into the "I'm a Christian...and proud of it" thread all over again.

Let's not be bashing "THE THREAD" - it was one of the most fun we've seen here. The quasi-semi-anti-almost-Christ will be outraged.

militant anti-Bobists unite

for the children

Screw the children. We're bigger than they are, and so obviously more valuable.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Humor me. Describe a scenario that JC could convince you.

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Before you get to JC (that's a specific god) you'd need to prove any god at all, a generic god if you will, could exist. But for the sake of argument...

JC is a hard one simply due to the amount of crap written about him. The bible for example is not self-consistent, it's convoluted and it's difficult to understand. Put bluntly, it's badly written and not up to the standards I would require of myself, let alone a being worthy of the title god. So first off, he'd have to rewrite it to clear up all the gibberish in there. If that happened, at least you'd have a coherent story but any half decent writer could do that so it wouldn't prove JC did it. As long as you're stuck with the bible as it is, you'd have your work cut out to get me to believe it.

As to what he could do to convince me of his actual existence, hmmm.... tough one. He is supposed to have stopped the world turning once, that would be pretty convincing. It would need to leave a permanent and measurable change in the earth that I could metaphorically poke every now and then. Eye witness testimony is just too unreliable to be considered proof, even if it is my own eyes doing the witnessing.

Although being god he wouldn't need to resort to any of that, he wouldn't have to rewrite the bible or stop the world, he could simply will it and I'd believe.

What would convince you?