vortexring

Explain your assertion that Jesus was nothing more than charismatic. If you want to use Mohammed as another example of a charismatic 'phenomena' that's fine. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, that works: the Jesus 'phenomena' was simply through the man being charismatic. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ultimately there's no proof either way of God. It's likely there never will be. Essentially it's down to the individual whether they believe or not. Can an individual have 100% faith? Or 0%? Can faith even be measured? Who can argue with an individuals experiences which lead him to believe in God? Or not believe for that matter? Seems it's only the individual who can answer such questions then. It might make for passionate discussion, sure, but what makes it a subject especially interesting is how quickly the anger, mockery & bitterness appear. And of course, the killing too. As for me, I don't mind what anyone believes. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or Atheist I'll listen to you, but let me warn you if you're the latter; you're gonna BURN!! AND. . . only kidding. Many of us believe in Jesus, although many doubt his reported actions and claims. If you don't believe in God, what was Jesus then? What was so special about the man? Edit: Anyone know of any decent sites which have sensible(ish) arguments regarding the subject? Virtually all the ones I come across have shite headlines like: 'EVOLUTION THEORY PROVED WRONG!' & '100% EVIDENCE GOD EXISTS, just send $15',etc,etc... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Then I must assume you also doubt all ancient people, such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great as you so readily reject Jesus. How much documentation of his existence do you need? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Just as there isn't one iota of evidence for his non-existence. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

This is getting into mans misuse and misapplication of religion again. What if none of them are wrong in Gods eyes? What if all he wants is faith and some form of dedication to a supreme being? What if there's more than one God? The questions and possibilities are endless. Does it make him seem to less realistic through this reasoning? Perhaps, if all the attention you want to give it is superficial. I doubt there are many people who've just blindly accepted their religion, and never questioned it in some form or other. If it's just inheritance, how did it all begin in every society throughout the Worlds history? This is now about religion rather than God - religion has been misused and misapplied throughout time eternal! Sure - and no doubt people will look back at todays scientists and laugh their bald heads off! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yeah... Made him stand up in court and sing "Rot Scheint Die SonneGesichter"!? Mike. Fallschirmjäger!? Luftübertragen! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The judge should have charged him with bringing the Reg' into disrepute instead.

How could I, if none of them have been angry or rude in this discussion? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Djinns or Tree Spirits weren't believed to the same extent as some form of God throughout mankinds history. I don't need to believe. I take interest in learning peoples reasoning into why they don't believe in God. I may come across as being completely closed to the idea he may not exist but that isn't true. I regularly read of fine arguments which are 'Anti-God' rather than 'Pro-God'. Perhaps one day I might completely reconsider my beliefs, and become angry, rude and annoyed when I read of people believing in God. . . I doubt I ever will though. I can't put my particular beliefs down to the comfort of a safety net, nor most of mankinds either. If it was that simple, we wouldn't have people like yourself then, would we? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, you might see God as being just as likely as unicorns and the Easter bunny as one can't prove they don't exist (I recognize the point!), but I reckon it's not much of a point. Are there numerous churches which specialize in the worship of unicorns? Do millions of people throughout the world make a Hajj like pilgrimage for unicorns, and so on. Whether you believe in God or not, it's too flippant to put him into the same league as Easter bunnies. If you don't believe in God through all the rational and logical reasons you've considered, why do people, of greater intelligence and experience than yourself continue to do so? Seriously, I'd be interested to read of why most of humanity throughout history has made what you see as a rather heinous error of judgement. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's a fair assumption, that could be coupled with the 'Ad ignorantiam' fallacy - almost. You're certainly more right than wrong, but I think you've not taken into account why I have my beliefs. That's probably more my fault as I don't normally explain why. And I won't - everyone might laugh at me! Besides, how can I confirm what can't be confirmed? Further to that, 'hunting around' brings far stronger arguments making God seem less likely. Remember I certainly have doubts myself, but what my beliefs are remain relatively the same. Maybe that's where my puzzle lies. That's a great link! Perhaps my statement will always be nothing more than a logical fallacy in the cold light of rational logic; but to me the reverse seems to also apply when people say the same of God's non-existence. I'm a believer in regards to evolution! I just think God started the whole thing off. Maybe our knowledge of the Universe at the moment isn't quite as good as we might think. Maybe we're literally just beginning to scratch at the immeasurably deep layer of knowledge we need to fully understand it. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Pity we don't have proof of extra-terrestrial life to support your statement. Still, of course life had to happen, considering God put into place the elements for it to. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Where does super experience come into it? Maybe my perception of 'super experience' is different to yours. They could have spent their career stacking blankets in the stores, whilst avoiding getting a regi' entry for the award of their LS&GC medal! Even more important, weren't they all 'Tin Soldiers' to begin with!? I know some weak tortured souls who decided they couldn't cope with Depot Para and became Guardsmen instead! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Earlier in the thread I was wondering over what doesn't have a beginning, concerning some of the stuff Kallend had said. He wrote this: "**OUR** part of space-time may have started with a "big bang", but our universe may just be a tiny part of an infinitite entity with no beginning. Maybe there never was a creation." Which then led me to think: "Maybe it's God who wasn't created. I came across this:" With of course 'this' being some stuff from a religious website I came across, from googling "what doesn't have a beginning." The arguments mentioned apparantly come from a more detailed philosphical study which the website had said they'd simplified. Apparantly so it now seems. (Still might be worth a read if I can find it). If I'm honest, I should have paid a bit more attention to the arguments, but essentially I viewed them superfluously to my main point of God being without a creator; as any issues within them would be quickly pointed out. (I'm kinda lazy that way - I'll come across things, stick them on SC and let greater minds than mine pick away at them - only 'cos I'm busy as fuck in my day to day life though). It makes some kind of sense to me that God; whoever and whatever he/it is, wasn't created, and put into place the conditions for the Big Bang. The main reason? I cannot accept we're just simply a product of millions of years of evolution, live our lives as best we can, then just die. To me that's ridiculous. Just as stating that God doesn't exist sounds ridiculous. People sometimes don't believe in God as there's no solid evidence he exists, yet there is no solid evidence to say he doesn't exist. Imagine a close friend is killed in a foreign country. You attend his funeral. Afterwards, despite having not seen your friends dead body, do you still believe he's alive? Do you even doubt he's dead? There are countless factors indicating your friend is dead, but have you seen that he's dead with your own eyes? It probably wouldn't enter your mind to question whether he's dead or not in normal circumstances. So you believe something, without any direct proof or evidence. So whilst I know nothing of loop quantum gravity, and a great deal of other topics mentioned on this thread, I can still have a look at the links and learn something. Which essentially is why I'm here in the first place. And to gob off occasionally too.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying you have to be a super experienced soldier to be a Guardsman!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Maybe it's God who wasn't created. I came across this: 'The first part of the argument is that everything that exists must have a cause. Nothing comes into existence out of nothing. The second part of the argument is that there cannot be an endless string of causes. If that were the case, then we would never get to the present moment. There had to be a single beginning cause that set all the other causes into motion. The third part of the argument is that this first cause cannot itself by caused. It must be an infinite, eternally existing, uncaused force or being that set all other causes into motion. The big question arising from this argument, of course, is this: Who or what is this first cause? Interestingly, the Bible has the answer: the first cause is God, who is himself uncaused. In other words, He doesn’t have a beginning. The first thing the Bible says is “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Earlier we said that science is getting close to measuring the beginning of the universe. It hasn’t always been this way. Scientists used to believe that the universe always existed (even though this belief violated the philosophical argument we just laid out). But scientific evidence uncovered in the last 10 to 15 years has proven that the universe did have a beginning. And for that to be the case, there had to be something or someone that began it. Like we said, the Bible very simply but very accurately tells us that God began the universe. For that to happen, he had to exist before the beginning, and he had to be uncaused. That’s who God is by definition. He is eternal. He has always existed. He is uncaused. He has no beginning and no end. He is the cause of everything that exists. Now, just knowing that the first cause is God is fine, but it doesn’t necessarily bring meaning to our lives. It doesn’t tell us who we are or why God created us. That’s why the story of the Bible doesn’t stop with Genesis 1:1. It goes on to tell us about God and how He created us and relates to us. It tells us that God is personal and loving. He isn’t a machine or a distant deity. He is the God who is both distinct from His creation, but also close to it. He is the God who is near.' That makes a bit more sense to me when considering what may have been before the Big Bang and its cause. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's fairly hard to comprehend, yet makes some kind of sense too(!), it makes me feel that we're incapable of fully understanding the infinity of the universe and how it began; if, like you suggest, it ever did 'begin'. What doesn't have a beginning? Sod it - I'll have a think about that one tomorrow. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Unless of course the species, despite being below your critical level, set about mindlessly damaging their environment. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's a reason why I can't affiliate myself to any particular religion. But then again, what if there is more than one God? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Only if you think that what you want to be true has any bearing on what is true. Fair enough, but ultimately neither of us know what is true. Yes. Especially since only one of them could be right anyway. I don't understand you - do you mean only one could be right in regards to only one true God and religion? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Your entire post contains the reason ID does not belong in a science class of any kind. Science is never-ending sequence of testing and observation. God and the afterlife are neither observable nor testable. If someday they do become observable and testable, then and only then they may belong in a science classroom. Have you gone fucking mad? See the very first line of my post you quoted. Nutter. You're worse than me! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen? If infinite in space-time, was there even a creation? Yeah, the Big Bang dude. What else was the creation. What, like, happened before the large pop, well, fuck knows man.

I didn't say it should be covered by a science class; I said it can't be entirely ignored by a science class. I suppose people have made an assumption from that statement. Will science one day be able to prove unequivocally that there isn't a God/Creator/Intelligent Designer or even an after-life? Perhaps. I reckon a fair few feel that as we haven't any evidence there is only one logical conclusion. I, despite not being of a religious nature, find this unacceptable. I cannot accept that through direct consequences of the Big Bang, we evolved into what we are today. And then die. And that's pretty much that. Am I a fool in this regard? It sometimes seems that way through others replies. Either way, nobody can prove either side to be correct. Yet? So, further to that, are all the people who believe in some form of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer wrong? People may believe so, but they cannot prove this to be so. Is it feasible all the countless societies through mankinds history who believed in a God/Afterlife got it wrong, and indeed, there isn't any form of afterlife or God, etc? If you reckon the answers yes, please feel free to provide evidence. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But. Are there countless churches built in the name of Bush Jism? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'