NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't believe that I have seen a thread on this before, so I figured I'd start one. Sorry if there already was one.

Note that this is entirely hypothetical, so don't respond by saying 'But God is an untestable hypothesis! Don't force religion on me!' I already know that.

Suppose, for a moment, that some enterprising scientist devised a reproducible experiment to show the existance of the Christian God. And, to the great surprise of many, the experiment's results turn out positive. Also suppose for a moment that the Gods of other religions have been proven not to exist.

Would you, in this case, convert to Christianity?

No.

So you'd know that the Christian God existed, that doesn't mean you'd be obliged to sign yourself up for the rallies and fundraising dinners. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I'd be all like, M3h.

He does and I did.

PWNED!

He does and I did.

PWNED!

Same here :)

Nah, I don't go in for crack pot tyrants really.

Well is the experiment just proving that a singular, masculine, omniscient, omnipowerful omnipresent God, as purported by Christianity, exists,
or
is it an experiment that proves that not only does God exist, but that He has all the rules, beliefs and opinions that Christianity attaches to him?

Because if it's the former, then no I wouldn't convert because the likelihood would still be that the Christian moral code is utter bull.

If the second one, I'm not sure. My personal morality is contrary to traditional Christian morality, so for me to convert would be violating my closest held beliefs, and it would despite my intentions probably be a false and unworthy conversion anyways, as it would be very very hard if not impossible to discard 18 years of beliefs and my own personal moral compass. But then again it's hard to argue with God. I honestly don't know.

This is redundant. God has already proven His existence.

This is redundant. God has already proven His existence.
Not to me, he hasn't. :rolleyes:

If I'm not important enough, well ---- him.

I refer thee to the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy and the bit on proving god exists proves that it doesn't exist.

Not to me, he hasn't. :rolleyes:

If I'm not important enough, well ---- him.

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?

If he doesn't have time, then he's not very omnipotent, is he? So much for that deity...

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?

God is restricted by time? Guess he's not omnipotent then. God loses.

This is redundant. God has already proven His existence.

No, it hasn't.

God tells me to burn things, so he must exist. :)

I refer thee to the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy and the bit on proving god exists proves that it doesn't exist.


W00T!

I wouldn't change, just so I can get even more people to stare at me when I announce all the things I don't do/eat/drink. (Which is: Not believe in god, don't drink soda or coffee, don't eat candy or many vegetables)

God tells me to burn things, so he must exist. :)

The leprachaun that I saw on the rock by the sandbox tells me to do that too :eek:

The leprachaun that I saw on the rock by the sandbox tells me to do that too :eek:

http://www.queensjournal.ca/vol130/issue37/postscript/lead1_photo.jpg

/My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Not to me, he hasn't. :rolleyes:

If I'm not important enough, well ---- him.

Well well, if you humble yourself you will meet Him. He's just. There.

Well well, if you humble yourself you will meet Him. He's just. There.

Sort of like a figment of imagination.

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?
He's God. He's omnipotent. You're his child. He has all the time in the world for you - until the Final Judgement, that is.

God is restricted by time? Guess he's not omnipotent then. God loses.

You're a smartass aren't you?

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince. So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

Well well, if you humble yourself you will meet Him. He's just. There.

So you can confirm its a he for us then?

I suppose if there was definite proof that all of this Xian stuff turned out to be true in a since I'd be converted as belief seems to be the main prerequisite.
However, I'm sure I wouldn't want to spend eternity in heaven with many of the fundamentalists I've encountered. I mean if Fred Phelps, Phyllis Schaffley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ralph Reed are there it would be kind of unpleasant in my view.
Also wouldn't want to be there if my previous dogs and cats weren't there.

If you find the proof, have Jesus give me a call. He knows my number.

Sort of like a figment of imagination.

Or the revelation of simple truth.

You're a smartass aren't you?

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince. So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

Why would God (who is supposed to be loving ) label us either idiotic or smart?

You're a smartass aren't you?

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince. So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

Right.. so I'm an idiot for pointing out the flaw in you saying that god is restricted by time, when as far as I was aware, god is supposed to be omnipotent?

So you can confirm its a he for us then?

Christian teaching uses Him and other such words to refer to God but that doesnt mean all christians think of God as being of either sex at all

So you can confirm its a he for us then?

I knew a person once who claimed such a thing. SSRIs and Lithium worked wonders for him. True story.

So you can confirm its a he for us then?

Well, God has no gender. "He" is just a calling.

Why would God (who is supposed to be loving ) label us either idiotic or smart?

My next question would be something along those lines. God wanted us to love and care for each other (I thought, anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong and god is and asshole?) so why would he like the guy who straight away calls me an idiot for pointing out a flaw in his logic?

As far as I'm aware, science hasn't proven that "god" exists OR that "god" doesn't exist.

In any case, I don't believe converting to any particular religion will change what is in your heart and soul. Calling yourself a "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean anything, especially if, deep down, you don't really believe it.

On the one hand, most of the morality presented in the Bible is garbage. On the other hand, if God existed as advertised, He would be the only game in town. It might turn into a sort of 'ultimate might makes ultimate right' deal. It's really hard to say; I don't know if I would fold under the direct threat of ultimate torture or not. I'd like to think that I would not.

Or the revelation of simple truth.

All in your head. Gee, that doesn't sound nutty at all... :rolleyes:

Well, God has no gender. "He" is just a calling.

Right, fair enough.

You're a smartass aren't you?

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince. So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

"If a shepherd had 100 sheep and lost one of them, would he not abandon the other 99 and search for the missing one?"

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?

You know what God would have to do to impress the world?

Pop up the clouds for everyone to see, give a thumbs up, and say "EEEEEH" like the Fonz.

That will convert a crapload of people.

For an omnipresent person, God is pretty lazy.

I suppose if there was definite proof that all of this Xian stuff turned out to be true in a since I'd be converted as belief seems to be the main prerequisite.
However, I'm sure I wouldn't want to spend eternity in heaven with many of the fundamentalists I've encountered. I mean if Fred Phelps, Phyllis Schaffley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ralph Reed are there it would be kind of unpleasant in my view.
Also wouldn't want to be there if my previous dogs and cats weren't there.

If you find the proof, have Jesus give me a call. He knows my number.

Don't even put Fred Phelps and Sean Hannity in the same sentence. The two are nothing alike. You can't judge all Christians by a few bozos who ruin it for the rest of us...

For me, God has already proven his existence. So I guess the answer is yes.

If God gave me $10.00, I might pray to him once.

Canada City']For an omnipresent person, God is pretty lazy.

Agoraphobia and omnipresent entities are a bad mix.

Canada City']You know what God would have to do to impress the world?

Pop up the clouds for everyone to see, give a thumbs up, and say "EEEEEH" like the Fonz.

That will convert a crapload of people.

For an omnipresent person, God is pretty lazy.

Stole'd from Family Guy.

GReat episode, though.

Yeah and you can use the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" argument to label mustang an idiot. Kind of like saying "Takes one to know one" but more religious-y :p Gotta love the Bible for that

But what if God does exist and it IS a horrible mean being that wants non-believers to be screwed?

I'm REALLY fucked if that's the case :eek:



But I'm hoping that if God exists, that it is a nice, caring being that understands our differences and could easily see our lack of faith in its fine self based on the evidence presented. Afterall, who created us if God exists?

No, because it could be a trick. How do I know that the God this experiment proves really isn't some other god in disguise (the Greek gods could take various forms, so...), or some kind of evil extradimensional demon, or both?

All in your head. Gee, that doesn't sound nutty at all... :rolleyes:

Heh. The same nutty feeling in the heads of billions today and in the past. :)

If God gave me $10.00, I might pray to him once.

"You knew Jesus..?"

"Knew him?? The brother owes me 10 bucks!"


-Dogma.

My thought process would go something like this (assuming a prayer-like transmission of thought to this deity):

"Ok, fine, I believe you exist, but why are you worthy of my worship?"

Wouldn't convert, Christianity doesn't clinch with a lot of my moral system.

No, because it could be a trick. How do I know that the God this experiment proves really isn't some other god in disguise (the Greek gods could take various forms, so...), or some kind of evil extradimensional demon, or both?

There is such a thing as taking skepticism too far. I think you can assume for the sake of the question that the evidence would be convincing; whatever that would take for you individually.

Why would God (who is supposed to be loving ) label us either idiotic or smart?

Let's say you're a parent. You have 2 children, one fails every class, the other is an A student.

You love both your children, but you know that ones an idiot, and the other is smart.

Heh. The same nutty feeling in the heads of billions today and in the past. :)

Yup - many people have indeed suffered delusions. Didn't make them any less delusional that others were as well.

Let's say you're a parent. You have 2 children, one fails every class, the other is an A student.

You love both your children, but you know that ones an idiot, and the other is smart.

And who are you to classify who God thinks is idiotic or smart?

Yup - many people have indeed suffered delusions. Didn't make them any less delusional that others were as well.

Or that we are humble enough to know that there's a higher power who created and loved us, while the others live in conscious and subconscious denial. We can go on forever. :)

Let's say you're a parent. You have 2 children, one fails every class, the other is an A student.

You love both your children, but you know that ones an idiot, and the other is smart.

So you would punish the "idiot" ?

So you would punish the "idiot" ?


If you're like this guy's version of God, you'd punish them by keeping away from them..

There is such a thing as taking skepticism too far. I think you can assume for the sake of the question that the evidence would be convincing; whatever that would take for you individually.

That would take quite a bit, and the proof would have to be beyond all doubt.

Or that we are humble enough to know that there's a higher power who created and loved us, while the others live in conscious and subconscious denial. We can go on forever. :)

Yes, indeed you can - just like others who believe in magical beings and faeries and leprechauns, and the Olympian Gods. They sure went on forever!

So you would punish the "idiot" ?

Nope. But the question was, "if God was all loving, why would he see some people as idiots".
As far as I can tell, God isn't punishing the idiots

That would take quite a bit, and the proof would have to be beyond all doubt.

Naturally, I agree. But that's the point of the question, I think.

Nope. But the question was, "if God was all loving, why would he see some people as idiots".
As far as I can tell, God isn't punishing the idiots

Ok fair enough but you said yourself that God wouldnt show himself to people who you deem idiots. If he loves everyone equally why would their level of intelligence matter

when will people learn that GOD own the RELIGION and not the other way around... :headbang:

GOD created religion; the religion does not make the GOD. we all seen cases where those who head churches tainting GOD name by commiting sins so how can religion be a representation of GOD just because of it's history? and so by no way do i feel any religion of man can ever truely have to right to "own" GOD and it is not like GOD has a contract to patronize it, only devil do those kind of things..

and isn't the GOD the same as that of the jewish? so did GOD decide to make a new religion or did man corrupt the old religion of GOD? and if they did could they not done the same to this one? :mp5:

the religion is just a guide, to reach heaven depend on your deeds. :fluffle: you think religious extremist will reach heaven? :mad:

Yes, indeed you can - just like others who believe in magical beings and faeries and leprechauns, and the Olympian Gods. They sure went on forever!

Yeup! Not to mention the poor souls drowning and turning around in their sins. Sinning goes on forever too, sadly.

Nope. But the question was, "if God was all loving, why would he see some people as idiots".
As far as I can tell, God isn't punishing the idiots
Yes, but you said earlier that God wouldn't prove himself to the idiots. Doesn't the Bible say something about trying to love God with all your heart being necessary to get into Heaven?
Wouldn't that mean that said 'idiots' are condemned to be tortured eternally in Hell? I'd call that punishment, myself.

Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different.

-Jack Handey

Yeup! Not to mention the poor souls drowning and turning around in their sins. Sinning goes on forever too, sadly.

If that comforts you, keep telling yourself that. You may just manage to believe in it, despite knowing deep down inside how silly the notion of a wizard in the sky really is. Denial is indeed not to be underestimated.

Don't even put Fred Phelps and Sean Hannity in the same sentence. The two are nothing alike. You can't judge all Christians by a few bozos who ruin it for the rest of us...

For me, God has already proven his existence. So I guess the answer is yes.

Sorry. Didn't mean to insult Reverend Phelps.

Ok fair enough but you said yourself that God wouldnt show himself to people who you deem idiots. If he loves everyone equally why would their level of intelligence matter

I didn't mean it as such >.<

I was just trying to work in an insult because I'm in a bad mood

If I believed in a magical sky-pixie, people would call me insane. If I said I believe in God, I'd be welcomed with open arms. :confused:

I don't get this about atheists.Now I'm not trying to insult you or anything so don't go nuts,I'm just curious.And I'm not someone who takes the Bible literally or anything like that,so here me out.

If you think even a little you will realise that the physical universe can't have created itself.Physics dosn't allow nothing to change into something.That anything exists at all is illogical.There has to be a First Cause which was not bound by physical laws.Now fair enough,God loving us or the Pope being infallible and so on cannot be proved.But just the fact we are here proves something beyond our comprehension created us.So how can you possibly believe in nothing?

And another thing.If you're atheist,fine.That dosn't give you the right to bad mouth something as sacred (to some people) as religion.Have some bloody respect.Nobody bashes Judaism in here because that's politically incorrect,and rightly so.But for some reason Christianity is fair game.If it's attention youre after,then go clog up something besides this forum with shite.

Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different.

-Jack Handey

Lol ! That's great! Never heard that one before.

No, I wouldn't convert. Why should I? Fear of going to hell? I'm perfectly happy without religion, thank you very much. I won't even get into how sickening Christianity is to me.

I don't get this about atheists.Now I'm not trying to insult you or anything so don't go nuts,I'm just curious.And I'm not someone who takes the Bible literally or anything like that,so here me out.

If you think even a little you will realise that the physical universe can't have created itself.Physics dosn't allow nothing to change into something.That anything exists at all is illogical.There has to be a First Cause which was not bound by physical laws.Now fair enough,God loving us or the Pope being infallible and so on cannot be proved.But just the fact we are here proves something beyond our comprehension created us.So how can you possibly believe in nothing?

And another thing.If you're atheist,fine.That dosn't give you the right to bad mouth something as sacred (to some people) as religion.Have some bloody respect.Nobody bashes Judaism in here because that's politically incorrect,and rightly so.But for some reason Christianity is fair game.If it's attention youre after,then go clog up something besides this forum with shite.
I bash everyone and everything, so megh! God could not have created himself so stop thinking he's above the fucking law.

If I believed in a magical sky-pixie, people would call me insane. If I said I believe in God, I'd be welcomed with open arms. :confused:

Ah, but the wizard in the sky is so much more believable than the pixie! :rolleyes:

Ah, but the wizard in the sky is so much more believable than the pixie! :rolleyes:

What if the sky wizard is a pixie? The ball's in the wizard's court now. ;)

If I believed in a magical sky-pixie, people would call me insane. If I said I believe in God, I'd be welcomed with open arms. :confused:

Because unlike the magical pixie, Jesus was a historical character.

Whether or not you believe he was God or not, is up to faith.

Because unlike the magical pixie, Jesus was a historical character.

Whether or not you believe he was God or not, is up to faith.
I'm not claiming he wasn't. I simply said that if I said X was real and it created everyone and everything, I'd be called insane. If I said Y did the same, I wouldn't be.

But just the fact we are here proves something beyond our comprehension created us.


Please explain this proof.

No, I wouldn't convert. Why should I? Fear of going to hell? I'm perfectly happy without religion, thank you very much. I won't even get into how sickening Christianity is to me.

And people like you sicken me, so we're even

"Holy War" - Two groups fighting over who's imaginary friend is better.- Unknown

I bash everyone and everything, so megh! God could not have created himself so stop thinking he's above the fucking law.

A God would be a meta-physical being, therefore not subject to physical laws and limitations. :D

What if the sky wizard is a pixie? The ball's in the wizard's court now. ;)

Pixies can't be wizards. My book tells me so. You're just being loony. You loony pixie-fetishist heretic!

A God would be a meta-physical being, therefore not subject to physical laws and limitations. :D
You mean I'm not subject to physical laws and limitations? :D

Pixies can't be wizards. My book tells me so. You're just being loony. You loony pixie-fetishist heretic!

Oh yeah, well you're a wizard-fetishist infidel heretic blasphemer! Time for a Crusade to liberate you from the clutches of ignorance, I believe.

I bash everyone and everything, so megh! God could not have created himself so stop thinking he's above the fucking law.

But He is above the law!Hence the "beyond our comprehension".Only something not bound by physics could put physics in place.

Please explain this proof.

Well,like I was saying,the physical universe cannot create itself.So the fact that it(including us) is here dosn't make sense.UNLESS something outside of it created it.

Oh yeah, well you're a wizard-fetishist infidel heretic blasphemer! Time for a Crusade to liberate you from the clutches of ignorance, I believe.

Bring it on, fairy boy! Your pixie is no match for my level 60 wizard!

You mean I'm not subject to physical laws and limitations? :D

Touche, saleman, touche....

If we found sound, empirical evidence that God indeed existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. I'd join the dark side, most likely.

Bring it on, fairy boy! Your pixie is no match for my level 60 wizard!

Yeah, well, er...I can summon...*reads*..er nothing. Um...[/runs].

You big meanie...I'm going to tell Zeus what you did!

"If a shepherd had 100 sheep and lost one of them, would he not abandon the other 99 and search for the missing one?"
Thank you nailed it ;)

But He is above the law!Hence the "beyond our comprehension".Only something not bound by physics could put physics in place.



Well,like I was saying,the physical universe cannot create itself.So the fact that it(including us) is here dosn't make sense.UNLESS something outside of it created it.

Interesting speculations. Not proof. Once again people attribute to a god or gods that which they can't explain. Lack of understanding of phenomena is not proof of god.

And people like you sicken me, so we're even

People like me? You don't know anything about me as an individual beyond the fact that I don't follow a religion. I've done my homework on Christianity, I've read the Bible, I've participated in religious debates, I've come to educated conclusions. All you did was come to a conclusion based on a single piece of information. Do you know what that makes you? Prejudiced.

We're far from even.

Well,like I was saying,the physical universe cannot create itself.So the fact that it(including us) is here dosn't make sense.UNLESS something outside of it created it.


That's only based on our current knowledge. People used to think the world was flat. 60-odd years ago people thought smoking was safe. Just because science can't answer something right now, doesn't mean that it wont be able to in the future.

Really there are infinate possibilites for how the universe was created once we consider that it might involve things completely outside our human comprehension.

That's it, I'm calling God and ask him...

If we found sound, empirical evidence that God indeed existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. I'd join the dark side, most likely.
If it turned out to be the christian god as discribed I might join you ... sometimes he is such an ass

Yeah, well, er...I can summon...*reads*..er nothing. Um...[/runs].

You big meanie...I'm going to tell Zeus what you did!

If you can tear him away from having bestial sex in the form of a bull with Europa. The Wizard would indeed enjoy a spot of rodeo, and is need of a familiar.

People like me? You don't know anything about me as an individual beyond the fact that I don't follow a religion. I've done my homework on Christianity, I've read the Bible, I've participated in religious debates, I've come to educated conclusions. All you did was come to a conclusion based on a single piece of information. Do you know what that makes you? Prejudiced.

We're far from even.

Hmm...that strikes me as hypocritical. You don't him, either.

Maybe he's done his homework, as well? Maybe he's researched religions, participated in religious debates, and come to his own conclusion as well?

If it turned out to be the christian god as discribed I might join you ... sometimes he is such an ass

I'll join you...Jesus is probably so wasted up their with his almighty power of turning water into wine :p

That's it, I'm calling God and ask him...

Pfft! Only the rich have that number.

The problem with the title of this discussion is "Christian God". If it could be proved that God existed, I would go on in my demi-Christian approach to spirituality (that follows the words of Jesus with none of the pre- or post- gospel trappings added on by Humanity) and probably be just as justified in that.

If, however, it was shown that that God existed exactly as Christianity the earthly Organisation taught it (The Omnis, Heaven/Hell, Jesus as the only way of salvation, Judgement based on Beliefs rather than response to evil) then I'd side against Him and similarly be justified in that too.

The God that Christianity looks at is probably the right one. The one that it describes to its followers almost certainly isn't in at least one sense.

Physics contends that it can. Prove that it can't.

Oh does it really now.How.It says the Big Bang was the start.And that's where science leaves it.What caused the Big Bang?The Big Bang dosn't answer where the universe came from.All it says is suddenly,there was energy and matter.Where did it come from?Quantum Physics has looked into the possibility of nothing spontaneosly becoming something,but this hasn't produced anything.

Anything in the physical universe is caused by something else,going on this,it has to have a definite start somewhere.And what started it must have been infinite,and therefore not bound by physical laws.That's simple reasoning.

Also,E=mc squared ,matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.This again suggests that the physical universe must have been created by something outside of itself.

I'll join you...Jesus is probably so wasted up their with his almighty power of turning water into wine :p

"Is this really the blood of Christ?"

"yes"

"Jesus, that guy must've been wasted 24/7"

You mean I'm not subject to physical laws and limitations? :D
Do you actually think of yourself as a "god" or a "metaphysical being"?

Pardon me while I point at you and laugh.

Hmm...that strikes me as hypocritical. You don't him, either.

Maybe he's done his homework, as well? Maybe he's researched religions, participated in religious debates, and come to his own conclusion as well?

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanato
No, I wouldn't convert. Why should I? Fear of going to hell? I'm perfectly happy without religion, thank you very much. I won't even get into how sickening Christianity is to me."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangs Canada
And people like you sicken me, so we're even"

Need I explain? He has already come to the conclusion that 'people like me' sicken him, stemming directly from my lack of religion. He knows virtually nothing about me. That's called prejudice. On the flip side, I have an excessive amount of knowledge concerning Christianity, so I've developed conclusions and strong opinions based on my extensive exposure to it.

I'm already a christian but maybe it might enlighten some of my friends who are not and some of the lame brained fools on here that he does exist and to stop bashing the christian religion because no matter what way you look at it there are people that push every religion so therefore you can't use the "tyrannical" stereotype on us. I've said all I wanted to say and I urge all non-christians to embrace the light and see the error of their ways and become christians. Whether you do or not is totally your own choice so therefore you cannot say I am forcing this on you.

People like me? You don't know anything about me as an individual beyond the fact that I don't follow a religion. I've done my homework on Christianity, I've read the Bible, I've participated in religious debates, I've come to educated conclusions. All you did was come to a conclusion based on a single piece of information. Do you know what that makes you? Prejudiced.

We're far from even.

I'm sure :rolleyes:

Why are the atheists always the "educated" ones?

He doesn't exist, but I would not convert because I still would not wish to be parle to a horrible behemoth of an organised religion which brain washes and restricts people's thoughts.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanato
No, I wouldn't convert. Why should I? Fear of going to hell? I'm perfectly happy without religion, thank you very much. I won't even get into how sickening Christianity is to me."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangs Canada
And people like you sicken me, so we're even"

Need I explain? He has already come to the conclusion that 'people like me' sicken him, stemming directly from my lack of religion. He knows virtually nothing about me. That's called prejudice. On the flip side, I have an excessive amount of knowledge concerning Christianity, so I've developed conclusions and strong opinions based on my extensive exposure to it.

You're humble, too.

I've done a lot of research concerning religion. I've developed conclusions as well, they just happened to be the opposite of yours.

You missed my point, BTW. My point was that, maybe he's done extensive research as well, but believes the opposite of you. Maybe you sicken him. So? That's not for you or me to decide, that's his own fault. Let's not forget that you were the one that offended him first. If christianity sickens you, you calling him prejudiced deems you a hypocrite.

Go by the old rule: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Of course, only a fool wouldn't!

I'm sure :rolleyes:

Why are the atheists always the "educated" ones?

Heh, I don't get that. The claim that 'intelligent people don't believe in God'.

That's why Einstein believed in God; Newton believed in God, Galileo believed in God, etc.

Of course, only a fool wouldn't!

*Generic flame vindicating NR as a troll for standing up for her beliefs*

Oh does it really now.How.It says the Big Bang was the start.And that's where science leaves it.What caused the Big Bang?The Big Bang dosn't answer where the universe came from.All it says is suddenly,there was energy and matter.Where did it come from?Quantum Physics has looked into the possibility of nothing spontaneosly becoming something,but this hasn't produced anything.

Anything in the physical universe is caused by something else,going on this,it has to have a definite start somewhere.And what started it must have been infinite,and therefore not bound by physical laws.That's simple reasoning.

Also,E=mc squared ,matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.This again suggests that the physical universe must have been created by something outside of itself.

None of that is proof. All it is, is "I don't know how it happened - God must have done it!" and a misunderstanding of the physics behind the Big Bang theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. You'd think some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

Christian teachings indicate that God is all loving, and at the same time that he will judge you with eternal damnation should you not follow the rules.

This is an oxymoron. An all loving diety would forgive any infraction of rules, because of a far deeper understanding than we have.

Ultimately, the problem is that man cannot possibly understand the infinite. God, according to the Christian bible, is ominpotent, omnipresent, all loving and all powerful. If this is true, than you and I cannot understand God. Its beyond the concept of an ant understanding humanity, because a human is a singular entity. The ant can see the human, can, in some very real ways, interact with the human, where God is both here and in the heavens, from the spot I stand in to the furthest points in the sky. The Christian God is a flawed being, created by man. His description, his rules, all we supposedly know of him, is flawed because it, the bible, was also created by man. The Christian religion, all religions in fact, are flawed, because they have been created by men wishing to understand the infinite and wishing to control other men. A God, as described by Islam, Judaism and Christianity, would not have us bickering of whose imaginary friend is better, over what piece of ground is holy and which is not. He would have us enjoy our similarities and celebrate our differences. He would be beyond rules, beyond words. If you stand up and push your brother down, whether he is gay or straight, a stoner or a teetotaler, a different shade of pink or brown or green than you are, or follows a different path towards trying to understand the infinite, than you are not, as it were, in God's image. The Christians have some good ideas, as do the Hindus, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddists, the animists, every religion has some small pieces of the whole, and it is our job to figure out which rules serve the needs of all men, and which serve the needs of the rule makers.

I'm already a christian but maybe it might enlighten some of my friends who are not and some of the lame brained fools on here that he does exist and to stop bashing the christian religion because no matter what way you look at it there are people that push every religion so therefore you can't use the "tyrannical" stereotype on us.All you'd have on your hands is Counter-Christians rather than Atheists, I'm afraid.

Christian teachings indicate that God is all loving, and at the same time that he will judge you with eternal damnation should you not follow the rules.

This is an oxymoron. An all loving diety would forgive any infraction of rules, because of a far deeper understanding than we have.

Ultimately, the problem is that man cannot possibly understand the infinite. God, according to the Christian bible, is ominpotent, omnipresent, all loving and all powerful. If this is true, than you and I cannot understand God. Its beyond the concept of an ant understanding humanity, because a human is a singular entity. The ant can see the human, can, in some very real ways, interact with the human, where God is both here and in the heavens, from the spot I stand in to the furthest points in the sky. The Christian God is a flawed being, created by man. His description, his rules, all we supposedly know of him, is flawed because it, the bible, was also created by man. The Christian religion, all religions in fact, are flawed, because they have been created by men wishing to understand the infinite and wishing to control other men. A God, as described by Islam, Judaism and Christianity, would not have us bickering of whose imaginary friend is better, over what piece of ground is holy and which is not. He would have us enjoy our similarities and celebrate our differences. He would be beyond rules, beyond words. If you stand up and push your brother down, whether he is gay or straight, a stoner or a teetotaler, a different shade of pink or brown or green than you are, or follows a different path towards trying to understand the infinite, than you are not, as it were, in God's image. The Christians have some good ideas, as do the Hindus, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddists, the animists, every religion has some small pieces of the whole, and it is our job to figure out which rules serve the needs of all men, and which serve the needs of the rule makers.



God, as an omnibenevolent deity, incorporates all aspects of righteousness in his essence: Justice, love, and mercy. As free will dictates, those who willingly refuse to be with him are to be seperated from him. Therefore, it is not an oxymoron.

Heh, I don't get that. The claim that 'intelligent people don't believe in God'.

That's why Einstein believed in God; Newton believed in God, Galileo believed in God, etc.

There was far more pressure from Society. Notice how those men are all dead. Galileo wouldn't have proclaimed himself an atheist in Renaissance Italy, and Newton's faith is often disputed as to whether it was genuine or simply a savvy move in relation to his place in society.

Well is the experiment just proving that a singular, masculine, omniscient, omnipowerful omnipresent God, as purported by Christianity, exists,
or
is it an experiment that proves that not only does God exist, but that He has all the rules, beliefs and opinions that Christianity attaches to him?

Because if it's the former, then no I wouldn't convert because the likelihood would still be that the Christian moral code is utter bull.

I agree completely. And if it's the latter, I'd have to examine those experiment reports. In the meantime, it's so unlikely that this would happen, I'll just go on believing in religiousnesslessism. :p

None of that is proof. All it is, is "I don't know how it happened - God must have done it!" and a misunderstanding of the physics behind the Big Bang theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. You'd think some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.



Then you discount the existence of singularities? The universe is not eternal, as Big Bang theory has proven.

God, as an omnibenevolent deity, incorporates all aspects of righteousness in his essence: Justice, love, and mercy. As free will dictates, those who willingly refuse to be with him are to be seperated from him. Therefore, it is not an oxymoron.


Why would someone who loves you allow you to be condemned to "damnation"? What is the point? Why is there a need for "hell"?

There was far more pressure from Society. Notice how those men are all dead. Galileo wouldn't have proclaimed himself an atheist in Renaissance Italy, and Newton's faith is often disputed as to whether it was genuine or simply a savvy move in relation to his place in society.



False, relativity theory reinforced Einstein's belief in a Creator. To suggest that all super-intelligent men disbelieve in God is at best arrogant and erroneous.

Why would someone who loves you allow you to be condemned to "damnation"? What is the point? Why is there a need for "hell"?



Hell is defined as the seperation from God, and a presence among all evil. He doesn't condemn you to Hell, you condemn yourself. It's your decision, not His. If you refuse to accept Him, you are already in a spiritual Hell.

False, relativity theory reinforced Einstein's belief in a Creator. To suggest that all super-intelligent men disbelieve in God is at best arrogant and erroneous.


Any all or none type statements are erroneous. Some very intelligent and very stupid people are on both sides of every debate.

There was far more pressure from Society. Notice how those men are all dead. Galileo wouldn't have proclaimed himself an atheist in Renaissance Italy, and Newton's faith is often disputed as to whether it was genuine or simply a savvy move in relation to his place in society.

Good point, that's true, but I won't question their motives.

I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details.
- Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein

Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.
- Albert Einstein

When the solution is simple, God is answering.
- Albert Einstein

You cannot, however, question Einstein's faith. One of the greatest geniuses of all time was himself a deist.

Hell is defined as the seperation from God, and a presence among all evil. He doesn't condemn you to Hell, you condemn yourself. It's your decision, not His. If you refuse to accept Him, you are already in a spiritual Hell.


What is evil? Most men consider Hitler evil, but at that time, in Germany, most did not. That was a judgement based on the information present. George Bush could be evil, but no one will know until after everything is played out. As a descriptor of evil, George used the idea that the 9/11 tragedy showed the terrorists to be evil, because they killed almost 3k people. But we killed significatly more than that at Hiroshima.

Define evil, please.

Good point, that's true, but I won't question their motives.

I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details.
- Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein

Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.
- Albert Einstein

When the solution is simple, God is answering.
- Albert Einstein

You cannot, however, question Einstein's faith. One of the greatest geniuses of all time was himself a deist.

Ancient Greeks allowed no seperation of spirituality and science, they saw them as one and the same, trying to use each to describe the universe.

"You cannot, however, question Einstein's faith. One of the greatest geniuses of all time was himself a deist."

I think he is overrated a slight. :)

My personal morality is contrary to traditional Christian morality, so for me to convert would be violating my closest held beliefs, and it would despite my intentions probably be a false and unworthy conversion anyways, as it would be very very hard if not impossible to discard 18 years of beliefs and my own personal moral compass. But then again it's hard to argue with God. I honestly don't know.

interesting. never thought of it that way. so many people bash me because I am a Christain but never really explained why, it is interesting for me to see that point of veiw spelled out so clearly, thanks.

"You cannot, however, question Einstein's faith. One of the greatest geniuses of all time was himself a deist."

I think he is overrated a slight. :)

Possibly. He used the right side of his brain so much that his left wasn't functioning properly.

But then again, he does realize that trying to explain the universe ourselves will never work.

False, relativity theory reinforced Einstein's belief in a Creator.
If this quote is correct, Einstein's idea was a tad different than many people claim:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
-Albert Einstein
Then there is this:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-Albert Einstein

You know, this thread is funny.
The question is pretty straight forward, if the Christians were right would you convert, I love the people who say "No", they would choose Christian damnation--not a very friendly one I might add.

Then there is the ones who suppose some arguement about the Christian Moral code being bunk--well as it happens the major world veiws have moral so similar that if you removed the Dogmatic references and just put it in plain english one would be hard to tell Chritianity from Hinduism from Islam from Judaism from the many indigenious beliefs systems of aboriginals around the world.

There is of course quasi-pagan modern faith that preport to be of "Ancient Origin" bunk, but peddled easily upon simple minded children, and oddly enough their moral code indeed falls in line with the other major faiths.

My favorite is that some 18 year old spoke of how difficult it would be to change his beliefs after so long--laughable, you havnt even finished forming beliefs at 18, I would say "Grow up" but that is after all what you are still doing so that would be redundant.

Nice topic.
Some great responses here as well.

What is evil? Most men consider Hitler evil, but at that time, in Germany, most did not. That was a judgement based on the information present. George Bush could be evil, but no one will know until after everything is played out. As a descriptor of evil, George used the idea that the 9/11 tragedy showed the terrorists to be evil, because they killed almost 3k people. But we killed significatly more than that at Hiroshima.

Define evil, please.



As someone who recognizes Moral Relativism for the dangerous fallacy it is, I'll give you an absolute standard defining evil: That which is contrary to the will of God. As a perfect moral Agent, He defines that which is just and that which is unjust.

I'd choose damnation and delusion, sticking to my atheism. I'm that kind of chap.

As someone who recognizes Moral Relativism for the dangerous fallacy it is, I'll give you an absolute standard defining evil: That which is contrary to the will of God. As a perfect moral Agent, He defines that which is just and that which is unjust.


Thank you.

How do you know God's will?

You're humble, too.

I've done a lot of research concerning religion. I've developed conclusions as well, they just happened to be the opposite of yours.

You missed my point, BTW. My point was that, maybe he's done extensive research as well, but believes the opposite of you. Maybe you sicken him. So? That's not for you or me to decide, that's his own fault. Let's not forget that you were the one that offended him first. If christianity sickens you, you calling him prejudiced deems you a hypocrite.

Go by the old rule: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Note how I said Christianity, as in the religion itself. Not the followers of said religion. That would be intolerant of me and totally one-sided. If he took it that way, hopefully this post clarifies things. If he knew that I wasn't talking about Christians, and meant it when he said that I sicken him, well, that would make him the cocksure bigot.

Thank you.

How do you know God's will?



He presents it in His Word to man.

As someone who recognizes Moral Relativism for the dangerous fallacy it is, I'll give you an absolute standard defining evil: That which is contrary to the will of God. As a perfect moral Agent, He defines that which is just and that which is unjust.

Out of morbid curiosity:

Exactly which fallacy is moral relativism?

Hm... If God was proven to exist, then yeah. I would most definitely convert.
Jesus was one awesome guy, indeed.

Now if I may throw in a bit of personal philosophy for the people who are so quick to slap the "Tyrant/Facist/Hypocrite" labels on all followers of Christianity...

If you haven't read the bible, do it. Stop forming opinions on Christianity based on the "Christians" on TV. The chances are that they're huge hypocrites and will most definitely burn in hell.

If god exists, that is. ;)

Now, I'm agnostic, but I have read up on Christianity quite a bit. It's really unfortunate that it gets such a bad reputation. Just remember, the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell are piss-poor examples of Christians. Jesus is. Judge the religion based on Jesus and what he did and said, not on what these rich white men in suits do and say in their bombastic speeches.

And if you believe that belief in a religion is silly, then you've never thought about oblivion. It's a terrifying thought, it is. When we die, we're just completely gone? If the thought of that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, then you haven't thought about it enough, you're a fool.

People love to act so bloody strong. So buh-loody tough. Acting as if nothing scares them, when really they're just afraid of looking weak. The irony kills me, only to be found a day later in Mexico with a transexual Tijuana hooker and a pocketful of crack. Keep denying fear. Go on! Keep denying your humanity!

Oh, ha ha. If that wasn't one of the most grandiloquent rants I've ever gone off on. Ah, well. I'll just post it anyway to see the reactions all you beautiful people have.

Hm... If God was proven to exist, then yeah. I would most definitely convert.
Jesus was one awesome guy, indeed.

Now if I may throw in a bit of personal philosophy for the people who are so quick to slap the "Tyrant/Facist/Hypocrite" labels on all followers of Christianity...

If you haven't read the bible, do it. Stop forming opinions on Christianity based on the "Christians" on TV. The chances are that they're huge hypocrites and will most definitely burn in hell.

If god exists, that is. ;)

Now, I'm agnostic, but I have read up on Christianity quite a bit. It's really unfortunate that it gets such a bad reputation. Just remember, the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell are piss-poor examples of Christians. Jesus is. Judge the religion based on Jesus and what he did and said, not on what these rich white men in suits do and say in their bombastic speeches.

And if you believe that belief in a religion is silly, then you've never thought about oblivion. It's a terrifying thought, it is. When we die, we're just completely gone? If the thought of that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, then you haven't thought about it enough, you're a fool.

People love to act so bloody strong. So buh-loody tough. Acting as if nothing scares them, when really they're just afraid of looking weak. The irony kills me, only to be found a day later in Mexico with a transexual Tijuana hooker and a pocketful of crack. Keep denying fear. Go on! Keep denying your humanity!

Oh, ha ha. If that wasn't one of the most grandiloquent rants I've ever gone off on. Ah, well. I'll just post it anyway to see the reactions all you beautiful people have.

I'd prefer oblivion after an existence enshrouded in truth. I hate to see these religious folk walking around, heads filled with lies, who will not be prepared for that oblivion. Truth is, to many religion is a crutch.

He presents it in His Word to man.

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but by His Word, I'm going to assume that you mean the bible. But the bible is a work of man, written by man, edited by man, flavored by man. It was not written by God. So it too is flawed. Is there any other evidence, beyond the bible, of His Word?

Oh does it really now.How.It says the Big Bang was the start.And that's where science leaves it.What caused the Big Bang?The Big Bang dosn't answer where the universe came from.All it says is suddenly,there was energy and matter.Where did it come from?Quantum Physics has looked into the possibility of nothing spontaneosly becoming something,but this hasn't produced anything.

Anything in the physical universe is caused by something else,going on this,it has to have a definite start somewhere.And what started it must have been infinite,and therefore not bound by physical laws.That's simple reasoning

Also,E=mc squared ,matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.This again suggests that the physical universe must have been created by something outside of itself.[/QUOTE]

All of this is completely irrelevant. Just because it can't have been physics, let's assume here for a minute, doesn't mean it had to be god. There's no reason to believe that it was god instead of, say, The Eternal Power Jim or a random event in some extra dimensional space.

Of course since, as you say, it was created by something beyond our comprehension both my random speculation and yours should be completely irrelevant, as we are human. In fact, logically, god is a bad argument as he was comprehended by humans.

Out of morbid curiosity:

Exactly which fallacy is moral relativism?



Philosophically, it is illogical as it assumes no moral standards exist outside of our defining them. This is an unprovable premise which does not rely upon reality and fact, rather beliefs. It holds the idea that the individual defines that which is correct and incorrect, which cannot be. After all: Let's say there is a rock floating about in space. Does our disbelief or belief in the rock determine its existence? No, it exists independent of our thoughts and perceptions. The same applies to this.

No, I wouldn't. I am very happy believing on oriental ideas to change now. BTW, for me all the monotheist religions have the same God, so if the christian god appeared to exist, then would also be the msulim, jew and hindi God.

So, here am I, eating Basmati rice and happily dreaming with a far and milenary culture. :)

Anything in the physical universe is caused by something else,going on this,it has to have a definite start somewhere.And what started it must have been infinite,and therefore not bound by physical laws.That's simple reasoning

Also,E=mc squared ,matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.This again suggests that the physical universe must have been created by something outside of itself.

All of this is completely irrelevant. Just because it can't have been physics, let's assume here for a minute, doesn't mean it had to be god. There's no reason to believe that it was god instead of, say, The Eternal Power Jim or a random event in some extra dimensional space.

Of course since, as you say, it was created by something beyond our comprehension both my random speculation and yours should be completely irrelevant, as we are human. In fact, logically, god is a bad argument as he was comprehended by humans.[/QUOTE]



But by accepting an extra-dimensional or metaphysical force generating said matter/energy, you are already stating that materialism is not the only truth.

No, I wouldn't. I am very happy believing on oriental ideas to change now. BTW, for me all the monotheist religions have the same God, so if the christian god appeared to exist, then would also be the msulim, jew and hindi God.

So, here am I, eating Basmati rice and happily dreaming with a far and milenary culture. :)



But the poll itself assumes your beliefs are incorrect and the Christian beliefs are correct. Gah, somebody has thrown logic out the window today!

I'd prefer oblivion after an existence enshrouded in truth. I hate to see these religious folk walking around, heads filled with lies, who will not be prepared for that oblivion. Truth is, to many religion is a crutch.


1. According to the poll, we're right and you're wrong. It doesn't ask whether or not the Judao/Christian God exists, it is already fact. Therefore, your statement is invalid.


2. Tell me: How are our beliefs lies? I presume you're an atheist, prove that we are lying. Atheists have as much, if not more, faith than Christians. If you want to truly rely on human logic alone, you would have to be agnostic instead.

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but by His Word, I'm going to assume that you mean the bible. But the bible is a work of man, written by man, edited by man, flavored by man. It was not written by God. So it too is flawed. Is there any other evidence, beyond the bible, of His Word?


The Bible is a work of men inspired by God, and thus infallible. When God speaks through you, you are incapable of flaws. This is why the Bible is inerrant.

No, I wouldn't. I am very happy believing on oriental ideas to change now. BTW, for me all the monotheist religions have the same God, so if the christian god appeared to exist, then would also be the msulim, jew and hindi God.

So, here am I, eating Basmati rice and happily dreaming with a far and milenary culture. :)


This would be farther along the path to the truth. If you stand on a boat in the ocean, you can only see to the horizon. If you stand on the moon, you can see half the Earth. The issue here then is perspective. You would have to be able to see the entirity of the infinite to be able to see the entirity of God.

I'm sure :rolleyes:

Why are the atheists always the "educated" ones?

I consider myself educated concerning the Christian religion, and not an all-knowing intellectual genius. I never insulted or doubted your own education. I merely responded to the reply you gave me. It could only be assumed that you were referring to all atheists when you said 'people like you sicken me,' as that was the only piece of information I gave you about myself. That comment is prejudiced against nonbelievers. Not only that, but my assumption has now been solidified with the quote by you, at the top of this post, classifying all atheists as thinking themselves the only 'educated' ones, or somehow 'better' than religionists. This is totally biased, as education and intelligence depends entirely upon the individual, and not his/her beliefs or lack thereof.

The Bible is a work of men inspired by God, and thus infallible. When God speaks through you, you are incapable of flaws. This is why the Bible is inerrant.

Arent there two opinions on this in christianity though?

Arent there two opinions on this in christianity though?



Our opinions do not define truth. I could disbelieve in the existence of poodles, yet they would still exist and I would be incorrect, wouldn't I?

Of course not. I prefer to go on my own path, thanks.

Philosophically, it is illogical as it assumes no moral standards exist outside of our defining them. This is an unprovable premise which does not rely upon reality and fact, rather beliefs. It holds the idea that the individual defines that which is correct and incorrect, which cannot be. After all: Let's say there is a rock floating about in space. Does our disbelief or belief in the rock determine its existence? No, it exists independent of our thoughts and perceptions. The same applies to this.

Are you proposing that morals are some tangible, physical object?

The Bible is a work of men inspired by God, and thus infallible. When God speaks through you, you are incapable of flaws. This is why the Bible is inerrant.

But the bible is a collection of testaments that were collected by Emperor Constantine. There are others which were left out, the Dead Sea scrolls, et al. Why are we willing to accept that God spoke to men millenia ago, but that if you say now that God has spoken to you, you're insane?

And forgive me, my friend, but inspiration is fallible. Had it been the literal word of God, it could then be argued as infallible. Van Gogh was inspired by a Starry Night, but his painitng is not what the night sky looks like, it was an artistic expression.

Our opinions do not define truth. I could disbelieve in the existence of poodles, yet they would still exist and I would be incorrect, wouldn't I?

Well, if you want to get into a philosophical debate that doesn't depend on logic, than you could very well be right. Unless someone can prove to you that poodles exist, which is impossible without a governing structure of correct and incorrect, then they really don't.

Are you proposing that morals are some tangible, physical object?



They are intangible, abstract concepts, yet that does not exclude their objectivity. Something does not need to be concrete to be true.

Heh. The same nutty feeling in the heads of billions today and in the past. :)

so what do you think of the san healers who enter into a trance and travel to the village of the spirits during the trance dance? proof of the truth of san 'religion' or not? and what about all those hindus and muslims and other non-christians that are just as committed to the idea that they have experienced the divine and found it to also be non-christian in nature?

Our opinions do not define truth. I could disbelieve in the existence of poodles, yet they would still exist and I would be incorrect, wouldn't I?

I'm not arguing against your post but just asking a simple question. I remember being taught two points of view in R.E. but I cant remember what they were

Well, if you want to get into a philosophical debate that doesn't depend on logic, than you could very well be right. Unless someone can prove to you that poodles exist, which is impossible without a governing structure of correct and incorrect, then they really don't.


Proof is not necessary for being. After all, evolution cannot be proven, nor can gravity, yet they are truths, are they not? Remember, our acceptance or realization of truths does not affect their reality.

If we found sound, empirical evidence that God indeed existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

damn, beaten to the punch

They are intangible, abstract concepts, yet that does not exclude their objectivity. Something does not need to be concrete to be true.

But you are saying that they are a provable, tangible object that can be observed, much like an asteroid in orbit.

Proof is not necessary for being. After all, evolution cannot be proven, nor can gravity, yet they are truths, are they not?


Gravity can be proven, Re: Newton. Poodles can be proven, Re: AKC. But the thing is not the whole of the thing. Poodle is a breed chosen to be named by man. Gravity is experienced in small bits. To say that an apple falling describes all of Gravity, even though it was written down, discounts exactly how important Gravity is to the function of the universe.

Proof is not necessary for being. After all, evolution cannot be proven, nor can gravity, yet they are truths, are they not? Remember, our acceptance or realization of truths does not affect their reality.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

It's the same concept. Does something exist if it is outside the light-cone of any observer?

It really comes down to how you define existance; what gives something the property of being extant?

If it has absolutely no effect on anything around it, does it exist?

The Bible is a work of men inspired by God, and thus infallible. When God speaks through you, you are incapable of flaws. This is why the Bible is inerrant.

Bull. The bible has been edited, revised, and translated so many times that it can't possibly infallible in such a way as you describe. Are you saying that God spoke through every human being who has ever translated, edited, or revised the bible?

Interesting tidbit on the subject, all those men are damned, seeing as how they've added to the "words of prophecy" in the bible. Note, this isn't a serious argument, just an amusing little bit of trivia.

But the bible is a collection of testaments that were collected by Emperor Constantine. There are others which were left out, the Dead Sea scrolls, et al. Why are we willing to accept that God spoke to men millenia ago, but that if you say now that God has spoken to you, you're insane?

And forgive me, my friend, but inspiration is fallible. Had it been the literal word of God, it could then be argued as infallible. Van Gogh was inspired by a Starry Night, but his painitng is not what the night sky looks like, it was an artistic expression.


Because God's message to man has come to fruition and therefore any additions to it can be said to not be of God, rather of one's own delusions or of the tempter. God would not allow his one Word to mankind to become flawed, or else the purpose of Christ would be in vain.


Also, you are depicting a different sort of inspiration. Artistic inspiration involves no truth or eternal external source; it is the feeling produced when viewing or contemplating things of a wonderful aesthetic nature. Divine inspiration, on the other hand, is God speaking through you. Consider the following passage:



Acts 4:5-17 5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family. 7They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: "By what power or what name did you do this?"

8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]'[b] 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16"What are we going to do with these men?" they asked. "Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name."

"If a shepherd had 100 sheep and lost one of them, would he not abandon the other 99 and search for the missing one?"


Search for it

shear it
sell it for mutton

All of this is completely irrelevant. Just because it can't have been physics, let's assume here for a minute, doesn't mean it had to be god. There's no reason to believe that it was god instead of, say, The Eternal Power Jim or a random event in some extra dimensional space.

Of course since, as you say, it was created by something beyond our comprehension both my random speculation and yours should be completely irrelevant, as we are human. In fact, logically, god is a bad argument as he was comprehended by humans.



But by accepting an extra-dimensional or metaphysical force generating said matter/energy, you are already stating that materialism is not the only truth.

And? I don't see why that matters. It still doesn't come any closer to confirming god. I'd also like to add that just because something outside the universe created the universe doesn't mean it wasn't following laws of physics, just not our laws. The universe just happens to exist in an eternal dimension where universes pop into and out of existence all the time.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

It's the same concept. Does something exist if it is outside the light-cone of any observer?

It really comes down to how you define existance; what gives something the property of being extant?

If it has absolutely no effect on anything around it, does it exist?



I'm referring to true existence, that which is objective. Perceptions define nothing but our knowledge of the existence of said item.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

It's the same concept. Does something exist if it is outside the light-cone of any observer?

It really comes down to how you define existance; what gives something the property of being extant?

If it has absolutely no effect on anything around it, does it exist?
Existence is absolute. Your question is better addressed in terms of reality.

And? I don't see why that matters. It still doesn't come any closer to confirming god. I'd also like to add that just because something outside the universe created the universe doesn't mean it wasn't following laws of physics, just not our laws. The universe just happens to exist in an eternal dimension where universes pop into and out of existence all the time.



Now you're delving into matters of faith much like belief in God, as empiricism cannot confirm that which is not perceptible. Also, your last statement is a theory (and I don't mean theory in the scientific sense, where something is basically true until disproven, rather theory in the general sense.)

Because God's message to man has come to fruition and therefore any additions to it can be said to not be of God, rather of one's own delusions or of the tempter. God would not allow his one Word to mankind to become flawed, or else the purpose of Christ would be in vain.


Also, you are depicting a different sort of inspiration. Artistic inspiration involves no truth or eternal external source; it is the feeling produced when viewing or contemplating things of a wonderful aesthetic nature. Divine inspiration, on the other hand, is God speaking through you. Consider the following passage:



Acts 4:5-17 5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family. 7They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: "By what power or what name did you do this?"

8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]'[b] 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16"What are we going to do with these men?" they asked. "Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name."

But who wrote Acts? How do you know his intent? Is the intent to proclaim a greater truth, or to achieve power for his political base, one which he believes is correct but that is guided by his will, not His?

Jesus, according to the bible, while he lay dead for three days, went to hell and freed the souls who had been damned prior to his coming, because they did not know the path to God yet, is this correct? But after he left hell, there were still men in other parts of the world who could not have heard of the words of Jesus. Are then then to be damned, for the same sins of others who had just been released?

BTW, thank you for this debate. Not once have you asked me to just take it on faith. Nor have you resorted to an attack on my person. I respect your faith in your beliefs.

Search for it

shear it
sell it for mutton


What happens to the other 99 while he's off looking?

You know, this thread is funny.
The question is pretty straight forward, if the Christians were right would you convert, I love the people who say "No", they would choose Christian damnation--not a very friendly one I might add.

Then there is the ones who suppose some arguement about the Christian Moral code being bunk--well as it happens the major world veiws have moral so similar that if you removed the Dogmatic references and just put it in plain english one would be hard to tell Chritianity from Hinduism from Islam from Judaism from the many indigenious beliefs systems of aboriginals around the world.

There is of course quasi-pagan modern faith that preport to be of "Ancient Origin" bunk, but peddled easily upon simple minded children, and oddly enough their moral code indeed falls in line with the other major faiths.

My favorite is that some 18 year old spoke of how difficult it would be to change his beliefs after so long--laughable, you havnt even finished forming beliefs at 18, I would say "Grow up" but that is after all what you are still doing so that would be redundant.

Nice topic.
Some great responses here as well.


The problem is this: There are a lot of nasty, nasty things in the Bible attributed to God. Since conversion to Christianity would require utter obedience and subservience to that god, many people here would rather endure eternal suffering than follow a being of such questionable morality. It's not that much different from devoted Christians being willing to die rather than deny their faith. Indeed, by that standard, it may be even more admiralble, since their suffering would be unending, without hope of ultimate justice.

HOWEVER - It may be possible that an all-knowing god could completely justify what would normally be moral atrocities. I think I would wait to see His side of the matter before casting myself into the pit - and I have to admit, the threat of eternal, intolerable pain might make me a little more open to suggestion!

I have to go. Please continue. I look forward to picking this thread up when I return.

But who wrote Acts? How do you know his intent? Is the intent to proclaim a greater truth, or to achieve power for his political base, one which he believes is correct but that is guided by his will, not His?

Jesus, according to the bible, while he lay dead for three days, went to hell and freed the souls who had been damned prior to his coming, because they did not know the path to God yet, is this correct? But after he left hell, there were still men in other parts of the world who could not have heard of the words of Jesus. Are then then to be damned, for the same sins of others who had just been released?

BTW, thank you for this debate. Not once have you asked me to just take it on faith. Nor have you resorted to an attack on my person. I respect your faith in your beliefs.


Luke, and, if I recall correctly, he died a horrible death, professing his beliefs to the end. We can assume that, refusing to recant his belief in Christ, he was not seeking his own interests.

As for your second paragraph, could you provide biblical citations?

I'm referring to true existence, that which is objective. Perceptions define nothing but our knowledge of the existence of said item.

But what is existance but that which is observable?

If I were to propose a hypothetical massless, neutrally charged, weakly interacting particle, who's to say it actually exists? There is no way to every say it's there besides actually saying so, no way to show you're right about its existance.

Now you're delving into matters of faith much like belief in God, as empiricism cannot confirm that which is not perceptible. Also, your last statement is a theory (and I don't mean theory in the scientific sense, where something is basically true until disproven, rather theory in the general sense.)

Oh, I'm well aware that it is a theory, and I'm well aware that any suggestion I make about First Cause will likely be based on faith. The whole point was that just because physics doesn't currently explain the creation of the universe doesn't mean it's god. There, the point has been made, and I can stop arguing.

The problem is this: There are a lot of nasty, nasty things in the Bible attributed to God. Since conversion to Christianity would require utter obedience and subservience to that god, many people here would rather endure eternal suffering than follow a being of such questionable morality. It's not that much different from devoted Christians being willing to die rather than deny their faith. Indeed, by that standard, it may be even more admiralble, since their suffering would be unending, without hope of ultimate justice.

HOWEVER - It may be possible that an all-knowing god could completely justify what would normally be moral atrocities. I think I would wait to see His side of the matter before casting myself into the pit - and I have to admit, the threat of eternal, intolerable pain might make me a little more open to suggestion!



My former agnosticism was fueled by the seeming inability to reconcile the supposed atrocities with a righteous God. What one must learn is that one's own perception of right and wrong is not perfect, nor is one's own code of morality comparable to that of God. Therefore, when one cannot see the wisdom or morality in God's acts, one must assume that one's own fallible wisdom is at fault.

But what is existance but that which is observable?

If I were to propose a hypothetical massless, neutrally charged, weakly interacting particle, who's to say it actually exists? There is no way to every say it's there besides actually saying so, no way to show you're right about its existance.



Existence itself is not relative, nor is it obligatorily susceptible to observation. We do not determine what is or isn't, at the most, you can claim that undiscernable existence is not relevant to us.

Existence itself is not relative, nor is it obligatorily susceptible to observation. We do not determine what is or isn't, at the most, you can claim that undiscernable existence is not relevant to us.

So, one must assume that existance is an inherent property of something rather than an assignable value to it?

Where does the logic in this assumption come from? Can you prove it to me? Can you prove existance is objective?

Which christian god? If I could communicate with or find out more about god, I might consider converting. If the information in the poll is all I had, then I would certainly not convert. Those who would convert would still have about 100% chance of converting to the wrong god/religion/creed/sect, and so would still go to hell, so I'd much rather avoid the shame of bowing to that psychotic dictator than nourish an unrealistic hope of avoiding the unavoidable end.

So, one must assume that existance is an inherent property of something rather than an assignable value to it?

Where does the logic in this assumption come from? Can you prove it to me? Can you prove existance is objective?

I can. You exist. That's an objective fact you cannot deny.

Beyond that.. it gets a little hairy.

So, one must assume that existance is an inherent property of something rather than an assignable value to it?

Where does the logic in this assumption come from? Can you prove it to me? Can you prove existance is objective?



For the sake of debate, let's assume that reality is, in fact, reality ;)


I don't want to get into a match of "How do we know we exist?" vs. "I think, therefore I am." :D

I wouldn't convert if his existence was proven - I read the Bible. *shudder*

My former agnosticism was fueled by the seeming inability to reconcile the supposed atrocities with a righteous God. What one must learn is that one's own perception of right and wrong is not perfect, nor is one's own code of morality comparable to that of God. Therefore, when one cannot see the wisdom or morality in God's acts, one must assume that one's own fallible wisdom is at fault.

I was a Christian until I lost that trust in God. I simply can't believe that a loving god would create us with the ability to reason, then give us nothing but false premises with which to work. The very idea seems sadistic (so even if He did exist, he would probably not be worth worshipping). The only way I could be satisfied that God was right in all those cases would be for Him to reveal to me what he knew that was hidden to us, and then I would evaluate it myself.

Which christian god? If I could communicate with or find out more about god, I might consider converting. If the information in the poll is all I had, then I would certainly not convert. Those who would convert would still have about 100% chance of converting to the wrong god/religion/creed/sect, and so would still go to hell, so I'd much rather avoid the shame of bowing to that psychotic dictator than nourish an unrealistic hope of avoiding the unavoidable end.



False, there is only one Christian God. What people believe of Him might vary, yet the Bible describes one God, one Faith, one Church.

I was a Christian until I lost that trust in God. I simply can't believe that a loving god would create us with the ability to reason, then give us nothing but false premises with which to work. The very idea seems sadistic (so even if He did exist, he would probably not be worth worshipping). The only way I could be satisfied that God was right in all those cases would be for Him to reveal to me what he knew that was hidden to us, and then I would evaluate it myself.



You need some counseling with an elder, as all seeming atrocities can, in fact, be explained.

Why doesn't god reveal himself?

Look what happens to people who try to comprehend him. They often go insane.
"If you think too far outside the box, it is often hard to find your way back in."
-Me
If he revealed himself fully to us, it would be far too much for us to comprehend.
So he sends comprehendable, human messages, through prophets, and his own incarnation, Jesus.
Don't try to disprove God with science. The possibility of God existing is pretty much air-tight.

He's God. You're some idiot. He doesn't have time for most people, so why would he give you any?

You're a smartass aren't you?

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince. So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

You can knock it off with the insults anytime now, Mustangs Canada.

You need some counseling with an elder, as all seeming atrocities can, in fact, be explained.

An elder, eh? Which denomination has those again? I was Catholic. I'd love to know how one could explain ordering the killing of enemy babies, for one. Perhaps you could tell me? I'm really a little busy to make such an appointment.

For the sake of debate, let's assume that reality is, in fact, reality ;)


I don't want to get into a match of "How do we know we exist?" vs. "I think, therefore I am." :D

But that's just it: such a debate is unresolvable because, using no standard of proof, we cannot prove we exist. Two standards of proof, as examples, are logic (and by extension, science) and religious philosophy (or metaphysics, if you want to put it that way). However, only logic has anything near a rigid, well defined internal structure.

You can assume either or, but you must assume one or the other. Muddling the two ideas only leads to confusion when you challenge your own beliefs. You either chose the one that is based entirely on what you percieve in the world or you chose the one that requires you to make assumptions beyond your own perception.

I don't believe that I have seen a thread on this before, so I figured I'd start one. Sorry if there already was one.

Note that this is entirely hypothetical, so don't respond by saying 'But God is an untestable hypothesis! Don't force religion on me!' I already know that.

Suppose, for a moment, that some enterprising scientist devised a reproducible experiment to show the existance of the Christian God. And, to the great surprise of many, the experiment's results turn out positive. Also suppose for a moment that the Gods of other religions have been proven not to exist.

Would you, in this case, convert to Christianity?
Yes, and I frankly can't understand the mentality that says "no." The cornerstone of my philosophy is the adherance to reality, and if this was reality I would be morally obligated to adhere to it. Furthermore, it would simultaneously become a matter of personal interest to avoid going to Hell.

However, such as it stands right now I am not prepared to acknowledge the existence of God. Somehow, I tend to think that our scientists would be equally skeptical of the idea of, say, dinosaurs if their only mention happened to be in a 2000 year old book.

At the risked of being unpopular, I'm going back on topic for a moment...

If the Christian God was proved to exist, I'd commit suicide and go up to him and kick his ass for being a twat.

False, there is only one Christian God. What people believe of Him might vary, yet the Bible describes one God, one Faith, one Church.

Hahahahahhah...

I would never convert to christianity because I know there isn't a god. What makes the christian god more valid then say zeus? Nothing. It is all human made up speculation intended to control and scare people.

But the poll itself assumes your beliefs are incorrect and the Christian beliefs are correct. Gah, somebody has thrown logic out the window today!Eastern beliefs are to a very real extent compatible with Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity has been proven doesn't mean that Easternism has been disproven.

If the Christian God was proved to exist, I'd commit suicide and go up to him and kick his ass for being a twat

A sensible course of action.

Eastern beliefs are to a very real extent compatible with Christian beliefs. Just because Christianity has been proven doesn't mean that Easternism has been disproven.



Eastern beliefs and Christianity are mutually exclusive:


John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



As Eastern beliefs do not profess the necessity of accepting Christ, they would be disproven.

At the risked of being unpopular, I'm going back on topic for a moment...

If the Christian God was proved to exist, I'd commit suicide and go up to him and kick his ass for being a twat.



Then get a nice dose of truth, realize you're a foolish human who was wrong all along, and get sent to hell. Way to go :rolleyes:

An elder, eh? Which denomination has those again? I was Catholic. I'd love to know how one could explain ordering the killing of enemy babies, for one. Perhaps you could tell me? I'm really a little busy to make such an appointment.



Well, those who die before the age of accountability get automatic access to heaven. Also, were they to grow up in the culture they were in, they would undoubtely become corrupt and destined for hell. It's an act of mercy, if anything.

I think some of these guys just need a hug...

Why doesn't god reveal himself?

Look what happens to people who try to comprehend him. They often go insane.
"If you think too far outside the box, it is often hard to find your way back in."
-Me
If he revealed himself fully to us, it would be far too much for us to comprehend.
So he sends comprehendable, human messages, through prophets, and his own incarnation, Jesus.
Don't try to disprove God with science. The possibility of God existing is pretty much air-tight.



Who suggested disproving God through science? That would be impossible as science deals with physical existence whereas God is a metaphysical entity!

www.donotlinktoreferralsiteshere.com
It's illegal. Don't do it again. (~Euroslavia)

Alright Here Proof So You Cant Argue!

Under the circumstances portrayed in the original post, my conversion would depend on what kind of guy the Christian God were.
Other than that, the mere fact that he exists wouldn't be enough to convince me, since there is no "proof".

nobody wants a hug?I'll take one!

What you meant to say is not "If the Christian God existed, would you convert?" but rather "Knowing that the Christian God is the true and only God, would you convert or face the wrath of God?"

Well, those who die before the age of accountability get automatic access to heaven. Also, were they to grow up in the culture they were in, they would undoubtely become corrupt and destined for hell. It's an act of mercy, if anything.

Bollocks. Since the Jews were destroying their culture utterly anyway, why could the children not be spared and raised as Hebrews? The only explanation is that they were somehow racially tainted, which I can't accept.

Bollocks. Since the Jews were destroying their culture utterly anyway, why could the children not be spared and raised as Hebrews? The only explanation is that they were somehow racially tainted, which I can't accept.



And you are somehow omniscient and capable of determining the "only explanation?" Seems to me like intellectual arrogance on your part, and a lack of wisdom. That which cannot be explained by man will be explained by God in the afterlife.

Hmmm I was wondering, if you go to heaven it says that you have eternal life, but is that just where you age(like become old and wrinkly but never die) or do you stay the same as you were?

probably not. I'm a nice person, if that's not enough, I'm not interested in supplying the rest. Paft, if I was sent to hell for that, then would I want to spend eternity with them? I try and avoid people I don't get along with after all. The whole "I'm an omniscient deity" and all don't cut it.

Hmmm I was wondering, if you go to heaven it says that you have eternal life, but is that just where you age(like become old and wrinkly but never die) or do you stay the same as you were?



It's not a physical existence.

It's not a physical existence.

Well thanks for making me feel stupid......eek eek IM A MONKEY!!

Well thanks for making me feel stupid......eek eek IM A MONKEY!!



*hands you a banana* :D

And you are somehow omniscient and capable of determining the "only explanation?" Seems to me like intellectual arrogance on your part, and a lack of wisdom. That which cannot be explained by man will be explained by God in the afterlife.

It was you yourself who suggested that these 'elders' could explain all to me. But you're right, racial impurity is not the only possibility; perhaps they were destined to be evil? Oh, right. That pesky free will get you every time.

BTW I am a christian....so it wouldnt make a difference to me if they found proof, because I already believe. mmm I love bananas....

Would I convert? Not just no, but HELL NO. The Christian god is the biggest asshole one could concieve of, and deserves a big boot up the backside and told to fuck off until he grows up. That is all.

It was you yourself who suggested that these 'elders' could explain all to me. But you're right, racial impurity is not the only possibility; perhaps they were destined to be evil? Oh, right. That pesky free will get you every time.



Funny how the anti-Christians are always the first to abandon civility, no?


Still, are you all-knowing? Can you judge the souls, the potential, the future of all those who have existed? Your skepticism is misguided, as you're challenging the righteousness a perfect Entity and therefore, by definition, are going to lose.

no. fight the power.

Would I convert? Not just no, but HELL NO. The Christian god is the biggest asshole one could concieve of, and deserves a big boot up the backside and told to fuck off until he grows up. That is all.



Pardon my blunt attitude, but that is the dumbest statement ever made :rolleyes:

Funny how the anti-Christians are always the first to abandon civility, no?


Still, are you all-knowing? Can you judge the souls, the potential, the future of all those who have existed? Your skepticism is misguided, as you're challenging the righteousness a perfect Entity and therefore, by definition, are going to lose.
I believe you're the one who called anyone who doesn't believe in christianity "stupid".

I believe you're the one who called anyone who doesn't believe in christianity "stupid".



Then you believe incorrectly. What I stated was that anyone who refused to follow the Christian God, after he was proven to exist, would have to be a complete fool.

Eastern beliefs and Christianity are mutually exclusive:


John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



As Eastern beliefs do not profess the necessity of accepting Christ, they would be disproven."Through Me" does not necessarily mean the spiritual vindication of his death. Such an interpretation is just that; an interpretation tagged on by those who heard him. It could easily be taken to mean simply "By following the way of life that I bring you".

Ultimately, what the east believe in is a benevolent universal Life Force. God fulfils that criteria; there is no need for a dramatic reshuffle. The Father is this life force. And, with a slightly different interpretation, "Kingdom of God" can be taken to mean "Spiritual Union with this Life Force" (given Jesus's history of double-meanings on this front with the Jews, that's not too hard to theorise) or rather an "Earthly Union with God" if you prefer. With this in mind, the Gospel Jesus does not contradict Eastern beliefs. Prove that God is some being living on another plane and the response you will get will be "He is a universally governing life force too." And such a response is entirely correct.

Pardon my blunt attitude, but that is the dumbest statement ever made :rolleyes:


The Christian god is a textbook definition of a psychopath, if the so-called bible has any credibility to it. Which it doesn't.

Then you believe incorrectly. What I stated was that anyone who refused to follow the Christian God, after he was proven to exist, would have to be a complete fool.

Why? Just 'cause he exists need not mean you have to worship him.

The Christian god is a textbook definition of a psychopath, if the so-called bible has any credibility to it. Which it doesn't.



You make a lot of absurd assertations without providing proof. I would consider that the act of a mentally insane person, if anything.

Why? Just 'cause he exists need not mean you have to worship him.



Anyone with an ounce of wisdom and desire for self-preservation would.

Well, those who die before the age of accountability get automatic access to heaven. Also, were they to grow up in the culture they were in, they would undoubtely become corrupt and destined for hell. It's an act of mercy, if anything.

And you're pro-life?

And you're pro-life?



Am I God?

Am I God?
Then your god is not pro-life.

You make a lot of absurd assertations without providing proof. I would consider that the act of a mentally insane person, if anything.

Hmmm... let's take a couple of examples, shall we? How about Exodus, where he spends time torturing the Egyptians (including murdering first-born sons) rather than smacking the Phaoroh and his legions in the kisser and freeing his 'chosen people'. Or how about ordering his 'people' to slaughter their enemies, which includes women. children and animals? No, those are all signs of a stable personality. :rolleyes:

He's a prick, and that's all there is to it.

Anyone with an ounce of wisdom and desire for self-preservation would.What's so important about self-preservation? People should come to God through desire to get to know him; not for brownie points in the next world. That's probably why he hasn't proven himself, in fact. The second he does, everyone starts bootlicking. I know that when I look for relationships with people, the last thing I want is to be treated as an Icon or to be used for some service I provide.

Funny how the anti-Christians are always the first to abandon civility, no?

Meh. I think I was perfectly civil but sorry for having offended.


Still, are you all-knowing? Can you judge the souls, the potential, the future of all those who have existed? Your skepticism is misguided, as you're challenging the righteousness a perfect Entity and therefore, by definition, are going to lose.

No, and since we are supposed to be free creatures, neither can anyone else.

Also, would it not be a little inconsistent to order the killing of one set of babies who will be evil, but, say, allow someone like a Hitler to grow up? While we're at it, why not just never create the world and judge all the potential souls on how they would have been?

Then your god is not pro-life.



Here is an excerpt from Summa Theologica:



"All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: 'The Lord killeth and maketh alive.' Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife; who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the taking of another's property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all things belong, is not taken against the will of its owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in human things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way, natural, as stated in the I, 105, 6, ad 1."

Meh. I think I was perfectly civil but sorry for having offended.



No, and since we are supposed to be free creatures, neither can anyone else.

Also, would it not be a little inconsistent to order the killing of one set of babies who will be evil, but, say, allow someone like a Hitler to grow up? While we're at it, why not just never create the world and judge all the potential souls on how they would have been?



There is no wrong in God killing anyone. He is the source of life, the sustainer of life, and the taker of life. He alone has true knowledge and is the only One capable of judging individiuals. When God decides to remove someone from the physical plane, there is no sin in it. The laws of morality were created to govern us, as we are the one capable of sin.

Here is an excerpt from Summa Theologica:



"All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: 'The Lord killeth and maketh alive.' Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife; who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the taking of another's property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all things belong, is not taken against the will of its owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in human things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way, natural, as stated in the I, 105, 6, ad 1."



perhaps you might like to summarise that? perhaps "God can be an arse because he makes the rules and so is exempt?" Sounds like thats a deity who deserves my respect and worship.

I think some of these guys just need a hug...

Try to hug me and I'll disembowel you with an axe. ;)

What's so important about self-preservation? People should come to God through desire to get to know him; not for brownie points in the next world. That's probably why he hasn't proven himself, in fact. The second he does, everyone starts bootlicking. I know that when I look for relationships with people, the last thing I want is to be treated as an Icon or to be used for some service I provide.



But the thread assumes He is proven.

Pardon my blunt attitude, but that is the dumbest statement ever made :rolleyes:

well, he is kind of an asshole if everything assumed is true, right? i mean, the overwhelming majority of people throughout time would theoretically have been sent to hell, and he didn't even think to reveal himself to them and say that allah, or buddha, or brahma, or vishnu, or zeus, or amon-ra was full of shit. he only exposed himself to a couple of jews out in the desert, completely overlooking china and the as of yet undiscovered americas. poor native americans, they didn't even have a chance until 1492 or so. then you have the whole noahs ark thing. the least he could've done was go with a sodom and gamorrah, i suppose being incinerated is a less painful smiting than drowning. you know, he's got all those omni-'s at his disposal, and apparently he can make bushes burn and part seas from way up in heaven, yet he resorts to epic disasters to kill off/punish people who are told he exists by a couple of prophets who claim to have talked to him. obviously i'm being overly cynical, but if in fact the christian god does exist he's got a few questions to answer.

The Bible is a work of men inspired by God, and thus infallible. When God speaks through you, you are incapable of flaws. This is why the Bible is inerrant.

I am Christian NeoRog, an Evangelical Born Again as a matter of fact.
And you are incorrect in your current arguement concerning the Bible.

I assume you to be an English speaker, read the five--FIVE major english translations of the Bible currently in use. Not the only ones just there are five major ones.

I myself use the KJ 1611--
Now if one examines this bibles they find distinct differences and differences which alter the enitre face of the religion.

Now i agree that IF say I was directly moved by God to write his word I would be infallible.
But! the Thousands of humans to whom he gave the gift of Free Will to who choose to translate edit interprit and rewrite those word are as fallible as any man.
I have strong love of the Geneva Bible--note in the Geneva the utter lack of the word KING--note in the KING James version the amazing predominanace of the word.
Just pointing that out.

perhaps you might like to summarise that? perhaps "God can be an arse because he makes the rules and so is exempt?" Sounds like thats a deity who deserves my respect and worship.



It's not that hard of a concept to grasp: God is not being evil by exempting Himself from the rules. The rules were only created to direct us, as we are not omniscient and as we do not pursue righteousness in all things. You also have some strange assumption that the acts are inherently wicked; That is not the case. Acts are only wrong when they are not just, when they do not follow that which we deserve for our ways. You're judging God by human standards, and, if you continue to do so, we won't get anywhere in this discussion.

Why do you just keep posting quotes? Why does no-one actually talk?
Also, if God did exist, I think he'd be against organised religion. I mean, look at Jesus- a liberal-socialist peace-camper if there ever was one! The Christian church looks like it could have been founded by Stalin.

There is no wrong in God killing anyone. He is the source of life, the sustainer of life, and the taker of life. He alone has true knowledge and is the only One capable of judging individiuals. When God decides to remove someone from the physical plane, there is no sin in it.

Can I change my vote? If all God needs is a whim to destroy, I would never follow him, ever. Maybe we are mere animals relative to Him. That does not change the fact that we are, objectively, moral agents. I would rather be destroyed on my feet than exist having served such a twisted being.

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp: God is not being evil by exempting Himself from the rules. The rules were only created to direct us, as we are not omniscient and as we do not pursue righteousness in all things. You also have some strange assumption that the acts are inherently wicked; That is not the case. Acts are only wrong when they are not just, when they do not follow that which we deserve for our ways. You're judging God by human standards, and, if you continue to do so, we won't get anywhere in this discussion.

does god live on Animal Farm, by chance?

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp: God is not being evil by exempting Himself from the rules. The rules were only created to direct us, as we are not omniscient and as we do not pursue righteousness in all things. You also have some strange assumption that the acts are inherently wicked; That is not the case. Acts are only wrong when they are not just, when they do not follow that which we deserve for our ways. You're judging God by human standards, and, if you continue to do so, we won't get anywhere in this discussion.

oh no, I don't labour under the delusion of moral absolutism. And no, I'm not judging God by human standards. I'm judging him by higher standards. Humans don't have omniscience and the power to change fundamental reality on a whim. We get to make mistakes. I do see that God has resorted to mass levels of violence before, however. It is difficult to see how destroying the world, firebombing cities, causing mass nastiness to innocents become good options. If there was long term gain... how much longer than 2-3 thousand years?

Hell yeah. I'd be a rock-arse catholic. (again)

does god live on Animal Farm, by chance?

"Four legs, good! Two legs, bad!"

does god live on Animal Farm, by chance?



God is not a wicked, corrupt pig who goes by the name Napoleon :rolleyes:

God is not a wicked, corrupt pig who goes by the name Napoleon :rolleyes:

That depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Can I change my vote? If all God needs is a whim to destroy, I would never follow him, ever. Maybe we are mere animals relative to Him. That does not change the fact that we are, objectively, moral agents. I would rather be destroyed on my feet than exist having served such a twisted being.



You fail to realize something: Death is not actual destruction. It is merely relocation from the physical to the metaphysical plane. There is no inherent good or evil in God taking back what he has given. You seem fixated on the notion that God taking life is somehow "evil" and "twisted." That is incorrect.

I'd ask God is Jesus was for real, which I doubt, and if he said no I'd go for Judaism. Christianity bores me.

That depends on your point of view, doesn't it?



No, it does not. God is incapable of evil, therefore anyone who believes He commits evil acts is incorrect. He is entirely just, and therefore judges righteously. Justice is an aspect of holiness, not just love alone.

God is not a wicked, corrupt pig who goes by the name Napoleon :rolleyes:Neither was Iosif Vissarionovitch Djugashvili...

You fail to realize something: Death is not actual destruction. It is merely relocation from the physical to the metaphysical plane. There is no inherent good or evil in God taking back what he has given. You seem fixated on the notion that God taking life is somehow "evil" and "twisted." That is incorrect.

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant actual destruction, even torture, of my immortal soul (were such destruction possible).

Am I to understand that if you thought God told you to kill someone you would do it?

No, it does not. God is incapable of evil, therefore anyone who believes He commits evil acts is incorrect. He is entirely just, and therefore judges righteously. Justice is an aspect of holiness, not just love alone.

Sure it does. Since there is no onjective way to detemine whther or not there's an afterlife, we must take the word of a creature who's word cannot be trusted (since he doesn't have to follow any rules) that there is an afterlife. Since this life is the only objective reference we have, by default we must judge acts of either god or man by the reality we know. If god kills, ergo, by the definitions we can rationally subscribe to, god is evil. He destroys life, which for all we may know, may be all we have. Sounds pretty evil to me.

What god? :confused: I know of no "god".

You fail to realize something: Death is not actual destruction. It is merely relocation from the physical to the metaphysical plane. There is no inherent good or evil in God taking back what he has given. You seem fixated on the notion that God taking life is somehow "evil" and "twisted." That is incorrect.

well then, it's relocation to something that is supposed to be worse than death, which i guess makes it even worse.

i would hope that he'd already expended all his options before he'd send someone to burn in eternal hellfire. did he try the bush thing? you know, alot of people might've been convinced had he parted the yangzte river back in the day. if he created man and all of man's thought processes, and everything that man could eventually become, how come he can't patch the code so to speak? i mean, if he's omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and all that jazz, how can he in the end resort to "eh, fuck it, i'll make them suffer a painful death that'll send them down to an even more painful existance in hell. if they won't listen to an ancient book, i guess nothing will work."

does he listen to that commandment that says "thou shalt not kill"?