NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:

ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits

We don't need magic to make sense of the cosmos. People believe in magic largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you probably believe in God because the religion told you so.

"Oh! Oh! But I'm not part of a religion!"

If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral system associated with this church, listen to some guy yak about the way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.

People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill all of your fantasies. We all want:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation. To express this idea, I made a poem:

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived

God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found

God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable

God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us

God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior

God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise

Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?

Religious people have told me that they know God exists because there is no other explanation for the grandeur of the laws of physics and the apparent design of life. And yet physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God (source (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)). Explaining nature with God is called, "the God-of-the-gaps argument," because the explanation of God fills in the gaps of the holes in our knowledge.

Many people believe in God because of some sort of spiritual experience. In fact, that is a part of many reasons why people believe in magic. Along with the stories of Christians, I heard a story from a hippy new-ager who said that he floated out of his body, flew out of his house, and explored the landscape. I keep hearing those stories, and they seem to emotional, wishful, delusional, etc. People will explan their odd experiences with magic because they want it to be genuine and they don't like to face up to the idea that they are irrational.

A lot of Christians tell me that they know God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is a trustworthy book. Well, it isn't. Sure, it has a lot of good history, but it also has bad history, bad science, bad morals, bad logic, contradictions, and false prophecies. The Bible is a religious book of religious doctrine, and you can't trust it any more than any other religious holy book. Do your research here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Here is an example:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

It should be obvious after reading all of that that Jesus was just another doomsday cult leader. It will become even more obvious after reading about what a Christian leader (in a time long after Jesus) told his suspicious followers in order to defend this woefully unfulfilled prophecy. Open your Bible to 2 Peter 3:3-8.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
He had to redefine time itself. Too bad it does nothing to make Jesus' prophecy any less bunk.

Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone. I don't have any grandiose promise to make if you dump your religion. I don't have a moral system that will help you live your life. All I am giving you is the truth.

For the time being, I'll use Pascal's Wager:

"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing."

For the time being, I'll use Pascal's Wager:

"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing."

Oh god why do people insist on still using that piece of garbage. Its got more holes in it then the hitchhiker guide movie has plot holes.

For the time being, I'll use Pascal's Wager:

"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing."

For the time being, I'll point out that believing in God doesn't get you anything if you happen to believe in the WRONG God. Or if you happen to commit a sin. Or if God's just feeling cranky. Pascal's Wager is stupid.

All I am giving you is the truth.
:p Nope, all your giving is your opinion, which last I checked is about as worthy as a dog shit rolled up in anthrax.

For the time being, I'll use Pascal's Wager:

"If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing."That is one of my favorites. It demonstrates the true purpose of the religious doctrine of Heaven and Hell: making people believe in nonsense out of wishful thinking and fear. It has nothing to do with reason. It is like me telling you that you should take your chances believing in Fred the Invisible Vampire or else he'll suck out all your blood.

That is one of my favorites. It demonstrates the true purpose of the religious doctrine of Heaven and Hell: making people believe in nonsense out of wishful thinking and fear. It has nothing to do with reason. It is like me telling you that you should take your chances believing in Fred the Invisible Vampire or else he'll suck out all your blood.

Ah, so you would rather Fred the Invisible Vampire suck out your blood??

I'm not taking MY chances. I'm sacrificing my first-born to Fred the instant it pops outta my wife's womb. And then I'm gonna start a Jihad against all those enemies of Fred. You with me or what?

:p Nope, all your giving is your opinion, which last I checked is about as worthy as a dog shit rolled up in anthrax.I gave you more than just my opinion. I gave you legitimate logic, observations and facts, punctuated with my opinions.

I fail to see the fact in your post. Lets see, you start off by comparing God to santy-clause, move onto saying using God to explain things is stupid, give a few contadictry Bible verses (who gives a fuck?!), and finish by saying something about there being no moral code.
Yes all opinion indeed.

Now now, Underage Hotties, we understand your beliefs, but as thousands of other threads and real-life debates hold the same meaning as this thread -- proving whether God(s) exist or not -- why keep making this thread that depicts the same core meaning but in different forms?

Also, your start-post clearly shows your beliefs, but that same post, judging by the way you wrote it, also shows unconstructed criticism. Not to mention using certain order of words and words themselves to prove your point, which makes this thread more useless and undeducated.

This thread, if analyzed carefully, holds small propaganda, whether you notice it or not.

What has religion done to you? Has God pissed you off? If you dont beleive in God why did you say "Oh God"? None of the people here are forcing anything down your throat, dont preach your bullshit when you have no proof. Logic, reason and all that provide theories. And people choose to follow a religion, sure religion has started wars, but it gives people something to beleive in. Do you beleive in anything? Woops...guess not...your athiest.

If h = 6.62 x 10^-34, then and God (g) = a^2 + b^2

we can surmise that the existence of god is summarized in this basic equation

(x-h)^2 + (g-h)^2/x+3.14

Now once this value has been determined we must graph it...on our asses. And then and only then can we discover god's existence coeffecient, which as you all know is then inserted in Euloger's Law of Thermodynamic Deities. Of course, using Occam's razor, we can determine that only by the Law of Syllogism can this be possibly done, as the mathematical capabilities of humanity to solve for the undefined x is just too great. So we'll just need to resort to our next plan for god's existence.

GOD DOES NOT EXIST, LOL!
GOD EXISTS, LOL!

Now go forth and spread the word.

I fail to see the fact in your post. Lets see, you start off by comparing God to santy-clause, move onto saying using God to explain things is stupid, give a few contadictry Bible verses (who gives a fuck?!), and finish by saying something about there being no moral code.
Yes all opinion indeed.I didn't compare God to Santa Claus, I didn't give any contradictory Bible verses, and I didn't say that there is no moral code. You hardly even paid attention. My post is filled with facts. I gave you a list of things that are magic, a list of six things that we all want, an explanation of the God-of-the-gaps argument, and Bible citations conclusiving making the case that Jesus was a false prophet. All facts.

list three of your articles "facts"

If h = 6.62 x 10^-34, then and God (g) = a^2 + b^2

we can surmise that the existence of god is summarized in this basic equation

(x-h)^2 + (g-h)^2/x+3.14

Now once this value has been determined we must graph it...on our asses. And then and only then can we discover god's existence coeffecient, which as you all know is then inserted in Euloger's Law of Thermodynamic Deities. Of course, using Occam's razor, we can determine that only by the Law of Syllogism can this be possibly done, as the mathematical capabilities of humanity to solve for the undefined x is just too great. So we'll just need to resort to our next plan for god's existence.

GOD DOES NOT EXIST, LOL!
GOD EXISTS, LOL!

Now go forth and spread the word.

X cannot be solved because that Mathematical Statement is an algebraic expression, not an algebraic equation.

The only time i saw math used to prove or disprove a divine force was in the Simpsons when Homer was doing his tax reports and he accidentally discovered there was no God. All this math is way over the top for me. I seem to be in the company of those more learned on the theories of the topic, but i can assure you that on the core of the issue, i am well informed. No one can prove or disprove the existance of God, all we can do is beleive...its called faith. Which of course in German means...a whales vagina.

X cannot be solved because I said so.

Now now, Underage Hotties, we understand your beliefs, but as thousands of other threads and real-life debates hold the same meaning as this thread -- proving whether God(s) exist or not -- why keep making this thread that depicts the same core meaning but in different forms?

Also, your start-post clearly shows your beliefs, but that same post, judging by the way you wrote it, also shows unconstructed criticism. Not to mention using certain order of words and words themselves to prove your point, which makes this thread more useless and undeducated.

This thread, if analyzed carefully, holds small propaganda, whether you notice it or not.
I don't know what your first question is, but I acknowledge that I am a harsh critic, and it is surely propaganda. I am an athevangelist.

Underage Hotties -- next time, when trying to prove your point, use educated forms of words, and words themselves with no rude, brutal or disrespectful terms that lowers the other-side of the arguement.

Clearly your start-post was clearly disrespectful to the opposite arguement.

list three of your articles "facts"
I just gave them to you.

1) Things that are magic
2) Things that we all want
3) Definition of "religion"
4) An explanation of the God-of-the-gaps argument
5) "physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God"
6) Eleven verses from the Bible
7) "Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone."

I don't know what your first question is, but I acknowledge that I am a harsh critic, and it is surely propaganda. I am an athevangelist.

Atheists: the religion devoted one's own sense of smug superiority;)

Apathetic agnostics unite! well, nah, who cares...

Underage Hotties -- next time, when trying to prove your point, use educated forms of words, and words themselves with no rude, brutal or disrespectful terms that lowers the other-side of the arguement.

Clearly your start-post was clearly disrespectful to the opposite arguement.That's a good idea. I'll try that sometime.

What has religion done to you? Has God pissed you off? If you dont beleive in God why did you say "Oh God"? None of the people here are forcing anything down your throat, dont preach your bullshit when you have no proof. Logic, reason and all that provide theories. And people choose to follow a religion, sure religion has started wars, but it gives people something to beleive in. Do you beleive in anything? Woops...guess not...your athiest.I believe in the universe as it truthfully is. And you are making an excuse to believe nonsense because nobody has any proof. What I just gave you closely approximates to proof, pal, just as if somebody showed a picture of the Earth in order to show you that it is not shaped like a frisbee. Religion has deceived me in the past, and it continues to deceive, and I aim to correct that.

I just gave them to you.

1) Things that are magic
2) Things that we all want
3) Definition of "religion"
4) An explanation of the God-of-the-gaps argument
5) "physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God"
6) Eleven verses from the Bible
7) "Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone."

1 is basically as effective an argument as me saying Mao was an atheist, 2, 3, and 4 are why people believe, 5 establishes the culture clash, Bible literalists are not people you need to bother to attack anyway (thus making Bible verses rather useless), and I'm not sure how the seventh proves your point. It's a nice rant on the whole, but if you're actually trying to prove anything I'd advise you to let others try for that, as even I've made better proofs vs. God.

1 is basically as effective an argument as me saying Mao was an atheist, 2, 3, and 4 are why people believe, 5 establishes the culture clash, Bible literalists are not people you need to bother to attack anyway (thus making Bible verses rather useless), and I'm not sure how the seventh proves your point. It's a nice rant on the whole, but if you're actually trying to prove anything I'd advise you to let others try for that, as even I've made better proofs vs. God.
Those seven items were just examples of my facts. They were meant to be integrated into my other arguments in order to lead up to my conclusion. If you want the meat of it, read the OP.

Those seven items were just examples of my facts. They were meant to be integrated into my other arguments in order to lead up to my conclusion. If you want the meat of it, read the OP.

What I'm saying is that while the various facts supported your rant, they didn't support your argument. If you're going to argue a position in this forum, especially one of the more oft-debated ones, I would prefer that you had actual points. It makes the rest of us atheists look bad when some of the atheist n00bs make various poorly constructed attacks. It would be a nice rant in a forum where this sort of thing goes unquestioned, but it doesn't hold par as an actual argument.

Let's try math for a moment:

"Here we have a two and over here we have a two. Add them together and you get four."

"No you don't, all you have is a pair of twos. There is no such thing as four."

I would say that sums up the arguments for and against God.

I just gave them to you.


2) Things that we all want

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions


Speak for yourself, I don't want numbers 3 through 6.

*Bang* goes one of your facts.

Calling atheism the truth is the same as a theist calling their religion truth. You can't prove it either way, so saying there is no God(s) requires as much faith as believing in them does.

What I'm saying is that while the various facts supported your rant, they didn't support your argument. If you're going to argue a position in this forum, especially one of the more oft-debated ones, I would prefer that you had actual points. It makes the rest of us atheists look bad when some of the atheist n00bs make various poorly constructed attacks. It would be a nice rant in a forum where this sort of thing goes unquestioned, but it doesn't hold par as an actual argument.I know I am not being a nice guy about it, and I think maybe that is what your objection is all about, because I do think that I have good arguments in there that are easily overlooked because of the crude way of putting it. How about I rewrite the whole thing to make it more palatable?

Calling atheism the truth is the same as a theist calling their religion truth. You can't prove it either way, so saying there is no God(s) requires as much faith as believing in them does.

I think it can be proven (Well, sort of. That's another topic.) but the OP didn't.

Speak for yourself, I don't want numbers 3 through 6.

*Bang* goes one of your facts.
Damnit! OK, most of us want those things.

The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation.


Nah. Science can tell us how things work, but not why.

I know I am not being a nice guy about it, and I think maybe that is what your objection is all about, because I do think that I have good arguments in there that are easily overlooked because of the crude way of putting it. How about I rewrite the whole thing to make it more palatable?

No, no the offensiveness makes it stronger, it's just that all of your arguments are either based in some form or another of logical fallacy, or aren't actually arguments. It's preaching to the choir, and it's moderately eloquent preaching to the choir, but the problem is that some of the people you're talking to aren't choristers, and for them you'll need to include real arguments along with the insults. Otherwise they just characterize us as being as stupid as they are, and its back to square one. We need actually successful arguments, and yours don't cut it. Plus they're hardly original.

Damnit! OK, most of us want those things.

So are you down to 5 facts now? One of them (the definition of religion) being analytic and thus utterly trivial?

I think it can be proven (Well, sort of. That's another topic.) but the OP didn't.

I don't know, because the very concept of supernatural would seem to go beyond human logic. I think you could concievably disprove certain ideas of God or particular belief systems, but I don't think it's possible to actually disprove the existence of something beyond the physical world itself.

Nah. Science can tell us how things work, but not why.

Why means purpose. Purpose means a purposer. Science can describe that purposer. For example, science could say why I'm typing this.

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

When did the Christians ever claim that the Earth was a disk?

Calling atheism the truth is the same as a theist calling their religion truth. You can't prove it either way, so saying there is no God(s) requires as much faith as believing in them does.You can use the same excuse to believe that outer space aliens have a deal with national governments to sodomize women in exchange for human survival. It takes just as much faith to believe either way, since you can't prove it either way. Actually, you can't prove a single damn thing except mathematical and logical arguments, but you should not use that as an excuse to believe silly nonsense. Some ideas are very much more likely to be true than other ideas.

Why means purpose. Purpose means a purposer. Science can describe that purposer. For example, science could say why I'm typing this.

Quit being so teleological: purpose is not the sole constituent of the 'why'.

Can science explain why there is something rather than nothing?

I don't know, because the very concept of supernatural would seem to go beyond human logic. I think you could concievably disprove certain ideas of God or particular belief systems, but I don't think it's possible to actually disprove the existence of something beyond the physical world itself.

You can't prove or disprove it in a physical sense unless it claims to act in a physical way, but you can prove or disprove it on its own grounds. Most of these beings can't completely avoid human logic because they are defined in logical terms (omnipotent, omniscient, free-willed, omnibenevolent, etc.). On the basis of these definitions one could theoretically disprove it. I've gotten vaguely close a couple of times, and it's gotten me to some interesting heretical concepts.

Quit being so teleological: purpose is not the sole constituent of the 'why'.

Can science explain why there is something rather than nothing?

Theoretically yes: the laws of the universe cause there to be something rather than nothing. Can it go "all the way back"? Possibly, if it can establish a circle. Can monotheism go that far? No, never.

You can't prove or disprove it in a physical sense unless it claims to act in a physical way, but you can prove or disprove it on its own grounds. Most of these beings can't completely avoid human logic because they are defined in logical terms (omnipotent, omniscient, free-willed, omnibenevolent, etc.). On the basis of these definitions one could theoretically disprove it.

If you are going to attempt to use logic to prove something about the world you first need to prove that logic accurately maps onto the world, and that is something we are incapable of doing.

I think it can be proven (Well, sort of. That's another topic.) but the OP didn't.

Things can be proven only if what constitutes proof is agreed upon ahead of time. Typical atheist arguments are like those "work at home" scams where you can make money by building ships in a bottle or some such thing. You buy the supplies from them (questions about the existence of God), do your work (research the questions to find what could be considered proof), only to find out that all your work is rejected as being substandard. If you try to ask what the standard is, you will get no reply, or a standard that is subjective to the recipient. Either way, you are out of money (time and effort) and the scammer has ripped you off.

Theoretically yes: the laws of the universe cause there to be something rather than nothing. Can it go "all the way back"? Possibly, if it can establish a circle. Can monotheism go that far? No, never.

Why are there laws of the universe (they too are cases of the existence of a something)?

You can use the same excuse to believe that outer space aliens have a deal with national governments to sodomize women in exchange for human survival. It takes just as much faith to believe either way, since you can't prove it either way. Actually, you can prove a single damn thing except mathematical and logical arguments, but you should not use that as an excuse to believe silly nonsense. Some ideas are very much more likely to be true than other ideas.

But that can be disproven, because we can find physical and real evidence that there are no aliens making deals with our government. That is an aspect of the physical world that can be observed and determined to be true or false by observation. All arguments must be proven to be logically sound, or they are not valid arguments.

The concept of God isn't observable and has no definite evidence of its existence or nonexistence. As a result, there is no real argument that can totally prove it true or false. We can only have faith in its existence, nonexistence, or neither as agnostics do. A definite conclusion on the matter requires faith, placing the full atheist on equal logical footing with the religious believer.

If you are going to attempt to use logic to prove something about the world you first need to prove that logic accurately maps onto the world, and that is something we are incapable of doing.

Except that you're not trying to prove something about the world, you're trying to prove something about a logical construct. God is defined in specific logical terms. Using just those terms one could theoretically disprove its existence. To answer PasturePastry, you know some of the standards because it is defined as having some of them.

You can't prove or disprove it in a physical sense unless it claims to act in a physical way, but you can prove or disprove it on its own grounds. Most of these beings can't completely avoid human logic because they are defined in logical terms (omnipotent, omniscient, free-willed, omnibenevolent, etc.). On the basis of these definitions one could theoretically disprove it. I've gotten vaguely close a couple of times, and it's gotten me to some interesting heretical concepts.

But, you could still advance the argument that human terms were assigned to allow people to have at least some comprehension of the subject matter even though they are not truly accurate simply because people can't understand the concept of deity in a nonhuman way.

I'd be extrememly interested in hearing your thoughts on the ideal you mentioned, and especially the questions they raised.

When did the Christians ever claim that the Earth was a disk?The Christian author of Matthew claimed that Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. All the kingdoms except in China, Japan, India, and the Americas? Here are more examples in the Old Testament:

(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

(Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

(Deu 13:7 NRSV) any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

"the ends of the earth" are mentioned in Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8

That was the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian way of looking at the Earth, as shown in this picture: http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/4611/skydome5xp.jpg.

Why are there laws of the universe (they too are cases of the existence of a something)?

That's what I explained in my post. Said laws could theoretically be traced back to metalaws ad infinitum, and if science manages to establish a circle of cause and effect then they don't have to go ad infinitum. On the other hand, monotheism is paralyzed once it is asked why there is a God.

Except that you're not trying to prove something about the world, you're trying to prove something about a logical construct. God is defined in specific logical terms. Using just those terms one could theoretically disprove its existence. To answer PasturePastry, you know some of the standards because it is defined as having some of them.

At best you could prove that God as defined does not fit within contemporary logic, but this tells you nothing about the actual existence or not of God.

That's what I explained in my post. Said laws could theoretically be traced back to metalaws ad infinitum, and if science manages to establish a circle of cause and effect then they don't have to go ad infinitum. On the other hand, monotheism is paralyzed once it is asked why there is a God.

Even if presented with a circular structure of cause and effect one can still ask 'why does this circular structure of cause and effect exist?' (or, in other words, 'why is there something instead of nothing?').

But, you could still advance the argument that human terms were assigned to allow people to have at least some comprehension of the subject matter even though they are not truly accurate simply because people can't understand the concept of deity in a nonhuman way.

I'd be extrememly interested in hearing your thoughts on the ideal you mentioned, and especially the questions they raised.

In some ways a set of flawed definitions makes things work even better. In any case, logic is the way our world works. If something legitamately defies logic then it and its effects would be beyond our perception, and thus it's existence or nonexistence would be irrelevant.

I'll start a thread on said concepts sometime, though I have a feeling it might just get yelled at. Ah weil.

But that can be disproven, because we can find physical and real evidence that there are no aliens making deals with our government. That is an aspect of the physical world that can be observed and determined to be true or false by observation. All arguments must be proven to be logically sound, or they are not valid arguments.

The concept of God isn't observable and has no definite evidence of its existence or nonexistence. As a result, there is no real argument that can totally prove it true or false. We can only have faith in its existence, nonexistence, or neither as agnostics do. A definite conclusion on the matter requires faith, placing the full atheist on equal logical footing with the religious believer.Prove to me that aliens haven't made a deal with the US federal government. Go ahead, show me the signed documents and testimony under oath that say there has been no such deal. Even if you do provide those things, prove to me that it isn't a result of a brainwashing conspiracy. You can't, therefore, according to your logic, we are justified in believing in the sodomizing aliens. Atheists are NOT on the same reasonable footing as religious people, because the evidence is in favor of the atheists, though it cannot be absolutely proved. NOTHING outside of mathematics and logic can be proved, but that is no excuse for believing nonsense.

Even if presented with a circular structure of cause and effect one can still ask 'why does this circular structure of cause and effect exist?' (or, in other words, 'why is there something instead of nothing?').

Then you would have to do the ad infinitum stuff, though a real circular structure of cause and effect would justify itself anyway (not sure how, but vadeva).

The Christian author of Matthew claimed that Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. All the kingdoms except in China, Japan, India, and the Americas?

So you believe that the people of two thousand years ago hadn't yet invented metaphors?

I think you'll find that the Christian religion has always described the Earth as a sphere, following from Eratosthenes. There was a minor movement in about the 3rd century AD which described the planet as an inclined plane, but I have yet to encounter an official Christian pronouncement from any time in history which describes the world as flat. If you have one share it with me, I would be delighted to know it.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.......(I cut off a lot of it)



This is the truth right here!

I would rather live my life believing in God and die to find out he isn't real, than to live my life not believing in God and die to find out he is real...think about that...

Prove to me that aliens haven't made a deal with the US federal government. Go ahead, show me the signed documents and testimony under oath that say there has been no such deal. Even if you do provide those things, prove to me that it isn't a result of a brainwashing conspiracy. You can't, therefore, according to your logic, we are justified in believing in the sodomizing aliens. Atheists are NOT on the same reasonable footing as religious people, because the evidence is in favor of the atheists, though it cannot be absolutely proved. NOTHING outside of mathematics and logic can be proved, but that is no excuse for believing nonsense.

I can't, for lack of authorization and time (amongst other things). However, at the same time using the chain of proof argument destroys all arguments, because you will reach a point that cannot be proven. Science can be reduced in the same way.

Even mathematics reaches a point where they simply cannot prove fundamental axioms of their work; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem tells us there is a limit to what we can prove, because there will be certain things that can't be proven using the information derived from the system because the system depends on those axioms for proof.

Where is the evidence in favor of atheism? For that matter, prove to me that atheism isn't a plot concocted by an angry God to lure people to eternal damnation?

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).

The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).



Circle it is.

Atheists are NOT on the same reasonable footing as religious people, because the evidence is in favor of the atheists, though it cannot be absolutely proved. NOTHING outside of mathematics and logic can be proved, but that is no excuse for believing nonsense.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation.

So, some of this evidence in favour of the atheists is science (which cannot be proved), and yet you dare advance it as part of your argument, yes? Shameless.

In some ways a set of flawed definitions makes things work even better. In any case, logic is the way our world works. If something legitamately defies logic then it and its effects would be beyond our perception, and thus it's existence or nonexistence would be irrelevant

I'll start a thread on said concepts sometime, though I have a feeling it might just get yelled at. Ah weil.

I think we agree then because my agnosticism stems from the inability to know for sure and define the concept of deity, which therefore places religious belief beyond relevance in the physical world.

So you believe that the people of two thousand years ago hadn't yet invented metaphors?

I think you'll find that the Christian religion has always described the Earth as a sphere, following from Eratosthenes. There was a minor movement in about the 3rd century AD which described the planet as an inclined plane, but I have yet to encounter an official Christian pronouncement from any time in history which describes the world as flat. If you have one share it with me, I would be delighted to know it.Very many of the early Christians believed that the Earth is spherical (the evidence came a long time before Christ), and only a few believed it was flat, and yet the Bible's model of the Earth seems to say that the Earth is flat and resting on pillars, while the Sun, Moon, stars, and clouds circle around above a solid sky dome which has windows to let out the rain. You say it is a metaphor, but this model of the Earth is the same one believed literally by Egypt and Babylon. It is very likely that the Jewish culture surrounding the Bible's authorship also believed it.

Nah. Science can tell us how things work, but not why.
There is no "why", though religion would like to pretend otherwise.

This is the truth right here!

I would rather live my life believing in God and die to find out he isn't real, than to live my life not believing in God and die to find out he is real...think about that...What is there to think about? Yet another example of someone using their lack of omniscience to believe flim-flam out of fear and hope?

There is no "why", though religion would like to pretend otherwise.

Stating that there is no 'why' is still a perfectly acceptable answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing, however science is as ill-equipped to provide a definite response here as religion is.

So, some of this evidence in favour of the atheists is science (which cannot be proved), and yet you dare advance it as part of your argument, yes? Shameless.Absolutely yes. I don't even see what point you are making.

Stating that there is no 'why' is still a perfectly acceptable answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing, however science is as ill-equipped to provide a definite response here as religion is.

But, if the concept of why didn't exist, wouldn't it be possible that we wouldn't be able to even ask the question in the first place?

Absolutely yes. I don't even see what point you are making.

That you are saying 'don't believe in unproven and unprovable religion, instead believe in unproven and unprovable science' and yet are also claiming to be more reasonable whilst doing so.

Absolutely yes. I don't even see what point you are making.

You are using science as proof of the nonexistence of God, but science can not be totally proven beyond a doubt. Thus, you are taking it on faith that it is both totally true and capable of disproving God. And faith is the underlying principle behind religious belief, making your atheism equivocable to religion.

But, if the concept of why didn't exist, wouldn't it be possible that we wouldn't be able to even ask the question in the first place?

One of two responses here depending on how you intended that question:

EITHER:

The concept of 'why' does exist, that is a historical given, and on this basis we must at least frame the question, even if we do not seriously ask it.

OR:

Are you denying the existence of causality (fair enough if you're a Humean, but always best to check theses things)?

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).

The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).



Circle it is.A circle and not a ball. Hebrews had a word for "ball" ("Duwr"-- Isa 22:18), but that word was not used. Instead, it is a two-dimensional circle.

Southern whites in America used the bible version of god to enslave a race of people for almost 200 years. They justified it using the bible and its teachings. So even if god did exist I would be on his side, especially if I were white, b/c if I were black I would meet the bad end of god's stick.

You are using science as proof of the nonexistence of God, but science can not be totally proven beyond a doubt. Thus, you are taking it on faith that it is both totally true and capable of disproving God. And faith is the underlying principle behind religious belief, making your atheism equivocable to religion.If I ever said that I am trying to prove the nonexistence of God, it was a mistake. Instead, what I am doing is presenting conclusive evidence. Not proof. Conclusive evidence. This is a distinction that is lost on so many people, and I have to repeat it like a broken record.

If you want to believe in a god than that's your personal choice. But why should you take it upon yourself to try and tell people that there is no god? You cannot prove or disprove this fact.

As far as the rest of the things you listed. There are things out there that have no logical reason or explanation. I think the item of ghosts is one of them. That is such a wide spread subject that science has no answers for. So they must be fake or people are just imagining things. How do you know for sure? You don't or can't positively say wether they are real or not.

I think people should be free to believe what they want. I for one will not judge you for not believe in God or anything else for that matter.

This post is now dead. Marrakech II has concluded the debate.

One of two responses here depending on how you intended that question:

Are you denying the existence of causality (fair enough if you're a Humean, but always best to check theses things)?

Yes, that would be it.

If I ever said that I am trying to prove the nonexistence of God, it was a mistake. Instead, what I am doing is presenting conclusive evidence. Not proof. Conclusive evidence. This is a distinction that is lost on so many people, and I have to repeat it like a broken record.

And the conclusive evidence is... that there is no conclusive evidence either way, yes?

Yes, that would be it.

Ah, that is a matter for a whole 'nother debate then.

If I ever said that I am trying to prove the nonexistence of God, it was a mistake. Instead, what I am doing is presenting conclusive evidence. Not proof. Conclusive evidence. This is a distinction that is lost on so many people, and I have to repeat it like a broken record.

But conclusive evidence is not definite enough to dismiss God's existence. So, you haven't disproven God and haven't dismissed the possibility of one's existence. You've offered reasons why there isn't one, but these still cannot eliminate the possibility that God exists. So ultimately, you've shown that there is no definite evidence either way.

If you want to believe in a god than that's your personal choice. But why should you take it upon yourself to try and tell people that there is no god? You cannot prove or disprove this fact.

As far as the rest of the things you listed. There are things out there that have no logical reason or explanation. I think the item of ghosts is one of them. That is such a wide spread subject that science has no answers for. So they must be fake or people are just imagining things. How do you know for sure? You don't or can't positively say wether they are real or not.

I think people should be free to believe what they want. I for one will not judge you for not believe in God or anything else for that matter.I have such a passion for the truth that I tell it to people whether or not they want to hear it. It doesn't matter if I can't prove it. Nothing can be proved outside of pure mathematics and logic. But I am giving you very good evidence. I think it is dangerous for people to believe in nonsense. The greatest gift of humanity is the capacity to make reasonable sense of the world, and it is an atrocity that so many have their heads stuck in dreamland.

But conclusive evidence is not definite enough to dismiss God's existence. So, you haven't disproven God and haven't dismissed the possibility of one's existence. You've offered reasons why there isn't one, but these still cannot eliminate the possibility that God exists.So what? What do you think I am trying to do? Do you still think I am trying to disprove God, for God's sake?

But conclusive evidence is not definite enough to dismiss God's existence.

Surely conclusive evidence is sufficient to prove something, otherwise it would by definition be inconclusive evidence, no?

So what? What do you think I am trying to do?

Mangle the English language.

mmmkay. a few thoughts, if you'd like some feedback.

1. read "mere christianity" if you want to hear the most reasonable arguement pro-existance of god.
2. you could do without the derogatory terms, but i can't really say that knowing i write the same way about christians.
3. all in all, i thought it was interesting. well written, i think. i'm not an athiest, but do not belong to any specific religion. at all. ewwwww

anyway, i'm so sick of this topic. why can't people let it go? okay, so you believe in god, or you don't. that's life. who gives a fuck whether someone on a forum wants to preach some bigoted bullshit sermon about how gay people go to hell? i mean, you're not going to convince him otherwise. so, i say everyone on nationstates stops talking about god.

THAT'S RIGHT
I HEREBY DECLARE
THAT THE DISCUSSION/DEBATE OF THE EXISTANCE OF GOD NOW ENDS. NOW. RIGHT NOW.

mmmkay, thanks
-sam

Hah. This discussion is somewhat entertaining.

But isn't it something of a back and forth where neither side(aside from said opening post) is really saying anything besides "NO NO NO NO YOU'RE WRONG YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY RIGHT BECAUSE THEN I'D BE WRONG!"? Why should anyone care if they truly believe god(well satan, big difference) would scorch all of the aetheists in the fourth ring anyways?

I'm only posting because of this:

What has religion done to you? Has God pissed you off? If you dont beleive in God why did you say "Oh God"? None of the people here are forcing anything down your throat, dont preach your bullshit when you have no proof. Logic, reason and all that provide theories. And people choose to follow a religion, sure religion has started wars, but it gives people something to beleive in. Do you beleive in anything? Woops...guess not...your athiest.

People say "oh god" "god damnit" "jesus christ" when upset, angry, whatever because it's a colloquial term, and it has the combination of hard and soft sylables that make them pleasing to say when trying to offend, additionally because there is a belief in the terms being used as curses or swears. It's the same reason it's more fun to say 'fuck' than 'freak'.

The idea that a lack of belief in god means there's no belief in anything else is ridiculous. If you don't believe life goes on longer than this, wouldn't you want this life to be as meaningful as it could be? Additionally the cult of religion and fear of death that plagues humanity can be seen in alt. movements that don't believe in god whatsoever.

A good deal of members of the Extropy Movement are trying to put all their money into anything and everything that could allow them to live longer, or a second life. They're afraid of dying, because they think nothing will come. It's the same kind of pacifying affect that religion provides in the belief of a second life. It's one of the main reasons the Romans decided Christianity would be more profitable than the Greek mode of saying "Everyone goes to Hades, it's not very pleasant, give us donations now".

To all the Gods of Death.
-SH.

I have such a passion for the truth that I tell it to people whether or not they want to hear it. It doesn't matter if I can't prove it. Nothing can be proved outside of pure mathematics and logic. But I am giving you very good evidence. I think it is dangerous for people to believe in nonsense. The greatest gift of humanity is the capacity to make reasonable sense of the world, and it is an atrocity that so many have their heads stuck in dreamland.

No, even logic and mathematics aren't totally provable, because they have to be proven within a system which was constructed from concepts that cannot be proven but must be accepted to be true, since the system stems from them rather than vice versa.

And the conclusive evidence is... that there is no conclusive evidence either way, yes?No. The conclusive evidence is that there is no God.

I have such a passion for the truth that I tell it to people whether or not they want to hear it. It doesn't matter if I can't prove it. Nothing can be proved outside of pure mathematics and logic. But I am giving you very good evidence. I think it is dangerous for people to believe in nonsense. The greatest gift of humanity is the capacity to make reasonable sense of the world, and it is an atrocity that so many have their heads stuck in dreamland.

Ok, but not everyone thinks the same as this. So why should you be the one to tell them that they are wrong. The post makes sense somewhat on a purely scientific look at it. But science isn't the end all means of proving something right or wrong.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet, you can do without God but not without religion. I think Napoleon had it right, religion is just a social framework, a guide for someone who has no reference points in life. Who cares if he exists or not.

God does not exist

So what? What do you think I am trying to do? Do you still think I am trying to disprove God, for God's sake?

The conclusive evidence is that there is no God.

Present me with this evidence, would you? I have seen a complete absence of it so far in this thread.

No, even logic and mathematics aren't totally provable, because they have to be proven within a system which was constructed from concepts that cannot be proven but must be accepted to be true, since the system stems from them rather than vice versa.Mathematics has assumptions, and given these assumptions, we can make proofs.

2x = 4
x= 4/2
x=2

Here, it is assumed that 2 is a number representing a count of two, 4 is a number representing a count of four, / is a division operation, = is a symbol representing equivalent values, and x is a variable value. Given these assumptions, we have a proof. The assumptions hold true just because we say so. But in the natural world, we don't have assumptions that hold absolutely true. Any observation can be a mistake or an illusion.

Surely conclusive evidence is sufficient to prove something, otherwise it would by definition be inconclusive evidence, no?

Conclusive is a term adequate enough for most everyday things. The determinant of its utility in proof is whether or not the thing in question exists in the physical world. In almost everything, if your evidence works in all cases, you prove it. But not with God, because we can't prove God in all cases.

(Of course, conclusive evidence can be proven wrong in the future; science often destroys years of "conclusive evidence" with each new discovery. But I'm assuming that the conclusive evidence is sound at this point in time)

But at the same time, the concept of God exists outside of the world from which the evidence is drawn, making physical evidence inconclusive and thereby unable to be used as proof because you cannot observe or determine anything about God other than the physical world.

Mathematics has assumptions, and given these assumptions, we can make proofs.

2x = 4
x= 4/2
x=2

Here, it is assumed that 2 is a number representing a count of two, 4 is a number representing a count of four, / is a division operation, = is a symbol representing equivalent values, and x is a variable value. Given these assumptions, we have a proof. The assumptions hold true just because we say so. But in the natural world, we don't have assumptions that hold absolutely true. Any observation can be a mistake or an illusion.

Yes, but if you go back to the concept of multiplication, it is taken as a fundamental axiom, without proof, that multiplying two integers produces a new number. It's also assumed without proof that division produces 2 when 4 is divided by 2. These concepts have to be assumed to be true without proof, or the system wouldn't work.

Ok, but not everyone thinks the same as this. So why should you be the one to tell them that they are wrong. The post makes sense somewhat on a purely scientific look at it. But science isn't the end all means of proving something right or wrong.
Science is demonstratably the best method of finding the truth we have, and the naturalistic philosophy of science is the most reasonable way of making sense of the universe. I am the one to tell people the truth because some people are right and others are wrong, and I am one of those people who are right.

I have such a passion for the truth that I tell it to people whether or not they want to hear it. It doesn't matter if I can't prove it. Nothing can be proved outside of pure mathematics and logic. But I am giving you very good evidence. I think it is dangerous for people to believe in nonsense. The greatest gift of humanity is the capacity to make reasonable sense of the world, and it is an atrocity that so many have their heads stuck in dreamland.

Let me be frank. You're completely wrong. I mean that in the most respectful way possible.

The First Principle of Science states "It is obligatory that science postulate natural law rather than supernatural explanation for any given phenomenon, no matter how tentative these explanations have to be."

Point is, it's senseless to offer any proof, reasonable evidence, etc to disprove God. You can't. Why waste time doing it?

Heads stuck in dreamland? I'm sorry, it is your head that is stuck in this dream land. Human logic is crap. The only wise men are the ones who realize that they know nothing. And trying to disprove a divine being using human logic points more toward humanity's ignorance than it does anything else. Contrary to popular belief, logic is not the save-all solution.

Present me with this evidence, would you? I have seen a complete absence of it so far in this thread.It is in the OP.

Science is demonstratably the best method of finding the truth we have, and the naturalistic philosophy of science is the most reasonable way of making sense of the universe. I am the one to tell people the truth because some people are right and others are wrong, and I am one of those people who are right.

Science is the best way of determining the natural world, but nowhere does science rule out a God. Even if the universe's origins are completely through physical processes, as science is determining, it still doesn't rule out God. Science may rule out an active, creationist God but it doesn't rule out one's existence in general.

Science is the best way of determining the natural world, but nowhere does science rule out a God. Even if the universe's origins are completely through physical processes, as science is determining, it still doesn't rule out God. Science may rule out an active, creationist God but it doesn't rule out one's existence in general.

I don't believe it rules out an active, creationist God either. How can it prove that God was not in control of the natural physical processes.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so
how could I know? Well, pay attention.
God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:
ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits
We don't need magic to make sense of the cosmos. People believe in
magic largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you
probably believe in God because the religion told you so.

"Oh! Oh! But I'm not part of a religion!"
If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral
system associated with this church, listen to some guy yak about the
way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.
People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill
all of your fantasies. We all want:
1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions
And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT
because it is a reasonable thing to believe. Explaining things with God
was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people
explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives.
But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone
so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need
for magic as an explanation. To express this idea, I made a poem:

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived
God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found
God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise
God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold
God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable
God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us
God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior
God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise
Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?
Religious people have told me that they know God exists because there
is no other explanation for the grandeur of the laws of physics and the
apparent design of life. And yet physicists and biologists are
extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in
the existence of God
(source (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)).
Explaining nature with God is called, "the God-of-the-gaps argument,"
because the explanation of God fills in the gaps of the holes in our
knowledge.
Many people believe in God because of some sort of spiritual
experience. In fact, that is a part of many reasons why people believe
in magic. Along with the stories of Christians, I heard a story from a
hippy new-ager who said that he floated out of his body, flew out of
his house, and explored the landscape. I keep hearing those stories,
and they seem to emotional, wishful, delusional, etc. People will
explan their odd experiences with magic because they want it to be
genuine and they don't like to face up to the idea that they are
irrational.
A lot of Christians tell me that they know God exists because the Bible
says so, and the Bible is a trustworthy book. Well, it isn't. Sure, it
has a lot of good history, but it also has bad history, bad science,
bad morals, bad logic, contradictions, and false prophecies. The Bible
is a religious book of religious doctrine, and you can't trust it any
more than any other religious holy book. Do your research
here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Here is an
example:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some
standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27 "Verily I say unto you, All these things
shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36 "Verily I say unto
you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34 "Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64 "Verily I say unto
you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste
of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." --
Mark 9:1 "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass,
till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30 "And ye shall see the Son
of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven." -- Mark 14:62 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall
not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32 "Jesus saith unto
him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" --
John 21:22

It should be obvious after reading all of that that Jesus was just
another doomsday cult leader. It will become even more obvious after
reading about what a Christian leader (in a time long after Jesus) told
his suspicious followers in order to defend this woefully unfulfilled
prophecy. Open your Bible to 2 Peter 3:3-8.
First of all, you must understand that in the last days
scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They
will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers
died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens
existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these
waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the
same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being
kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not
forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not
slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient
with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
repentance.
He had to redefine time itself. Too bad it does nothing to make Jesus'
prophecy any less bunk.
Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone. I don't have any grandiose
promise to make if you dump your religion. I don't have a moral system
that will help you live your life. All I am giving you is the
truth.
So what is your point? are you so small of a person that you have to
belittle others that don't think like you?
are you so self centered that you you think anybody that thinks
different is worth berating?
I fail to see anybodies point in trying to convnce other they are wrong
in matters of faith. It misses the whole point of faith in the first
place. you offered no proof that God does not exist, so unless you can
prove that faith is hopless concept that NEVER works out for those
engaging in it, you have no logical basis to infer that God can not exist, therefore you cannot truthfully make the statement that God does not exist.

I don't believe it rules out an active, creationist God either. How can it prove that God was not in control of the natural physical processes.

I meant more along the lines of a literal, six-day creation, but the concept of a guiding God or the watchmaker of Newton are still plausible since the God in question cannot be ruled out by scientific processes.

I meant more along the lines of a literal, six-day creation, but the concept of a guiding God or the watchmaker of Newton are still plausible since the God in question cannot be ruled out by scientific processes.

Ah. But there are clauses in the bible that hint that the six day creation wasn't literal. "A wink of they eye in God's time can be 10,000 years in man's" or something like that.

One piece of "conclusive evidence" that supports the existance of god is the Bible. Unfortunately, those who do not believe that god exists find this great piece of proof to be made up junk. While at the same time, those same people call written records of distant wars historic fact. I personally think that if we can accept some of those records of distant wars and events then, we should be able to accept this very large collection of papers written about god.

Ah. But there are clauses in the bible that hint that the six day creation wasn't literal. "A wink of they eye in God's time can be 10,000 years in man's" or something like that.

Exactly. That's why using the literal text of the Bible against it doesn't work either, because the text was both written to be understandable to the people of the time and metaphorical for people of later times to interpret to be understandable to their time. If there is a God, he did an excellent job of conveying that idea.

Let me be frank. You're completely wrong. I mean that in the most respectful way possible.

The First Principle of Science states "It is obligatory that science postulate natural law rather than supernatural explanation for any given phenomenon, no matter how tentative these explanations have to be."

Point is, it's senseless to offer any proof, reasonable evidence, etc to disprove God. You can't. Why waste time doing it?That is not the First Principle of Science, true as it may be. There is no "First Principle of Science." We can use science to show that Santa Claus very probably isn't the guy who delivers presents to good little children, though there remains a slim possibility. Is it OK for grown men to believe in Santa Claus? Is it a waste of time to give evidence against Santa in a society that believes in Santa? I don't think so. I value the truth too much.

Heads stuck in dreamland? I'm sorry, it is your head that is stuck in this dream land. Human logic is crap. The only wise men are the ones who realize that they know nothing. And trying to disprove a divine being using human logic points more toward humanity's ignorance than it does anything else. Contrary to popular belief, logic is not the save-all solution.You tell me that human logic is crap right after you tell me that my head is stuck in dream land? I am not trying to disprove anything. How many times do I have to keep saying that?

One piece of "conclusive evidence" that supports the existance of god is the Bible. Unfortunately, those who do not believe that god exists find this great piece of proof to be made up junk. While at the same time, those same people call written records of distant wars historic fact. I personally think that if we can accept some of those records of distant wars and events then, we should be able to accept this very large collection of papers written about god.Did you check out what the Bible says about the second coming of Jesus? It is in the OP.

People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill all of your fantasies. We all want:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation.

That's a pretty bold statement to not be trying to discredit Christianity.

It is in the OP.

The OP contains a lack of evidence for the existence of God. That is not the same thing as 'conclusive evidence for the non-existence of God.'

Be a darling and boil down for me the most important piece of 'conclusive evidence' for the non-existence of God presented in the OP into a single sentence, would you? Perhaps I am just unable to see the wood for the trees here.

Did you check out what the Bible says about the second coming of Jesus? It is in the OP.

But at the same time, there is a huge difference between the New and Old Testaments, and they contradict each other in multiple places. So, you can't really use one to really disprove the other, since they aren't accepted by everyone of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the same way or at all. If anything, the NT is considerably less reliable than the OT.

I am not trying to disprove anything. How many times do I have to keep saying that?

So you are just making unproven statements then?

So what is your point? are you so small of a person that you have to
belittle others that don't think like you?
are you so self centered that you you think anybody that thinks
different is worth berating?
I fail to see anybodies point in trying to convnce other they are wrong
in matters of faith. It misses the whole point of faith in the first
place. you offered no proof that God does not exist, so unless you can
prove that faith is hopless concept that NEVER works out for those
engaging in it, you have no logical basis to infer that God can not exist, therefore you cannot truthfully make the statement that God does not exist.You don't have to think like me. If you don't like the way I give you the truth, then grow a pair of balls. I have no proof that there is no God. Likewise, I have no proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Nobody has proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Is it OK to believe that the Earth is a frisbee? Maybe we should all have faith that the Earth is a frisbee. What I do have is a logical basis for believing that the Earth is a spheroid, just as I have a sound logical basis for believing that there is no God.

It's pretty simple, I'll say.

The christian god, and the word he "gave".

His book says the following:

1. That people lived for 900 years
2. People came back from the dead
3. People walked on water
4. People were made out of dust
5. Women were made out of human ribs
6. Kill your children by stoning them if they rebel against you

Now. Never, ever, ever, ever ever ever, has ANYONE, witnessed and documneted with proof, someone, doing any of the supernatural stuff displayed above, like, living for 900 years, or walking on water.

But, since, 1 book, tells us that it happned, plus, influence of tradition from thousands of years (which has EXTREME POWER), the physchological trick of making people scared, because they won't worship you or go to hell, FOR ETERNITY, many seem to believe in it, AND THROW THEIR LOGIC AND SCIENCE OUT THE WINDOW.

Silly, isn't it?

Atheist or not, the christian religion, does not make any sense. Some don't take the creation act, for example, litteral, like the catholics. But, they take other things such as walking on water, or living to be 900 litteraly. Hmm... Science says that is IMPOSSIBLE, and... A book written by MEN who had NO SCIENCE says it is.... WHO TO ACCEPT AS TRUE? I WONDER?

And to all you 12 year olds, who say "I prefer to live my life and maybe die and it is true, then lose it and go to hell". That is THE TRICK OF THE BIBLE. It has you. By scaring you into "going to hell forever", they make you do whatever they want.

I guarentee you, take a step back, look at the world, and use logic. The bible, metaphorical sometimes, and literal sometimes, IS NONSENSE.

So, does god exist? No.

To all you people saying "stop bitching you cant prove or disprove it", their is no need to. Supernaturalism is a negaitve, their is no need to disprove a negative. It is outside of this. It is like saying "you will never know if you live in a matrix, this could be a dream". Their is no need or law requiring it, it is nonsense, since it isn't sensible.


The christian god, wants you to live by his book with crazy morals like killing your kids, not having sex before marriage, and not eating to "be repentful". Pfft. No need too. Science provides many answers and explains the world. Not all, but it doesn't have too. At least when we don't have answers we don't run around and make fairy tale charecters. :gundge:

Some say, what is the purpose of life? ITS WHAT YOU MAKE IT, THATHS THE PUPROSE. DO SOMETHING WITH IT, INSTEAD OF SINGING "GOD IS GOOD" at CHURCH ON YOUTH FRIDAY NIGHT SERVICE.

For the love of Feynman, STEP BACK, USE LOGIC, AND THINK. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAINS.

Ok. I lol'ed.

:)

Oh, yea, I know this was anti-christian religon. But guess what, I don't give a fuck.

Jesus :sniper:

But at the same time, there is a huge difference between the New and Old Testaments, and they contradict each other in multiple places. So, you can't really use one to really disprove the other, since they aren't accepted by everyone of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the same way or at all. If anything, the NT is considerably less reliable than the OT.

They're not really contradictions as much as they are showing the transition in religion. When Jesus came, he changed religion. He was the Messiah. When he died, things had to be changed, otherwise his sacrifice would have meant nothing.

You don't have to think like me. If you don't like the way I give you the truth, then grow a pair of balls. I have no proof that there is no God. Likewise, I have no proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Nobody has proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Is it OK to believe that the Earth is a frisbee? Maybe we should all have faith that the Earth is a frisbee. What I do have is a logical basis for believing that the Earth is a spheroid, just as I have a sound logical basis for believing that there is no God.

No, you really don't have the same basis. We can observe the Earth in its entirety, and all of its processes related to its shape fit the idea of an oblate spheroid Earth; the Earth is entirely a physical object and so can be determined to be something through the logic and observation of the physical world. God is not physical, so that methodology cannot be applied because you can only derive so much knowledge about the deity through physical evidence, and even that is unreliable at best.

You don't have to think like me. If you don't like the way I give you the truth, then grow a pair of balls. I have no proof that there is no God. Likewise, I have no proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Nobody has proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Is it OK to believe that the Earth is a frisbee? Maybe we should all have faith that the Earth is a frisbee. What I do have is a logical basis for believing that the Earth is a spheroid, just as I have a sound logical basis for believing that there is no God.


Uh, actually we do have well-defined proof that Earth is not a frizbee.

A. It's not made of plastic.
B. It's a Sphere.

When using metaphors in debates, try not using ones that make your side look retarded.

This topic is not really something for debate, is it? Too circular of an argument. It's quite a paradox, you see. The chief argument against God, is that there is no proof of him. The argument against that, is that there is nothing to contradict the existance of God. To scientifically disprove something, you need to have a piece, and if you don't have a piece it must not exist, but it therefore cannot be scientifically disproved... so on and so forth until the Universe implodes.

So you are just making unproven statements then?Yes. But I am giving you very good evidence. If you can't make the distinction, then don't feel too bad. You are like most people. Elevate yourself above the rest by learning the distinction here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm#precise

They're not really contradictions as much as they are showing the transition in religion. When Jesus came, he changed religion. He was the Messiah. When he died, things had to be changed, otherwise his sacrifice would have meant nothing.

But there are people like the Jews who don't accept him as such, so the conflict remains over the two Testaments. And then there are the Muslims, who are another thing entirely when it comes to Jesus and the Bible, which they allude to often in the Qur'an but don't really use. It's an amazingly complex subject.

It's pretty simple, I'll say.

The christian god, and the word he "gave".

His book says the following:

1. That people lived for 900 years
2. People came back from the dead
3. People walked on water
4. People were made out of dust
5. Women were made out of human ribs
6. Kill your children by stoning them if they rebel against you

Now. Never, ever, ever, ever ever ever, has ANYONE, witnessed and documneted with proof, someone, doing any of the supernatural stuff displayed above, like, living for 900 years, or walking on water.

But, since, 1 book, tells us that it happned, plus, influence of tradition from thousands of years (which has EXTREME POWER), the physchological trick of making people scared, because they won't worship you or go to hell, FOR ETERNITY, many seem to believe in it, AND THROW THEIR LOGIC AND SCIENCE OUT THE WINDOW.

Silly, isn't it?

Atheist or not, the christian religion, does not make any sense. Some don't take the creation act, for example, litteral, like the catholics. But, they take other things such as walking on water, or living to be 900 litteraly. Hmm... Science says that is IMPOSSIBLE, and... A book written by MEN who had NO SCIENCE says it is.... WHO TO ACCEPT AS TRUE? I WONDER?

And to all you 12 year olds, who say "I prefer to live my life and maybe die and it is true, then lose it and go to hell". That is THE TRICK OF THE BIBLE. It has you. By scaring you into "going to hell forever", they make you do whatever they want.

I guarentee you, take a step back, look at the world, and use logic. The bible, metaphorical sometimes, and literal sometimes, IS NONSENSE.

So, does god exist? No.

To all you people saying "stop bitching you cant prove or disprove it", their is no need to. Supernaturalism is a negaitve, their is no need to disprove a negative. It is outside of this. It is like saying "you will never know if you live in a matrix, this could be a dream". Their is no need or law requiring it, it is nonsense, since it isn't sensible.


The christian god, wants you to live by his book with crazy morals like killing your kids, not having sex before marriage, and not eating to "be repentful". Pfft. No need too. Science provides many answers and explains the world. Not all, but it doesn't have too. At least when we don't have answers we don't run around and make fairy tale charecters. :gundge:

Some say, what is the purpose of life? ITS WHAT YOU MAKE IT, THATHS THE PUPROSE. DO SOMETHING WITH IT, INSTEAD OF SINGING "GOD IS GOOD" at CHURCH ON YOUTH FRIDAY NIGHT SERVICE.

For the love of Feynman, STEP BACK, USE LOGIC, AND THINK. USE YOUR ******* BRAINS.

Ok. I lol'ed.

:)

Oh, yea, I know this was anti-christian religon. But guess what, I don't give a ****.

Jesus :sniper:

And that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. You should get a medal for that. In nowhere in your post do I see logic. You try to compare apples and oranges.

You draw your information out of context, which proves your post is either too biased to be used as any form of an argument whatsoever, or it proves you know nothing about the bible or the true meaning behind it. This also proves your post is not worthy to be called an argument.

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived

God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found

God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable

God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us

God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior

God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise

Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?

You are William McGonagall, and I claim my five pounds.

Uh, actually we do have well-defined proof that Earth is not a frizbee.

A. It's not made of plastic.
B. It's a Sphere.

When using metaphors in debates, try not using ones that make your side look retarded.Actually, we don't have proof. We cannot say with absolute certainty that our minds are not stuck in laboratory vats where scientists feed us the electronic sensory illusions that tell us the Earth is not a frisbee.

And that was the stupidest thing I've ever read. You should get a medal for that. In nowhere in your post do I see logic. You try to compare apples and oranges.

You draw your information out of context, which proves your post is either too biased to be used as any form of an argument whatsoever, or it proves you know nothing about the bible or the true meaning behind it. This also proves your post is not worthy to be called an argument.


It was not a scientific or absolute arguement, because one does not need to provide one when speakign of the bible. Just by realizing that the bible provides no explanation for the universe, it is contradictory, unhealthy morals, and that it is illogical, one can debunk it. Simple.

:)

You don't have to think like me. If you don't like the way I give you the truth, then grow a pair of balls. I have no proof that there is no God. Likewise, I have no proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Nobody has proof that the Earth isn't a frisbee. Is it OK to believe that the Earth is a frisbee? Maybe we should all have faith that the Earth is a frisbee. What I do have is a logical basis for believing that the Earth is a spheroid, just as I have a sound logical basis for believing that there is no God.

The Earth is definately not a frisbee, and there is a ton of proof that it is not. You can tell by looking at it from space, plotting it with satellites, and even plotting it out while still on the ground. So, it's not ok to believe that the Earth isn't a fisbee because there's a lot of evidence against that. BUT, in the case of God, there is the bible that proves the existance of god and there's no evidence that you have to prove that god doesn't exist ->"I have no proof that there is no God."

The Earth is definately not a frisbee, and there is a ton of proof that it is not. You can tell by looking at it from space, plotting it with satellites, and even plotting it out while still on the ground. So, it's not ok to believe that the Earth isn't a fisbee because there's a lot of evidence against that. BUT, in the case of God, there is the bible that proves the existance of god and there's no evidence that you have to prove that god doesn't exist ->"I have no proof that there is no God."


Sir, please tell me how the bible existing proves that god exists?

You, are an imbecible.

The Earth is definately not a frisbee, and there is a ton of proof that it is not. You can tell by looking at it from space, plotting it with satellites, and even plotting it out while still on the ground. So, it's not ok to believe that the Earth isn't a fisbee because there's a lot of evidence against that. BUT, in the case of God, there is the bible that proves the existance of god and there's no evidence that you have to prove that god doesn't exist ->"I have no proof that there is no God."
Actually, we don't have proof that the Earth is not a frisbee. We cannot say with absolute certainty that our minds are not stuck in laboratory vats where scientists feed us the electronic sensory illusions that tell us the Earth is not a frisbee.

What we do have is pretty good evidence that the Earth is not a frisbee. That is not the same as proof. Likewise, I have pretty good evidence that there is no God. Check the OP about what I said about the authority of the Bible.

Yes. But I am giving you very good evidence. If you can't make the distinction, then don't feel too bad. You are like most people. Elevate yourself above the rest by learning the distinction here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm#precise

Yeah, yeah, I know all about proofs only being attainable within axiomatic systems, thank you very much, I've served my time with Frege and Godel already. However, what you continue to do is to claim that you are providing evidence for the non-existence of God, when all you have been able to do is provide a lack of evidence for God's existence.

Actually, we don't have proof. We cannot say with absolute certainty that our minds are not stuck in laboratory vats where scientists feed us the electronic sensory illusions that tell us the Earth is not a frisbee.

Well, I know my mind is safe from evil scientists but.... i'm not too sure about yours.

It was not a scientific or absolute arguement, because one does not need to provide one when speakign of the bible. Just by realizing that the bible provides no explanation for the universe, it is contradictory, unhealthy morals, and that it is illogical, one can debunk it. Simple.

:)

If only life were that simple, and any of those things could actually be found undisputably.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about proofs only being attainable within axiomatic systems, thank you very much, I've served my time with Frege and Godel already. However, what you continue to do is to claim that you are providing evidence for the non-existence of God, when all you have been able to do is provide a lack of evidence for God's existence.
I haven't said anything about the lack of evidence for God's existence. You should pay attention to the OP.

I haven't said anything about the lack of evidence for God's existence. You should pay attention to the OP.

I have: it contains not a single shred of evidence either for or against the existence of God, just assertions.

O jeez not this again


well it looks like someone is very bitter. i dont know why this website is so very hostile to any religion i mean its notorious for it. look if you dnt belive in god thats fine but try not to bash everyone down

Sir, please tell me how the bible existing proves that god exists?

You, are an imbecible.

Imbecible?... Maybe you should check your intelligence level before you start calling someone else stupid.

The bible is a collection of historic records written by people. The records talk about God. Just like there are collections of historic records written by people that talk about the American Civil War, but you don't hear people arguing over the existance of that war...

Well, I know my mind is safe from evil scientists but.... i'm not too sure about yours.You may know that your brain is safe, but can you prove it for absolutely certain?

Imbecible?... Maybe you should check your intelligence level before you start calling someone else stupid.

The bible is a collection of historic records written by people. The records talk about God. Just like there are collections of historic records written by people that talk about the American Civil War, but you don't hear people arguing over the existance of that war...

YOU ARE AN A-LIST MORON. SIMPLE. I'm sorry, I'm not the usual to rant, but MAN.

Yes, for the most part, the bible is historically accuarte. We agree their. But, THAT DOES NOT PROVE GOD EXISTS. It only shows that they were good at keeping records and such. It provides no correlation that shows that god, the supernatural being exists.

I have: it contains not a single shred of evidence either for or against the existence of God, just assertions.Assertions that are reasonable. Do you deny that God is magic? Do you deny that God has the six characteristics of a wishfully-created entity? Do you deny that naturalistic philosophy is an elegant and thorough way of explaining the universe? Do you deny that the false prophecy of Jesus is a reason to distrust the Bible?

O jeez not this again


well it looks like someone is very bitter. i dont know why this website is so very hostile to any religion i mean its notorious for it. look if you dnt belive in god thats fine but try not to bash everyone downI will rewrite it so it isn''t so hostile at a later time.

I have: it contains not a single shred of evidence either for or against the existence of God, just assertions.

Don't we need an actual definition of what god is first, or something? I mean it's pretty hard to provide evidence that disproves something when no-one actually knows what it is they are trying to disprove.

YOU ARE AN A-LIST MORON. SIMPLE. I'm sorry, I'm not the usual to rant, but MAN.

Yes, for the most part, the bible is historically accuarte. We agree their. But, THAT DOES NOT PROVE GOD EXISTS. It only shows that they were good at keeping records and such. It provides no correlation that shows that god, the supernatural being exists.

Your extreme lack of spelling and grammar skills hints at your low intelligence level which is probably the reason why you don't have the ability to draw the connection between the bible and the existence of god.

Your extreme lack of spelling and grammar skills hints at your low intelligence level which is probably the reason why you don't have the ability to draw the connection between the bible and the existence of god.


I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Hmm.. Perhaps I am not an American, and english isn't my first language, or perhaps, I am an American? We may never know. Why don't you ask jesus to tell you?

Perhaps if you weren't to arrogant and copping out by pointing at my grammar, you would realize your stupidity in its clearest form.

Just because a book says that something exists, does not mean it does.

If you can't understand that, you should be in elementary school, if you aren't right now.

Do you guys know how the disciples died? Of the original twelve, only one - John - died of natural causes. The rest were killed for preaching that Jesus was the son of God. If this was not the case, then they all died for a lie. No big deal, right? People die for lies all the time. That may be the case, but how many people do you know of that died for a lie that they knew was a lie?

In the Bible, and other documents the disciples are said to have seen Jesus after he died and was ressurected. If they didn't, why would they continue to preach that he was the son of god and that he was ressurected if that was not the case? The disciples had very little to gain from preaching that Jesus was the son of God if that was not the case, and their preaching led to them all being greatly persecuted, and eventually all but one of them were killed for their beliefs, often by very painful means (Six were crucified, one was stoned, etc.). I'd love to hear an explanation of why men would devote their lives to spreading a lie, with persecution and death as the only rewards.

YOU ARE AN A-LIST MORON. SIMPLE. I'm sorry, I'm not the usual to rant, but MAN.

Yes, for the most part, the bible is historically accurate. We agree there.

If you say that the bible is accurate. Then, that means every time it talks about god it is proving the existence of god.

GOD is in the bible, and you say the bible is accurate. SOOOOOOOO... obviously, you should conclude that god exists.

Do you guys know how the disciples died? Of the original twelve, only one - John - died of natural causes. The rest were killed for preaching that Jesus was the son of God. If this was not the case, then they all died for a lie. No big deal, right? People die for lies all the time. That may be the case, but how many people do you know of that died for a lie that they knew was a lie?

In the Bible, and other documents the disciples are said to have seen Jesus after he died and was ressurected. If they didn't, why would they continue to preach that he was the son of god and that he was ressurected if that was not the case? The disciples had very little to gain from preaching that Jesus was the son of God if that was not the case, and their preaching led to them all being greatly persecuted, and eventually all but one of them were killed for their beliefs, often by very painful means (Six were crucified, one was stoned, etc.). I'd love to hear an explanation of why men would devote their lives to spreading a lie, with persecution and death as the only rewards.


My friend, the human mouth is a very very poweful thing.

The same thing happened with adolf hitler.

He conviced men and women that everyone except the arians or whatever, were evil and garbage. Then he proceeded to kill MILLIONS. Why? How? How can it be? Go get a Ph.D in phsychology.

:)

If you say that the bible is accurate. Then, that means every time it talks about god it is proving the existence of god.

GOD is in the bible, and you say the bible is accurate. SOOOOOOOO... obviously, you should conclude that god exists.

No, you idiot. I said it was accurate in historical keeping way. Its historical reliability, as in it hasn't been changed, or mis translated, not accurate as in descriptions of supernatural events.

I am almost wordless at your stupidity.

My friend, the human mouth is a very very poweful thing.

The same thing happened with adolf hitler.

He conviced men and women that everyone except the arians or whatever, were evil and garbage. Then he proceeded to kill MILLIONS. Why? How? How can it be? Go get a Ph.D in phsychology.

:)

You didn't pose an effective counter argument, you just compared my example to something totally unrelated. If Jesus was not ressurected, the disciples would have known that he was not ressurected. If that was the case, why would they tell everyone he was ressurected, knowing that it was a lie, when all they had to gain was persecution and death? Answer me that.

Could everyone keep it civil please? There is no point to calling people idiots, it hurts your argument.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:

[Insert long-winded post here]


Yet you offer no real proof about the non-existence of God or the existence of magic. See, I'm a pretty open-minded person, but when somebody, like you, makes a grand claim like this, I'm going to demand hard proof. So where is your proof and why haven't you published to a scientific journal?

You didn't pose an effective counter argument, you just compared my example to something totally unrelated. If Jesus was not ressurected, the disciples would have known that he was not ressurected. If that was the case, why would they tell everyone he was ressurected, knowing that it was a lie, when all they had to gain was persecution and death? Answer me that.

I wont answer that question, because your question is worthless.

It's like saying "Well, since they had no reason I can think of, it most be true"!.

You can say that about fundy islamists too. "well, since they are willing to blow them selves up, their religion must be true!". Wrong.

THAT IS A FUCKING LOGICAL FALLACY.

Yet you offer no real proof about the non-existence of God or the existence of magic. See, I'm a pretty open-minded person, but when somebody, like you, makes a grand claim like this, I'm going to demand hard proof. So where is your proof and why haven't you published to a scientific journal?


he doesnt have too. Since god never proved he existed in the first place, he can't disprove a negative.

No need to try and disprove something that has never been proved.

LOL.

Get it straight.

No, you idiot. I said it was accurate in historical keeping way. Its historical reliability, as in it hasn't been changed, or mis translated, not accurate as in descriptions of supernatural events.

I am almost wordless at your stupidity.

So... you changed your mind... Remember, you said you agreed with ME on the bible being historically accurate. WHICH MEANS, that you were not able to understand what I meant before. I meant, and still do, that the bible is historically accurate. Maybe you should look up the meaning of those words... That phrase doesn't mean that it hasn't been changed. It means that the events in the book are accurate, THEY HAPPENED!. So, stop trying to be wordless at my stupidity and remember that you were agreeing with MY words and MY meanings.

God is dead.

Now I ask this.... For you blind religous people out there, show me solid evidence that a god exist. Disprove all the evidence going against the existence of a god, give it your best shot.

I wont answer that question, because your question is worthless.

It's like saying "Well, since they had no reason I can think of, it most be true"!.

You can say that about fundy islamists too. "well, since they are willing to blow them selves up, their religion must be true!". Wrong.

THAT IS A FUCKING LOGICAL FALLACY.


You aren't listening to me. If the suicide bombers are dieing for a lie, thats one thing, but I'm talking about something totally different. If Jesus was not ressurected, than the disciples would have known that he was NOT the son of God as he declared. That means that they would have not only died for a lie, but they would have known that it was a lie that they were dieing for! That is entirely different then just dieing for a cause, or even dieing for a cause you believe to be true, but is actually false.

As I said before, if you can come up with an explanation for that behavior I would love to hear it.

God is dead.

Now I ask this.... For you blind religous people out there, show me solid evidence that a god exist. Disprove all the evidence going against the existence of a god, give it your best shot.


Look at my post above.

Um... dying is not spelling dieing... just wanted you to know that... because the supposedly non-english speaking person might develop a bad habbit from some people's misspelled words...

Um... dying is not spelling dieing... just wanted you to know that... because the supposedly non-english speaking person might develop a bad habbit from some people's misspelled words...

Oh, thank you for making me aware of my error. I appreciate it.

Oh, thank you for making me aware of my error. I appreciate it.

No problem. Anything for somebody who actually knows what's going on...

Come on Fordechiva... say some more stupid stuff... what's taking so long!!!?? OHHHH... i bet you have to put everything through an online translator before you can read it... that's probably it...

OFFLINE!!!!!!! Well, you can run away then... because you lost...

Haha, looks like religion won! :p

Yes, for the most part, the bible is historically accuarte.

That is categorically untrue. Archaeological evidence shows the bible to be woefully inaccurate in many respects. For example, there is absolutely no evidence supporting a Hebrew migration into Canaan. Jericho was uninhabited for centuries before the Hewbrews supposedly conquered it acccording to the bible (and it had no walls by this time to be brought down by the biblical Hebrew trumpets). Furthermore, the Hebrews did not have a monothestic religion at this time and there is clear evidence of a popular fertility cult in the countryside, the worship of yahweh developed out of a specifically royal cult.

Basically, I trust the bible for historical accuracy as much as I trust Homer's Illiad about the Trojan war, probably less so.

God's very nature, requires that his/her/its existence be unproveable. Look at it this way, if I could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that God existed, then only a fool would refuse to believe in God and the idea that we had free will and the ability to choose belief or disbelief would be out the window. A major precept, however, in Christianity, Judaism and related religious belief systems is the idea of "free will." In order for us to have "free will" God must, of neccesity, not be conclusively provable by the scientific method. Rather his existence must be taken on faith, likewise his non-existence (i.e. I can't prove he exists, but you can't prove he doesn't - we both rely on a belief system to uphold our personal opinion about God's existence or lack thereof). Please note that proving God exists and proving what religious doctrines would be "right" are two different things, proving he exists does not establish the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any religious system. It merely establishs the existence of a supreme, supernatural being. However, the provable existence of a supreme, supernatural being would all but the destroy the basic concepts inherent in the idea of free will.

Hopefully this makes sense to you guys/gals.

God's very nature, requires that his/her/its existence be unproveable. Look at it this way, if I could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that God existed, then only a fool would refuse to believe in God and the idea that we had free will and the ability to choose belief or disbelief would be out the window. A major precept, however, in Christianity, Judaism and related religious belief systems is the idea of "free will." In order for us to have "free will" God must, of neccesity, not be conclusively provable by the scientific method. Rather his existence must be taken on faith, likewise his non-existence (i.e. I can't prove he exists, but you can't prove he doesn't - we both rely on a belief system to uphold our personal opinion about God's existence or lack thereof). Please note that proving God exists and proving what religious doctrines would be "right" are two different things, proving he exists does not establish the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any religious system. It merely establishs the existence of a supreme, supernatural being. However, the provable existence of a supreme, supernatural being would all but the destroy the basic concepts inherent in the idea of free will.

Hopefully this makes sense to you guys/gals.


Thank you! I wouldn't have thought it would have taken somebody eleven pages to bring up this particular argument, which is one I happen to agree with, from the massive group of amateur debates General comprises. Good show, M.

God's very nature, requires that his/her/its existence be unproveable. Look at it this way, if I could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that God existed, then only a fool would refuse to believe in God and the idea that we had free will and the ability to choose belief or disbelief would be out the window. A major precept, however, in Christianity, Judaism and related religious belief systems is the idea of "free will." In order for us to have "free will" God must, of neccesity, not be conclusively provable by the scientific method. Rather his existence must be taken on faith, likewise his non-existence (i.e. I can't prove he exists, but you can't prove he doesn't - we both rely on a belief system to uphold our personal opinion about God's existence or lack thereof). Please note that proving God exists and proving what religious doctrines would be "right" are two different things, proving he exists does not establish the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any religious system. It merely establishs the existence of a supreme, supernatural being. However, the provable existence of a supreme, supernatural being would all but the destroy the basic concepts inherent in the idea of free will.

Hopefully this makes sense to you guys/gals.

I disagree. Having the knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists would not impinge on anyone's free will. Even if I knew for certain that God was real, I'd still make some decisions that went against God's will.

I disagree. Having the knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists would not impinge on anyone's free will. Even if I knew for certain that God was real, I'd still make some decisions that went against God's will.


shit! i wouldnt. he'll send ya down to the eternal oven if he did exist. there is no real point to these debates. because we cant prove anything. sure science proves ashitload compared to religion...and the bible did float through the darkages and about a hundred or so years of a corrupt pope. but never the less, we wont know until we die...but who are we gonna tell? like seriously. if there is a god we can say shit if were burning in hell or eating cream cheese and making commercials in heaven. and if there is no god, then well..blah. my take is, you can believe if ya wanna, but religion should be a state of mind, not a sword and shield like many are using it for (not only in these forum debated, but around the world) christianity has lost much of its former aspects of virtue and traded it for a quick buck on the tv screen. the "giant glove" that is religion is making a fist at the "non-belivers" around the world, which is something religion goes against. seems alot of the christ punchers (religious ppl) i meet have everything but one factor...tolerance

I disagree. Having the knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists would not impinge on anyone's free will. Even if I knew for certain that God was real, I'd still make some decisions that went against God's will.

No, because then the issue is limited to whether "am I doing God's will or not." You have lost the will to determine whether there is a God who has a will for you. "Free will" implies the choice to decide whether or not there is a God whose will should be obeyed. Limiting choices between "is it God's will or not" mandates a lack of free will to do whatever you see fit without the possibility of eternal consequences.

Do you guys know how the disciples died? Of the original twelve, only one - John - died of natural causes. The rest were killed for preaching that Jesus was the son of God. If this was not the case, then they all died for a lie. No big deal, right? People die for lies all the time. That may be the case, but how many people do you know of that died for a lie that they knew was a lie?

In the Bible, and other documents the disciples are said to have seen Jesus after he died and was ressurected. If they didn't, why would they continue to preach that he was the son of god and that he was ressurected if that was not the case? The disciples had very little to gain from preaching that Jesus was the son of God if that was not the case, and their preaching led to them all being greatly persecuted, and eventually all but one of them were killed for their beliefs, often by very painful means (Six were crucified, one was stoned, etc.). I'd love to hear an explanation of why men would devote their lives to spreading a lie, with persecution and death as the only rewards.
Do you know exactly where you get the knowledge that the disciples were martyred? Hint: It isn't in the Bible. You don't know, do you? Then I'll tell you: Catholic church tradition. You get the knowledge from a series of priests. In other words, it is myth. But supposing that the apostles did die for their preaching their religion, so did Jim Jones and David Koresh.

*Awards 'Star of Dork Medal'*

Do you know exactly where you get the knowledge that the disciples were martyred? Hint: It isn't in the Bible. You don't know, do you? Then I'll tell you: Catholic church tradition. You get the knowledge from a series of priests. In other words, it is myth. But supposing that the apostles did die for their preaching their religion, so did Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Then by that criterion, all biographies are a myth as well. After all, they come from third party sources...

Then by that criterion, all biographies are a myth as well. After all, they come from third party sources...
That is not the same criterion. The ideas about how the apostles died come from hundredth-party sources, priests who are interested in keeping their churches alive.

Here's how I interpret creation.

"God" is a bunch of aliens.

-------
Eons ago when Earth was in its infancy, a group of aliens from a technologically advanced society seeded the planet with bacteria as an experiment. The purpose of this experiment was to study evolution firsthand and possibly learn about their origins. Several million orbital rotations later, dinosaurs were roaming the surface of the planet. The scientists were overjoyed.

This did not sit well with a few powerful but minor religious fundamentalist groups, because the planet presents absolute proof that evolution is true and that a Creator entity did not create them as they are. So they took action. Either utilizing a mass driver or by attaching engines to an asteroid, they "flung" it towards the planet. The scientists are unable to prevent the collision and could only watch it impact, believing all life to be wiped out. Devastated, they return home, where the fundamentalists were quick to pounce on this golden opportunity and have science declared hokey. They suceeded, atheism was nearly wiped out and scienced declared illegal.

Fast forward a few million orbital rotations later, an explorer vessel carrying a few of the aliens stumble upon the planet again and discover civilizations setting foot. Identifying the danger they present, yet unable to wipe out all life on the planet without triggering an investigation, the explorer group decide to plant the idea of a Creator entity in the humans, believing in the long run that when the two races meet, the evidence of another alien, unrelated civilization also made by a Creator entity will be so overwhelming that even the atheists will have to agree. Satisfied, they return home.

The council however, were not. Wanting to be absolutely sure, they sent several more ships to Earth to convince a larger percentage of the existance of a Creator. Unfortunately for them, the ships were not made clear on the Creator that was being implanted. So each group interpreted their own gods on the humans. The council naturally were not pleased. They decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach in the hopes that one will come dominant, and promptly covered up all information pertaining to the blue planet until such time they deem suitable.

Several short thousand years later, the original scientists (or a group of hardcore atheists with access to the original scientists' work) come across the planet. To their amazement, they discovered industrialized civilizations across the planet. Astounded, they begin tests on genetic data to determine if these lifeforms are indeed descended and evolved from the original bacteria culture the planet was seeded with. To do so they had to take several of the lifeforms to perform tests on. Finally satisfied with their results, they leave to present their proof, potentially provoking a civil war.
-------

How's that?

I'd like to close by quoting someone:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Then by that criterion, all biographies are a myth as well. After all, they come from third party sources...


No.

The bible does not come from third party sources.
Its much more like tenth or twelfth party.

See, history, and science (ironically enough) tell us that the earliest dates that the earliest of the biblical texts of the "New Testament" originates anywhere from 80, to 200 years after the death of Christ.

This means, that no firsthand witnesses are actually quoted accurately.
Its far more likely that the accounts within, were handed down from geeneration to generation, person to person, orally, until finally copied into written texts in Hebrew.
These were then translated into Greek, wich are the oldest existing copies of those texts, other than the supposed "Dead Sea Scrolls", IIRC.

So, what you have here, is a collection of stories, passed down and told differently many times, as such fables tend to be, much akin to children playing "telephone", wherein a group of kids shares a message with the next, and so forth, until the last one reveals the message.
The end result is always far different than the original.

To add further irony, some scholars think the very earliest text to be the Gospel of Thomas.
These folks believe that it may have been writen as early as 40 A.D.
Whats interesting about it, is that it contains no mention of Jesus's supposed divinity, any miracle working, and never refers to Jesus as "saviour", and instead, calls him "Teacher".
Its a collection of 114 (I believe) sayings of Jesus, and much more akin to Confucious.
Merely a collection of wisdom.

Its no wonder this text was omitted from the bible.

The only time i saw math used to prove or disprove a divine force was in the Simpsons when Homer was doing his tax reports and he accidentally discovered there was no God. All this math is way over the top for me. I seem to be in the company of those more learned on the theories of the topic, but i can assure you that on the core of the issue, i am well informed. No one can prove or disprove the existance of God, all we can do is beleive...its called faith. Which of course in German means...a whales vagina.
Actually the episode was the one where he had that crayon removed from his sinus cavity, where it had been impeding his brain function for decades, and his normal IQ came into play.
He actually was working on a FLAT TAX proposal, and was apparently successful, where he stumbled across the mathematical proof that there was no god. He placed a bunch of the proofs on people's windshields, including Flanders - who is basically the only kind of Christian that i personally would put myself on the line for - and even Flanders came to the conclusion that it was airtight. Then he proceeded to burn it.

The episode took its conflict resolution turn when Homer called Moe a "pusillanimous pilsner pusher". And then, of course, Moe slammed the crayon back in with a hammer, i think.
Defense! Defense!
Extended lifetime warranty? How can i lose?
One of the best ... episodes ... ever. !

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).

The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).



Circle it is.
X goes in the center square.
BTW, the Living Bible version has a peculiar twist on the Isaiah quote.

This post is now dead. Marrakech II has concluded the debate.
Yes, clearly the past 7 pages have been an extremely unusual statistical anomaly of chain-typos.

If you don't believe in god, don't. If you do, please do so. But stop whining about it to other people and keep it to yourself. I say there is something greater, but what it is I dare not say.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:

ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits

We don't need magic to make sense of the cosmos. People believe in magic largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you probably believe in God because the religion told you so.

"Oh! Oh! But I'm not part of a religion!"

If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral system associated with this church, listen to some guy yak about the way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.

People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill all of your fantasies. We all want:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation. To express this idea, I made a poem:

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived

God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found

God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable

God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us

God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior

God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise

Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?

Religious people have told me that they know God exists because there is no other explanation for the grandeur of the laws of physics and the apparent design of life. And yet physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God (source (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)). Explaining nature with God is called, "the God-of-the-gaps argument," because the explanation of God fills in the gaps of the holes in our knowledge.

Many people believe in God because of some sort of spiritual experience. In fact, that is a part of many reasons why people believe in magic. Along with the stories of Christians, I heard a story from a hippy new-ager who said that he floated out of his body, flew out of his house, and explored the landscape. I keep hearing those stories, and they seem to emotional, wishful, delusional, etc. People will explan their odd experiences with magic because they want it to be genuine and they don't like to face up to the idea that they are irrational.

A lot of Christians tell me that they know God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is a trustworthy book. Well, it isn't. Sure, it has a lot of good history, but it also has bad history, bad science, bad morals, bad logic, contradictions, and false prophecies. The Bible is a religious book of religious doctrine, and you can't trust it any more than any other religious holy book. Do your research here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Here is an example:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

It should be obvious after reading all of that that Jesus was just another doomsday cult leader. It will become even more obvious after reading about what a Christian leader (in a time long after Jesus) told his suspicious followers in order to defend this woefully unfulfilled prophecy. Open your Bible to 2 Peter 3:3-8.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
He had to redefine time itself. Too bad it does nothing to make Jesus' prophecy any less bunk.

Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone. I don't have any grandiose promise to make if you dump your religion. I don't have a moral system that will help you live your life. All I am giving you is the truth.
You've obviously invested some thought in this post ... and clearly from a pragmatic, cynical and reasoning perspective, most of this post seems to fit the bill.
I have to say that i have personally experienced a few things on your list of "magic" that i cannot entirely disprove or argue away with logical consistency and integrity. I admit that i don't have all the facts of the imposing conditions at each instance, but then again, i would challenge any human to abide the same criterion.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

The things you've listed are largely good examples of magical thinking, and I would agree that the conception that the majority of conventionally religious people have of divinity falls under this category. I would point out, however, that it's not the only way of conceiving it. Much like the poorly constructed Pascal's Wager that's been advanced in this thread, it is also possible to conceive of god (note the difference in capitalization) as simply an infinite set, that is neither a personal entity, nor transcendent of the rest of the universe, nor a judge of moral rectitude.

I write this as someone who is a member of the Center for Inquiry, the parent organization of CSICOP, for the latter of which I'm involved in starting a local chapter in my area (we'll be sponsoring a faked UFO photo contest next year and are at work on putting together a Darwin Day event this February).

The things you've listed are largely good examples of magical thinking, and I would agree that the conception that the majority of conventionally religious people have of divinity falls under this category. I would point out, however, that it's not the only way of conceiving it. Much like the poorly constructed Pascal's Wager that's been advanced in this thread, it is also possible to conceive of god (note the difference in capitalization) as simply an infinite set, that is neither a personal entity, nor transcendent of the rest of the universe, nor a judge of moral rectitude.

I write this as someone who is a member of the Center for Inquiry, the parent organization of CSICOP, for the latter of which I'm involved in starting a local chapter in my area (we'll be sponsoring a faked UFO photo contest next year and are at work on putting together a Darwin Day event this February).
Hey McVenezuela, for (if anything pops up in the future), i offer November 30, 1998, from 4:17-4:29 am, in Kenai, Alaska, as a paranormal instance with a few credible witnesses, sighting of UFO and disruption of local power grid.
I personally experienced/witnessed the event. Let me know if you're interested.

Well, *bump*ing to see if McVenezuela responds, and someone might respond to Backwoods' post.

UFOs have nothing to do with the supernatural.

I know there's a God. You know why? Because my parents, the same ones who won't leave my gf and I alone for even 2 minutes, the same ones who banned all displays of affection, the same ones who just threw out my laptop and then made me pay to replace it, just told me that they are going to let me spend the entirety of Christmas holidays at my gf's place.:eek: :D Which means sleeping over. I'm not alowed to sleep on the couch, apparently I need a bed to sleep in. My parents haven't yet realised this, but her parents are planning on letting me sleep in her room.:rolleyes: In her bed.:p With her.:fluffle: This is going to be the best Christmas ever. Only the almighty God of the universe could possibly have done this.:D

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:

ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits

We don't need magic to make sense of the cosmos. People believe in magic largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you probably believe in God because the religion told you so.

"Oh! Oh! But I'm not part of a religion!"

If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral system associated with this church, listen to some guy yak about the way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.

People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill all of your fantasies. We all want:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation. To express this idea, I made a poem:

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived

God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found

God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable

God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us

God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior

God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise

Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?

Religious people have told me that they know God exists because there is no other explanation for the grandeur of the laws of physics and the apparent design of life. And yet physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God (source (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)). Explaining nature with God is called, "the God-of-the-gaps argument," because the explanation of God fills in the gaps of the holes in our knowledge.

Many people believe in God because of some sort of spiritual experience. In fact, that is a part of many reasons why people believe in magic. Along with the stories of Christians, I heard a story from a hippy new-ager who said that he floated out of his body, flew out of his house, and explored the landscape. I keep hearing those stories, and they seem to emotional, wishful, delusional, etc. People will explan their odd experiences with magic because they want it to be genuine and they don't like to face up to the idea that they are irrational.

A lot of Christians tell me that they know God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is a trustworthy book. Well, it isn't. Sure, it has a lot of good history, but it also has bad history, bad science, bad morals, bad logic, contradictions, and false prophecies. The Bible is a religious book of religious doctrine, and you can't trust it any more than any other religious holy book. Do your research here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Here is an example:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

It should be obvious after reading all of that that Jesus was just another doomsday cult leader. It will become even more obvious after reading about what a Christian leader (in a time long after Jesus) told his suspicious followers in order to defend this woefully unfulfilled prophecy. Open your Bible to 2 Peter 3:3-8.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
He had to redefine time itself. Too bad it does nothing to make Jesus' prophecy any less bunk.

Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone. I don't have any grandiose promise to make if you dump your religion. I don't have a moral system that will help you live your life. All I am giving you is the truth.Too bad this argument has absolutely no backing to it. I'm not arguing for either side, but you are just throwing out things which really have no relevance. Do you have any proof for your argument? In fact, you haven't even addressed the majority of the global population who are theists but don't believe in the Judao-Christian God. I have chosen to disregard your argument on the grounds that it has no basis whatsoever other than explaining why it seems beneficial to believe in a Judao-Christian God. Furthermore, your assumption that Christianity=believing in magic is absolutely absurd. If I were you, I would target my atheistic argument in a philosophical manner, such as addressing the issue of the seemingly contradiction of omnipotence or omniscience. First rule of theological philosophy: one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Oh! Oh! But I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Well, pay attention.

God is magic. Here are some other things that are magic:

ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits

We don't need magic to make sense of the cosmos. People believe in magic largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you probably believe in God because the religion told you so.

"Oh! Oh! But I'm not part of a religion!"

If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral system associated with this church, listen to some guy yak about the way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.

People beleve the BS of religions because religion promises to fulfill all of your fantasies. We all want:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people believe what they want to be true. People believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

Explaining things with God was always stupid, but there was a time when reasonable people explained things with a magical God because they had no alternatives. But that time is gone. The naturalistic philosophy of science has gone so far in making sense of the universe that there is no longer any need for magic as an explanation. To express this idea, I made a poem:

Dwindling Deity

God's sky dome holds clouds it's believed
'til climates with mist are conceived

God makes the lightning strike ground
'til electrical currents are found

God's rainbows are magic of skies
'til diffraction of light we surmise

God's Earth is a disk we are told
'til the knowledge of sages unfold

God tells us the Earth is immovable
'til an orbiting Earth becomes provable

God's fallen angels possess us
'til facts of psychology bless us

God made our females inferior
'til humanity makes none superior

God made all life in six days
'til our knowledge was given a raise

Is Yahweh perpetually shrinking
With each step to the next in our thinking?

Religious people have told me that they know God exists because there is no other explanation for the grandeur of the laws of physics and the apparent design of life. And yet physicists and biologists are extremely more likely than the rest of the population to disbelieve in the existence of God (source (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)). Explaining nature with God is called, "the God-of-the-gaps argument," because the explanation of God fills in the gaps of the holes in our knowledge.

Many people believe in God because of some sort of spiritual experience. In fact, that is a part of many reasons why people believe in magic. Along with the stories of Christians, I heard a story from a hippy new-ager who said that he floated out of his body, flew out of his house, and explored the landscape. I keep hearing those stories, and they seem to emotional, wishful, delusional, etc. People will explan their odd experiences with magic because they want it to be genuine and they don't like to face up to the idea that they are irrational.

A lot of Christians tell me that they know God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is a trustworthy book. Well, it isn't. Sure, it has a lot of good history, but it also has bad history, bad science, bad morals, bad logic, contradictions, and false prophecies. The Bible is a religious book of religious doctrine, and you can't trust it any more than any other religious holy book. Do your research here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Here is an example:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew 16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

It should be obvious after reading all of that that Jesus was just another doomsday cult leader. It will become even more obvious after reading about what a Christian leader (in a time long after Jesus) told his suspicious followers in order to defend this woefully unfulfilled prophecy. Open your Bible to 2 Peter 3:3-8.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
He had to redefine time itself. Too bad it does nothing to make Jesus' prophecy any less bunk.

Atheism has almost nothing to offer anyone. I don't have any grandiose promise to make if you dump your religion. I don't have a moral system that will help you live your life. All I am giving you is the truth.


Thank you for your opinion! Now I must get back to reading my Holy Bible, praying and worshiping GOD. Good day!

The bible does not come from third party sources.
Its much more like tenth or twelfth party.

That's an exaggeration. 2nd century A.D. sources and study of the existing manuscripts indicates a gap of no more than a few decades between the ministry of the apostles (eye-witnesses to Jesus's life) and the composition of the various books of the New Testament. Many of the books' original texts were probably penned directly by one of the apostles or dictated through a scribe.

See, history, and science (ironically enough) tell us that the earliest dates that the earliest of the biblical texts of the "New Testament" originates anywhere from 80, to 200 years after the death of Christ.
Those are dates of the existing manuscripts, not of the composition of the original texts.

This means, that no firsthand witnesses are actually quoted accurately.
Its far more likely that the accounts within, were handed down from geeneration to generation, person to person, orally, until finally copied into written texts in Hebrew.
No, evidence suggests the books of the New Testament were written by the apostles or by their followers. General consistency among the books also supports this. What you say may apply to some degree to the books of the Old Testament. BTW, the New Testament books were mostly or all written in Greek originally.

These were then translated into Greek, wich are the oldest existing copies of those texts, other than the supposed "Dead Sea Scrolls", IIRC.
No need to translate most or all of the NT books. The Gospel of Matthew might have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but if so it was the only one. The Dead Sea Scrolls are manuscripts of Old Testament books.

To add further irony, some scholars think the very earliest text to be the Gospel of Thomas.
These folks believe that it may have been writen as early as 40 A.D.

Some scholars. The date of its compostion is quite controversial. The other major camp of scholars dates it between 100 and 200 A.D., after the composition of the four canonical gospels.

Its no wonder this text was omitted from the bible.
It certainly is no wonder when it contains material at variance with the consensus of belief in the Christian community at the time. That is assuming it even existed when the Church fathers were deliberating which of the many books and letters in circulation within the community should be considered authoritative for all. There are several other books and "gospels" besides the Gospel of Thomas that were not included.