Proof of God
 

Hello. I am a theist. I had to write a blog for a school assignment and I need to record how people respond. This is where you come in. Leave comments, questions, rebuttals. Thanks!

Some people do not believe in God. As for myself I can only tell you what I know based on what I have seen and heard. I know that what I have seen and heard is different because of who I was born to. I was raised the son of a pastor.

First, I will tell you what I know. If you have attended church as long as I have (my entire 22 year life span, remember I am a pastor’s son), then you will have heard some things that capture your attention. In the Bible, there are people designated as prophets, people who God spoke to concerning the future. These prophets did not keep the message to themselves; the things they heard were written down. The two prophets I want to emphasize are Isaiah and David. Isaiah wrote sometime between 700 and 680 B.C. that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.” People in Isaiah’s time did not have a full understanding of what he was talking about, but sometime around 7-2 B.C. (we know this because the Bible says Herod the Great was ruling the area), God sent an angel to a virgin named Mary and said “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.” The birth of Jesus was foretold hundreds of years before it happened and so was His method of death. Sometime between 1040 and 970 B.C., David wrote about Jesus “They have pierced my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments and cast lots for my clothing.” One record of Jesus’ death, written between 59 and 63 A.D., states “And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him.” David foretold the details of Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion before the Roman Empire even existed and a written account of Jesus’ death confirms that these things took place. Three days after His death, Jesus was raised from the dead by God, appeared to His followers, and gave them this command “Go into the entire world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: They will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues…. They will place their hands on sick people and they will get well.”

Now I have been in church my entire life and I can say that I have seen these signs among those who believe. During one church service there was a man who had back problems because his legs were uneven. I saw the preacher sit the man down and as he prayed for him the man’s leg stretched out to match the other. There were others present who I could point you to that will say that this in fact did happen. A member of the church I attend got into a chemical accident at work and received significant damage to his heart tissue. This man was dependent on a machine for his life. His wife consistently prayed and his heart is fully working now, machine free. A friend of mine went to Turkey for six weeks to “preach the good news.” While she was there, they visited the mountain regions because those people have little access to medical care. Her group prayed for people in the name of Jesus and many were healed. Jesus said those who believe will “speak in new tongues.” This is when a believer praises God or prays to Him in a language they have never learned as God speaks it to them. I have traveled to numerous churches and have heard many people speaking in languages that neither I nor they themselves understand. I have heard my mother, brother, and close friends speaking “in new tongues.” Perhaps you do not understand these things, but it is important for you to know that they do happen.

What is the significance of all these things? If all of these things were foretold and came to pass, then what Jesus said (“Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”) will also come to pass. The questions then are “What are we supposed to be believe and what are we saved from?” We need to believe that:

1.God has set the standard for what is right and wrong.
2.We have all fallen short of God’s standards through lying, stealing, jealousy, sexual immorality (adultery, sex before marriage, pornography etc.), denying God’s existence, and many other things.
3.We deserve punishment for breaking God’s standards similar to the way criminals are sentenced by a judge. The punishment for breaking God’s standards is being denied access into heaven.
4.Jesus is the Son of God and did not break God’s standard. All of the punishment that was due us was taken on by Him in His death by Roman Crucifixion. This punishment was more than the physical aspect; Jesus took God’s wrath on himself.

So we are saved from the wrath of God if we believe in what Jesus did, admit our wrongdoing, and seek to live the way God instructed us to in the Bible. A simple prayer such as “God, I know that Jesus is your son and that through him I am forgiven of my sins. I know that I have been on the wrong path and now I want to follow you,” is a good first step towards living the way God intended for you. I pray that what I have seen and heard in the church as a pastor’s son will be helpful in pointing you towards God. I also encourage you to visit a church and see for yourself what God is all about. Feel free to contact me at jcg0814@aol.com if you need help finding the right church for you or have any questions or comments.

Your god is entirely imaginary. You are a delusional person.

Ah, excellent something to report! 625 million people are a part of the denomination I am involved with. They believe in healing and speaking in tongues because they have seen it in many different countries. Regarding the man who's leg was stretched out, more than 200 people witnessed it. Are we all delusional? I was raised with a pastor for a parent and I know many ministers as a result. These people are not illusionists to pull off a stunt like that. Before you make the claim, with as much certainty as you do, that God is imaginary, perhaps you should travel the world with a man of God. If you haven't, then you can't be sure what you say is true.

Hi!

I'm not going to address everything you wrote because it's far too much to address in one go, but I'll touch on a few things. Mostly the first things that take my fancy to respond to.

But before that I want to comment that your assignment seems curious. Mostly when we get theists in doing assignments they've been tasked with finding out about other worldviews - and subsequently (provided they are well-meaning) a discussion follows about where the differences lie.
It seems you've been given a rather different assignment - in which you are to preach at us and see how we respond. Naturally we won't take to it as kindly as others might and I suspect that is the point. Anyway, since you have brought up some issues and want to see how we respond, here it is.


Only if everything you know is anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is useless. Otherwise you should be able to point to things backing up your claims - scientific studies, historical documents etc etc (depending on what you're trying to tell us you know).

I would put forward, then - not knowing anything about you other than the fact that you have told us you were raised around religion (and being the son of a pastor I would imagine that religion was big in your life). I would guess if I had to that pretty much everyone you've ever met or at least spent any sort of substantial time around has been either somehow related to your church or at least significantly religious.
I would suspect, then - linking this back to what I said earlier about your assignment - that is task of yours is designed to "introduce" you to other viewpoints. But rather than have you use your own initiative and instigate a constructive conversation, they've had you go out and preach in order to get combatative responses, so they can point and say "see how bad they are without god? You shouldn't question the faith".

Of course, I could be wrong about this. Maybe you've lived with a pastor who loved to have atheists and hindus and jews over for dinner and have lively debates with them, but so far that's not sounding like it at all.

Anyway, I digress.

Okay. You've done a great job of telling me what is purported to have happened in your faith. You've done nothing to tell me why any of it should be considered true.

Once again, you've told me what you're supposed to believe, but not anything about why. This is not uncommon when theists talk to atheists. Often they feel that the belief itself is meant to be proof of something, rather than finding the proof that supports the belief.
I suspect the if I pressed you on why you believe this, the answer will be long and complicated but basically boil down to "because I was told to believe it".

Anyway, the prophesies of Jesus by Isaiah have a lot of problems with them, even if you take the words as legitimately having been written before his birth, rather than retrofitted. However, without you telling me why you believe what you do there is no point me going through that since you're likely to come back with a "well I don't believe that bit, I believe......" and make the whole thing pointless.


This is not an uncommon trick of faith-healers. Derren Brown (famous british hypnotist and general mind-f*ck guru) does a great job of debunking this.

Watch this.

Once again, I'm going to make some guesses about you based on what you've told us about yourself. If I'm wrong, so be it, but this is simply my opinion based on what I've seen of you so far.

I kind of get the feeling you won't watch that, if only to protect your steadfast belief that it was a "miracle". You'll probably tell yourself "Oh, sure, that Derren guy faked it, but that doesn't prove that all cases are faked! What I saw was real!". Okay. Fine. We can't prove what you saw at the faith healer wasn't real, it's anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is funny like that.
But why should we buy into a supernatural explanation for it - that opens up a lot more questions than it answers - when there is a proven natural explanation that is much simpler?

By the way, I would recommend watching the entire double-episode of that. It's called "Miracles for Sale" and it is absolutely eye-opening.

This is all anecdotal. We have absolutely no way of knowing if any of it even happened, or if it did happen, that it happened the way you're telling it. We don't know what other factors played roles in any recoveries they may have had or anything at all beyond the limited information you've told us. As such, it is wholly unreliable as evidence for anyone but yourself.

Speaking in tongues is not uncommon. However, people speaking in tongues and then being able to understand it is. As in it doesn't happen. People do get overcome in church and begin to speak in glossolalia, but studies on the phenomenon have revealed that it is indecipherable, and mostly consisting of random sounds. I'll try to provide some of the information on it later.



You are yet to show anything has come to pass, and subsequently there is no reason to believe the things you think jesus said will either.



Obviously people on this forum disagree.


Actually, God says in Exodus 20:3 -
"You shall have no other gods before Me."

However, in John 14:6, Jesus says -
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me".

Jesus is literally putting himself before god here. Sure, Catholics have found a workaround by claiming that Jesus and God are the same (despite the bible clearly stating otherwise in certain places), and most Christians will give jesus a pass on this. I don't think they should, but there you go.

But yeah, jesus broke god's standards. It's false to claim he didn't. I'm guessing you'll disagree. Feel free to tell me about it.
But remember, I don't care so much about what you believe but why you believe it. Don't just tell me what your faith says, give the reasons why it should be believed. You can be guaranteed I'll pull you up on it if you don't.

Fuck, I read that whole screed and didn't see one iota of proof, I was really expecting it this time. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jayzus - haven't had to laugh at such a bullshit wall of text for years! Is there anything of the slightest interest worthy of a quick mock?

You have my deepest sympathy.

No shit sherlock. :rolleyes:

Look up the difference between 'know' and 'believe'

More sympathy - have you sued for child abuse?

Gosh, you've really been around and admirably wasted the potential of your formative years.

You do realise that ancient tribal stories, edited, translated, expanded and re-interpreted many times do not constitute proof or evidence of anything other than what fearful fools the writers were? Detete 'Bible' add 'JK Rowling books, delete 'Jesus' add 'Harry Potter'

.... and are you really surprised that old stories written later than even older stories confirm what the even older stories claim? Your pastor father did a splendid job of embedding your stupidity.

Show me the complete medical records and an MD's post-'cure'report and I might manage to stop yawning.

Yes, I've read lumps of the Catholic Encyclopedia - tedious isn't it.

It keeps credulous fools under control and rakes in loads of wonga for the lying, devious, unscrupulous cunts at the helm.

Slavery, mysogyny, murder, rape, human sacrifice etc - he must be really chuffed with himself.

Fucking good job! - see 1. above

You'd do well to take this advice. :rolleyes:

Do you do anal?

Another false prophet. I was really hoping to be convinced this time. Pleased the Derren Brown video explaining "faith healing" was shown. Now let's get you signed up to the "atheist religion".......oh wait....too much Jerry influence there.

Is it really sad that when I see a thread title like "Proof of God" that I'm no longer expecting any actual proof inside it? I'm not disappointed by this one.

Argumentum ad populum - it's a logical fallacy isn't it, dolt?

1.5 billion Muslims! How can so many be wrong?

900 million Hindus! How can so many be wrong?

You are a delusional lunatic, and we are not interested in buying your snake oil.

Hello. I am a theist.

Hi

I had to write a blog for a school assignment and I need to record how people respond. This is where you come in. Leave comments, questions, rebuttals. Thanks!

Sure will!

Some people do not believe in God.

Sheesh. Yep. The world has got some independent thinkers yes.

As for myself I can only tell you what I know based on what I have seen and heard. I know that what I have seen and heard is different because of who I was born to. I was raised the son of a pastor.

Let me guess.....And you grew up to be a John Frumist?

First, I will tell you what I know

This will be short...

. If you have attended church as long as I have (my entire 22 year life span, remember I am a pastor’s son), then you will have heard some things that capture your attention. In the Bible, there are people designated as prophets,


Who consistantly fail
people who God spoke to concerning the future.

But told them lies and gibberish, farcically easily rebutted.


These prophets did not keep the message to themselves;

No way. They went door to fucking door with their shit. Glad things have changed today eh?

the things they heard were written down. The two prophets I want to emphasize are Isaiah and David. Isaiah wrote sometime between 700 and 680 B.C. that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.”

Its mistranslated by later greek scribes. The word is Alma and means Young Woman. Your ignorant iron age scribes got it wrong. the church hammered out dogma based on it. They people who know about it laugh at you, and you theists bluster and strut about trying to ignore this very easy to prove point.


People in Isaiah’s time did not have a full understanding of what he was talking about,

Because it sounded like Junk even to them

but sometime around 7-2 B.C. (we know this because the Bible says Herod the Great was ruling the area),

Wrong Herod Champ

God sent an angel

Really!

to a virgin

for a change

named Mary and said “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.”

which he wasnt

The birth of Jesus was foretold hundreds of years before it happened and so was His method of death. Sometime between 1040 and 970 B.C., David wrote about Jesus “They have pierced my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments and cast lots for my clothing.” One record of Jesus’ death, written between 59 and 63 A.D., states “And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

You have no clue who this was about have you? Why dont you look it up!

The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him.” David foretold the details of Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion before the Roman Empire even existed and a written account of Jesus’ death confirms that these things took place.

By his cultists 70 years after his death, none of whom knew him!!

Three days after His death, Jesus was raised from the dead by God,

with no evidence
appeared to His followers,

who wrote nothing

and gave them this command “Go into the entire world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Really? The old carrot and stick magic hell-park? Scary!

And these signs will accompany those who believe: They will drive out demons;

No such thing, just the chance to whip and beat up epileptics
they will speak in new tongues….

And go into emotionally fueled group induced babblings which mean fuck all

They will place their hands on sick people and they will get well.”

And all those who die get ignored

Now I have been in church my entire life and I can say that I have seen these signs among those who believe.

i am certain you have you poor poor kid
During one church service there was a man who had back problems because his legs were uneven. I saw the preacher sit the man down and as he prayed for him the man’s leg stretched out to match the other.
LMAO! It's a scientific miracle. Get him on TV! its proof of Gawd, who in the same moment massacred thousands of beleiving parents children with cot death and brain tumours

Getting bored with your tripe now. You have no critical faculties. You beleive in childish magic. You have zero moral values and worship a pathetic cult which is fueled by guilt, child abuse and blood sacrifice.

Grow up. seriously It is twenty fucking thirteen. GROW UP.

:lol:

Its mistranslated by later greek scribes. The word is Alma and means Young Woman. Your ignorant iron age scribes got it wrong. the church hammered out dogma based on it. They people who know about it laugh at you, and you theists bluster and strut about trying to ignore this very easy to prove point.

Point me to sources that document this.

And go into emotionally fueled group induced babblings

“The evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit is based on neither emotional reactions nor physical gyrations. Speaking in tongues is the physical evidence. You may or may not have a highly emotional physical reaction.”

“You don’t have to receive with people praying around you. You may receive at home, in your car, or on the job.” (Be Filled with the Spirit, Doyle Jones)

What you propose induces the experience is not held to be a requirement for receiving.

who in the same moment massacred thousands of beleiving parents children with cot death and brain tumours

If you can explain more clearly what you are talking about, I may be able to give an answer.

Redbeard, where exactly are the Muslims wrong...and you are right?

I do understand how a little simple questioning research may be very difficult for one so cranially challenged, but Google is your friend and will give you dozens of responses to pore over.
I suppose you find it difficult to question why this alleged all powerful, loving, benevolent gawd chooses to straighten some shoes in front of a selected audience of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing fools - whilst at the same time overseeing the deaths of millions of innocent children either through starvation or a wonderful array of beautifully crafted diseases.
Weird how he's also cheering for both sides as the bombs & bullets get flung around during regular humanoid slaughterfests.

I was beaten to the punch by Smelly, but I would second his post.
You claim to seek truths and yet 10 minuites on goodle to review the actual translation, by multiple scholars of the matter, all supporting what we say? Would that 10 minuites kill you?

You claim to be a young kid, thus I will go easy on you. If you seriously do not know what I mean about god intervening with your freinds sprained ankle, let me explain it. In Song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JipYDDXo5C0


The Impeccable Tim Minchen will tell you exactly what I mean

wow this one is definitely full up to the brim with shit lol- have at him ravers- I can't be bothered with the idiots any more
OH Hi Barney !! Long Time!!!!!

Totally Hai Psycho.

He appears to be the son of a preacher man who cant understand why anyone can think that there is no invisible magical fairy who wants us to drink blood and eat flesh, so that we all love each other.

I suggest we go easy on him. He is young and perhaps can yet reason.

If he could reason, he wouldn't be a god-whalloper.;)

:wave: Hai everyone!!

Godammit, theyz all crawlin' outta the woodwork - all it takes is a couple of retarded nutjobs eh?

Hehehe!

It only takes one little rat to bring the cats together! :)

Did he just call us a load of pussies?! :mad:

You are what you eat!

BTW, I will be making plans to be in Katerland in early January. I hope that we can meet with the one who smells of worldly odors, and the other. I will PM you with my tentative schedule.

Hello again everyone, thanks for joining the discussion. There are too many replies for me to address so I will talk about some of the more interesting ones to keep the conversation going.

I did watch the entire “Miracles for Sale” mentioned by Michael earlier. I must say I was worried that it would be very convincing, but it wasn’t. The program focused primarily on people making money in the church through deception. I believe this is a real problem so did Peter in the New Testament when he said “Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.” Even supposing that the healing I cited earlier was deception, there are two other examples I shared that were not among the common healings explained by Derren Brown. I do agree that there are fake healers however.

Concerning the young woman interpretation of Isaiah as opposed to virgin, in the culture in which Isaiah was written young woman who were not virgins were very rare. Even if it means young woman, it does not mean that she was not a virgin. Isaiah may have used that word to emphasize that in addition to being a virgin she would be young. Does either interpretation really make it an incorrect prophecy? No.

On another interesting note, perhaps we can cut through the round and round arguments that you guys mention. I think this next question goes to the roots of both of our beliefs. Can something just exist? If any of you hold the big bang theory to be true, what is the origin of the matter and energy involved? If any of you say “It just was,” then your entire belief is not based on more evidence that my belief.

Greetings!
I think you're over-rating this latest god-whalloper - 'half' wit is far too generous and 'moron' is usually pronounced 'fucking moron' :cheers:

Exactly....and we have Occam's Razor to add too once we start stating that God could also exist as a self creating entity. We can see our self creating entity.....yet to see, hear this God chap.

Oh...and a bleated HIYA to Kate, Psycho and Barney. If you are still in Northamptonshire Barney PM me. I have moved here now from the paradise that is Luton/Beds.

Here's a quote for you son of a preacher man:

Give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man.

That was the Jesuit motto, alleged to be attributed to Francis Xavier, the co-founder of the Jesuit Order. The implication is that the best opportunity to indoctrinate a person in a lifetime of belief and devotion to religious dogma is when they are young.

You are a prime example of someone who was indoctrinated when young.

Ask yourself this - was it fair of your father to inflict his beliefs on you? Would it not have been better to give you both sides of the god argument and then let you decide for yourself? Isn't that what decent parents do?

this banally indoctrinated fuckwit is just as convincing as the ones before him.

did i say convincing? i meant devoid of cognitive ability

Hope that wasn't aimed at me Node18?

course not

So Red.

The Hindu Gods. All poly-armed and mighty of Trunk. Are they imaginary silly childish pagan idols with no power. If so, how come that miracles happen each day that their beleivers pray to them. Sometimes they will help them find their keys and on the odd occassion, they will cure cancer or another terminal disease.

Is Yaweh as powerful as them? Is he better? Is he Real? How do their miracles work?

I know the answer to this, but I would like you to think about it for a bit. Lets see if that mind of yours has completley seized up aged 22 from its steady diet of high-repertition-low freedom of personal thought, diet that ol' Dad has stuffed into you since birth.

wonder when it's going to come up with the age old (read boring) argument that the Big Bang and the existence of a god are connected *yawn*

Morality is man-made
 

God did not create morality as many theists have previously tried to tell me. Morality was formed through social development over thousands of years. You theists like to think of your God(s) as being so almighty and powerful well they're not. Society has adapted God, not the other way round. For example the Bible, it comprises of an Old Testament and a New Testament. People used to believe the old but now they belive the new and if people say they belive the old then they are lying, unless they're incredibly discreet or in jail for mass murder. People have had to stop believing in the Old Testament because it doesn't fit in with what modern society deems to be OK so society has changed God, meaning morality is not God's gift unto us

I do understand what you are saying but your understanding of the the Old Testament and New Testament is incorrect. Some have twisted the Bible to fit modern society and it is unfortunate that they have done so. The Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in the new so they are aligned perfectly. You may have heard that in the OT priests had to sacrifice animals for the sins of the people. You may also have heard that in the OT people were supposed to be put to death for certain sins. The sacrifice of animals in the OT was a shadow of what Jesus would be on the cross, a final sacrifice for the sins of those who would believe in Him. The old system of sacrificing animals was done away with at this point. It is the same for people being put to death. No longer are people put to death for their sins because Christ was put to death for their sins. Furthermore, much of OT law was specifically prescribed to the Jewish people, by God, and not the Gentiles who would later be included in God's plan through the spread of His Word by His disciples. This is why Gentiles were never required to be circumcised as the Jews were required to. Of course there are still many moral laws from the OT that stand for Christians today such as the Ten Commandments. We still should not lie, steal, kill, or commit adultery. What is interesting is that Jesus expanded on the Ten Commandments saying even those who lust after a woman have already committed adultery with her in their heart. That is why people would say "Who then can be saved?" It seemed almost impossible and Jesus replied "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." The morality of men will not save them. Jesus is the only way. No honest Christian has put aside the OT because if not for the OT we would not know what sin is. The OT law defined sin. Some people do say morality was formed over thousands of years but I say this "morality" will never reach perfection. This morality will not be perfected to the point that all men will stand in unity doing no harm to each other. No nation of men will ever have a law that keeps it standing forever, but there is a kingdom coming that will stand forever. And who does it have as its head? Jesus.

:eh: Are you really this dim? I'll arrange visits to a few death rows - your horseshit will be most welcome :rolleyes:

Oh we've got a live one?! Wonder how long s/he will survive here.

Perfectly :thumbsup:
It's almost as if the compilers of bullshit hadn't come across proofreading.

It amazes me (but not much) how the OT scribblings of goat herders are so "perfectly" aligned with the fabricated bullshit of the NT - after all, the NT fabricators had so much time to cross check and get their fucking stories right. :|

Bible school assignment for visiting fool, Fail.

There is zero prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah 7:14.

The word “virgin”does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman”.

The word Almah is used quite a few times in the Bible, in none of them is it used to mean virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is Bet'hula.

The 7th book of Isaiah describes the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

The House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, Yahweh sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand, that Yahweh would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

Chapters 15 and 16 go on to state that by the time the child (named Immanuel, not Jesus) born to the young woman reaches maturity, the 2 armies will be defeated.

This above wass the prophecy, not the birth of Jesus. Why would King Ahaz be comforted and assured by the birth of a child 7 centuries later? His kingdom was surrounded at that time. That was his concern.

But to make things even worse for Isaiah being a prophecy for the birth of Jesus, the prophecy for the defeat of the invading armies was fulfilled in II Kings 15 and 16.

Oh, I know it is true cos I feel it in my heart!!!!!

What stupidity!!!!

Ask your preacher to cure world hunger, then I might be impressed. Or an entire hospital full of people. Something not so mundane that any petty trickster can do it.

Every Christmas, the Pope prays for world peace. Sure has gotten results, eh! :lol:

The defense of course is that the people simply didn't believe enough. Or it's not God's Will. Which basically means prayer is basically telling God his plan sucks, and asking him to change it. If he does it was his plan all along, and you did absolutely nothing. If he does, and it wasn't his plan until you asked for it and he changed it for you, it means his original plan was awful and you're saying he isn't perfect.

Everybody knows that Yahweh finished at the bottom of his class at God University. He was too busy offering his bottom as the bottom at Kappa Sigma Cocka weekend bangs. Bummer!

Redbeard, I dunno if you're asking with sincerity or not but if so you're wasting your time. I've lurked in various forums, both Christian/deist and Atheist/non-deist alike for a VERY looong time searching for any semblance of a community that would/could take a serious logical, inquisitive, meaningful & honest respectful approach to both sides, or either side (or ANY side for that matter) of evidence and you'll find none anywhere from what I can see. People on both sides are determined to remain dogmatic, ignoring argumentative circularity, answering any & all serious inquiries about valid reasons for belief either way with complete ridicule and disdain for the opposite view from what I've found. Deists just want you to eat the shit they roll in pretty little balls and Atheists just want you to join them pointing & laughing at those little balls of shit... nobody seems to care that we still have stuff other than shit laying around we havn't figured out yet that warrants investigating.

From my viewpoint the possibility, perhaps even probability, of a creator has nothing to do with an option of worshiping one or not... they're two totally separate issues and have nothing to do with one another, IF anything like it exists. But apparently there are no novel thinkers that are able separate the concept of an actual 'creator of the universe' from the realm of spirituality &/or church long enough to even broach the subject from any angle, let alone wander far enough away from the standard response, "You believe what might be possible?!? What a moron for even questioning something other than what I already believe!" to actually consider some facts that beg some investigation in my humble opinion. But alas, none seem to have the time or fortitude to throw some serious science in a pot & stir it up to see what rises to the top & I grow weary of bullies on the playground anymore. So I continue to lurk here & there hoping for a lamp at the window of knowledge from someone out there that might show a glimmer of inquisitiveness towards things yet unknown without making a huge joke out of it.

It seems the adage, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." died with the influx of children below the age of puberty having rights without responsibilities in this country... just my observation.

I dunno, I think things are different in this country.

What country to you live in if you don t mind me asking?

CuddlePhysh, it looks like redbeardjon hasn't posted in over 2 years. Maybe he found a forum like you refer to elsewhere.

What "serious science" would that be? :eh:

This country. South Geocentric Land.

Didn't check posting date...
 

I failed to look at the posting date before responding, pardon my oversight... I'm weary.

Dunno if that's a subtle suggestion I take myself & views "elsewhere" or not. If not I'll apologize & try to get over my apparent thin skin. I've been on a search in the forum trenches much too long for my liking & it's becoming tedious.

However, if it is, I wouldn't be surprised. It would be an example of the kind of approach towards willingness to expand ones horizons I was referring to earlier... none (& one of the very reasons I normally just lurk). The whole, "I'm comfortable with what I believe with no desire to change or even question it in spite of what's out there, so feel free to go away. You bother me." philosophy is all too common among humans. No offense taken & I'm not here to rain on anyone's 'personal belief' parade. I'm just seeking someone honest enough with themselves & interested enough to help tackle some difficult questions & philosophies in the light of real facts/truth instead of using standard dogma to remain comfortably complacent.

I probably should've just remained quiet...

Not saying you should go elsewhere, just that he won't be responding. I also think that the divide between theist and atheist isn't one to be penetrated easily, and for basically the same reasons you have cited. I don't discuss much with theists, as their arguments are seldom of a rational nature. So many theists stumble into an atheist forum thinking that they are going to save some atheists, or that they have THE ANSWER to their disbelief. Said answer turns out to hinge on faith, or in some cases on some shameful argumentation techniques. As an atheist who reasoned his own way out of religious programming, I have no truck with faith and beating dead horses in the form of a fresh-faced theist bent on saving people. I'm open to some evidence for whatever it is that is a god, but I haven't seen any real evidence, so far. The claim for existence has to be proved by the claimant, and I have yet to see real proof. Jesuitical argumentation doesn't work either.

Good question...
 

Great question, while I won't get into the complex material here, unless you have the inclination to explore & consider some quantum physics, entanglement (what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"), statistical probability, subatomic wave/particle action & the basic true nature of spacetime, matter and the very essence of what we perceive to be reality it probably wouldn't be of any interest.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I have no desire to waste anyone's time & effort blathering on about stuff most people aren't going to care about, make an effort to understand &/or will just make fun of anyway. In fact, I've found it's more difficult to just get past the human inclination to stick to what one already believes & how one views basic values, than most people are willing or able to get involved in.

For example, just simply letting go of something as the common statement, "I don't believe ____ because there's no proof." is mostly bullshit. We go through our lives daily acting on & doing things that have either no proof at all it's wise to do, or even in spite of proof what we're doing is dangerous, even life threatening, but we still do it (smoking or using carcinogenic products, driving automobiles period let alone recklessly, walking in dangerous neighborhoods at night, the list goes on...). We'll even agree something's not the best thing to do in the face of the odds but dive right in anyway in many cases. It's because we're creatures of probability, not proof. But out of pride, anger, envy, whatever the reason, we get hung up on falsehoods of our own nature, incorporating those falsehoods into our value system. Before you know it we believe things are true that aren't even probable, or at least say we do.

I'm not commenting on whether we necessarily should or shouldn't do those things, or that it's wrong or we don't have the right to. It's essentially human to act so & that's fine. But not acknowledging it for what it is says something about us, It forms habits of how we teach ourselves to learn and approach facts. We should, at minimum, be willing to see this kind of thing for what it is so we can get to the root of honesty with ourselves & each other. Form habits of that honest approach so it ceases to remain an obstacle when it comes to learning & valuing the important things & make better, more reliable decisions in our lives. That's all aside from pulling this "I need proof to believe!" crap our of our ass when it's convenient & using it to ridicule some poor sap for being as confused as we are, we just look as foolish as he does & nobody helps anyone learn squat... we stagnate as individuals and a race when it comes to some things that just might be important.

Well there I go blathering... oops, lol

Sorry, I'll shut up & go back to the lurkers attic. Feel free to poke fun now...

Never heard of it... nvm

I know how you feel. At the risk of immodesty, I have made a breakthrough discovery in antigravity. Given your position on "pulling this "I need proof to believe!" crap our of our ass", no doubt I can count on your support in this potentially earth-shaking endeavor, despite that I can offer no proof, given the risk that any disclosure exposes my work to theft. But, I can only move forward with further development with significant capital investment, which I lack. Could you help with that?

Proof is for liquor and mathematics. Evidence is the keyword. "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." as the famous quote goes.
So, if you were hiring someone, you wouldn't go through the BS of asking for "proof" of claimed qualifications? Or evidence that a proferred investment was genuine?


So, discarding the "pulled out your ass proof", i.e. decades of research, those things are harmful, how would you propose to know that they are?


You seem rather reticent about identifying just what those things are. Looking at the last century, we sure have stagnated. Hopefully, some day we will have air travel, cell phones, colour TV, refrigeration, anaesthesia, ......

You seem to misunderstand...
 

Sinfidel, you seem to think I somewhere said "Ignore all proof!", which I did not. Lemme see if I can make this simple for you (although I get the feeling your talent for disregarding the point of what someone else is trying to communicate so you can make some other point not being said will again prevail...

My point was:

1) Proof is good and preferable, when it's available rely on it. It is, after all, proof.

2) In the absence of absolute proof, saying, "I don't believe ____ because there is no proof.", while it is your right, is closed minded at best & certainly not conducive to ferreting out truths about some potentially important things. Especially things that are, by their very nature, not necessarily subject to absolute proof.

There ya go, feel free to screw that up.

Which reminds me of a quote you overlooked in your diligence (if you even actually read my post):

"But not acknowledging it for what it is says something about us, It forms habits of how we teach ourselves to learn and approach facts. We should, at minimum, be willing to see this kind of thing for what it is so we can get to the root of honesty with ourselves & each other. Form habits of that honest approach so it ceases to remain an obstacle when it comes to learning & valuing the important things & make better, more reliable decisions in our lives."

(and the word "facts" there is meant to imply the loose sense synonymous with "information")

Your propensity to 'read into' my post things I didn't say is a perfect example of those habits I mention we should rid ourselves of. You asked me a question then read my answer with an obvious purpose of blasting it. Well done! I certainly learned something here even if you didn't.

I don't even know what that means... & there's a quote in there I have no idea who said (resources bro, resources) unless you're still operating on the fabrication I said 'don't ever prefer or believe proof'. If so, see what hanging on to that old habit of how you're viewing facts does? If you're going to make stuff up from what people said at least do it from what they actually said. Thanks for making my point...

Certainly. I'm a member of an anonymous foundation geared towards funding people just like yourself, with new ideas & theories to help advance various sciences, with up to $10mil. As long as the theory potential & skill level can be validated of course. I completely understand your concern for safeguarding your ideas so if you'll just post an example of the equations involved I'll see to it's consideration. Please make it original, no plagiarizing please. (nothing telling is required mind you, just some theoretical tidbit I can show copy & my colleagues you have the skills to back up your claim is fine)

Finally, as I'm confident your response is mostly just in the spirit of rhetoric, meant to somehow ridicule me into submission for some odd reason, I feel compelled to reiterate this... I didn't come here to change anyone's mind about anything (your kind of approach to simple conversations is exactly why). Indeed I doubt yours could be changed anyway. I didn't even plan on, or instigate having this conversation... YOU asked me a question & against my better judgement I answered it. People that want to continue believing what they already believe, evidence or not, are common & I've come to expect they most always attempt to make their own philosophies look good by ridiculing others... thanks for not disappointing me.

I'll leave you all to your site... my hope is that fortune finds you all.

Well said...
 

Well said... although I might exchange the word "proof" for the term "preponderance of the evidence", I absolutely agree.

I'm also aware (& blind to lol) one of my own biggest failings is that I tend to 'read' absolute words like 'proof' in their strictest lexical sense. Perhaps it's the depth of the subject matter in conversations of philosophy drawing it out of me, or a flaw in my own value system, but I forget many times how unfair it can be to hold someone to such rigid definitions in an arena of casual conversations. If I'm guilty of that please excuse me.

I might accept "preponderance of evidence", depending on the evidence. Having taught mathematics (high school) for a time, I can see your point with a strict definition of "proof".

Validated? Oh, you mean proof! But you said -

yet here you are demanding proof - Well, here are some equations -

http://static2.businessinsider.com/i...0/rtx26icl.jpg

Surely you wouldn't expect a Quantum physicist and all around Genius to notice such a minor detail!

Stop calling me Shirley! :P

We are aware of your goal of conditioning us to accept that the God claim is somehow exempt from any evidenciary requirements. FYI it's not as if that hasn't been tried a zillion times already.
If only they'd bring back the Blasphemy laws, eh!

Nah. In response you posted a few sciency words, e,g, "quantum", along with what translates as "I won't bother with an answer because you're probably all too stupid to be interested."
You have been nominated for the Annual Deepak Chopra Award for the Art of Bullshipping, which includes a framed autographed copy of the article "Helium and Quantum Cosmic Flatulence."

Remember when you were a kid playing some game and you caught another kid cheating, and he said "I don't wanna play with you anymore."

Cuddlepish, are you a stalker? You know it's only the religionists who crave this, conciliation you're hawking. It's only purpose is to lubricate your rectum.