NationStates Jolt Archive

Belief is no relational thing, it lacks any relation.

No, it is an internal state which includes a proposition about another state (or even its own state). Thus it is relational.

I'm still not exactly sure what people are trying to achieve by arguing in this thread. Are you trying to assert that the existance of God is impossible?

I haven't seen any inconclusive proof of this yet, as you have not seen any proof that he does exist.

That said, I havent once asserted that it is impossible for him not to exist. I dont have to prove anything. Its a belief. Just as much as you believe that the horse is grey, which is as entirely possible as it is not.

There is, however, a difference between holding anything true and researching or testing its properties and thus gain information about the thing at issue. Knowledge is more than just holding something true.

No, because (with the possible exception of the axiomatically true or the tautologically true) there is no guarantee that your imagined knowledge does in fact express anything which corresponds to the state of the world. There is no absolute certainty - unless you reject scientific method (ie. the procedure of falsifiability).

I cant prove you wrong. Neither can you prove yourself right, so being without a certainty, I guess both arguements are entirely possible. (That the cookie did, and that it didnt).

Okay, I really don't care about the cookie but I'm 110% sure it didn't create the world. Because the cookie was created by humans and therefore humans must have existed before the creation of the world if the cookie created it.

But in a couple of tousand years from now(or less or more, doesn't matter), another religion will dominate the world because religions always change. People thought that rain and thunder was created by gods before but they don't believe that any longer. Christianity will also die and it will be replaced by another religion in the future.

I'd be happy to, without conceding glibness.

To assert Atheism is to assert a level of understanding of the Universe that's far beyond the capacity of any technology or philosophy at our disposal. It's like asserting that we are alone in the Universe. That's a pretty expansive and bold statement. At the very least, the law of averages argues against it.

Certainly, but atheists don't have to deny the possibility of God. To be an atheist all one has to do is lack belief in a deity until fresh evidence is forthcoming.

Most people who are Atheist insist that it's not that they're against the idea of God, they just need proof. I reject that assertion because they hold that burden of proof to a higher standard than anything else. Atheists believed in Black Holes long before their existence was proven. Why? because scientists said they existed.

Apples and oranges my friend. First of all, although I'm certainly no expert, I seem to remember the existence of black holes being supported by some fairly solid mathematics even before they were shown to exist. Secondly, although black holes have some very interesting properties they are still a part of the physical/empirical universe, unlike any hypothetical deity. Finally, the beauty of science is its testability: a statement like "black holes exist" can be tested through various means and rejected if it is found to be lacking. Until we can get a test tube of God or point a telescope at heaven then the comparison between God and stellar phenomena will be rather pointless.

Well most scientists believe in God, too, yet that's not good enough anymore.

Scientists are much less likely to believe in a personal deity than the general population, although I don't see this point as being particularly relevant.

Frankly, applying Occam's Razor to this problem leaves me thinking that a God, who created life from lifeless material is a simpler and easier scenario than those which attempt to go the primordial soup route.

Occam's Razor supports naturalism in this respect. In order to accept theistic creation you must make two following assumptions:

1. A God exists.
2. This God came to exist/exists without the need for outside interference.

Naturalism merely needs one assumption: that life came to exist without the need for outside interference. This is an assumption that is supported by science as the Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated that organic matter can arise from inorganic matter.

(Think entropy.)

Entropy only applies to closed systems; huge amounts of energy arrive on the Earth from the Sun so the second law doesn't really apply.

Therefore, to dismiss God as the simplest answer to the question implies a level of knowledge and understanding that, quite frankly, smacks of arrogance and closed mindedness.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you here. Saying "God diddit" suggests far more questions that it answers, including (but not limited to) "how did this God chap exist without being created if we can't?", "how exactly were we created?" and (to borrow from Douglas Adams ;)) "just who is this God person anyway?". Naturalism offers a far simpler and more satisfying answer to the big questions without the need for so many assumptions.

Knowledge is more than just holding something true.

Ah: the nub. You agree that knowledge is something more than belief, and not something which is fundamentally different. Knowledge necessitates belief.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to link sources but what the heck....

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

and....

http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/

another Biblical Artifact....

http://www.dakotavoice.com/200603/20060312_3.html

God's existance....

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

It doesn't really matter what sources anybody provides. We will continuosly be discredited no matter how much sense it may or may not make. I don't even think that if God would actually talk to you, that you would believe in his existance, that's how close-minded I feel some of you are.

Oh, how nice...accusations of being a Troll since I disagree with your belief of no-God. I keep forgetting how some claim others as being a troll for having their own opinions and beliefs. A troll accusation is such a debate winner..... :rolleyes:

Like I said earlier, I'm not here to prove anything. It's pointless and does not matter what anybody says or proves, God could prove his existance and you would continue to discredit, yes, even God.

No, it is an internal state which includes a proposition about another state (or even its own state). Thus it is relational.It is indeed an internal state, but it requires no inclusion of any propositions about anything. You can always believe in something that you (or someone else) completely made up without ever bothering to reconcile with the outside world.

I'm still not exactly sure what people are trying to achieve by arguing in this thread. Are you trying to assert that the existance of God is impossible?

I think that there's something greater than humans can understand but I don't know what that is so therefore I don't make up with silly illogical theories about it.

Ah: the nub. You agree that knowledge is something more than belief, and not something which is fundamentally different. Knowledge necessitates belief.No it does not. It necessitates experience.

I'd like to add that any sources that anybody may provide will Ultimately will be coming from some sort of Scientific Christian Research/Expedition perspective and as I understand it that some think anytime the word "Christian" is used means to you that is is most likely false and will be discredited.

Of course it does. If people say that I have a moose in my bathtub, and that it is fact, then it is intolerant to any belief that I do not have a moose in my bathtub. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove it? Not really... I can go see for myself, but I can never prove it to you.

Note, that the definition did not say and is hostile to, a minute but important difference.

I considered intolerance to include hostility but this is a purely semantic point so never mind. :)

Also, on your beliefs... I can accept those as your beliefs. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not. Neither of us can prove it, can we? :p

You can't prove that I don't have proof! :D

It is indeed an internal state, but it requires no inclusion of any propositions about anything. You can always believe in something that you (or someone else) completely made up without ever bothering to reconcile with the outside world.

Care to give an example of a belief which makes no proposition?

If I believe that a unicorn lives at the bottom of my garden it includes the propositions 'I own a garden and a unicorn lives therein'. Whether I possess a garden or whether there is a unicorn there, be it alive or dead, it does not change the fact that a proposition is included.

No it does not. It necessitates experience.

So you don't believe that the Earth orbits the Sun?

So you don't believe that the Earth orbits the Sun?No.

There is, however, a difference between holding anything true and researching or testing its properties and thus gain information about the thing at issue. Knowledge is more than just holding something true.

In the example: if you actually tested the horse's color (i.e. the reflected light's properties), you know about it. While if you believe in grey as the horse's color it is of no relevance what the actual color of the horse is, and in fact just holding it true is rather pointless.

Well, this is somewhat leading to the point Im trying to make. It's impossible to 'test' God. That doesnt make it an irrational belief, it just makes it something impossible to define one way or another, so we don't actually know for certainty whether he does exist or not.

Nevertheless, when you say that the belief holds no relevenace over whether its true or not, this is true. But holding it as a belief is not pointless... its simply that, a belief. Until it is proven incorrect, it is exactly that, a belief, as is the non-existance of God also. And humanity has a funny habit of liking to believe in different things, even when we disagree.

Care to give an example of a belief which makes no proposition?

If I believe that a unicorn lives at the bottom of my garden it includes the propositions 'I own a garden and a unicorn lives therein'. Whether I possess a garden or whether there is a unicorn there, be it alive or dead, it does not change the fact that a proposition is included.You could also just believe that a unicorn lives at the bottom of your garden without you having a garden.

You could also just believe that a unicorn lives at the bottom of your garden without you having a garden.

Yes, which is why I included the words 'Whether I possess a garden or..'.

I think that there's something greater than humans can understand but I don't know what that is so therefore I don't make up with silly illogical theories about it.

That makes sense, and these are the sets of beliefs that you have chosen. The idea that they are silly illogical theories is your opinion, however.

I look at the world differently however, and therefore choose to believe in God.

No.

So, do you believe in the principle of falsifiability?

Well, this is somewhat leading to the point Im trying to make. It's impossible to 'test' God. That doesnt make it an irrational belief, it just makes it something impossible to define one way or another, so we don't actually know for certainty whether he does exist or not.

Nevertheless, when you say that the belief holds no relevenace over whether its true or not, this is true. But holding it as a belief is not pointless... its simply that, a belief. Until it is proven incorrect, it is exactly that, a belief, as is the non-existance of God also. And humanity has a funny habit of liking to believe in different things, even when we disagree.Belief is pointless, exactly because it is devoid of any relevance in regard to reality. It's superfluous. It's just a vain attempt to play over a lack of information.

So, do you believe in the principle of falsifiability?No.

No.

Thus you reject all scientific method.

Belief is pointless, exactly because it is devoid of any relevance in regard to reality. It's superfluous. It's just a vain attempt to play over a lack of information.

Regardless of whether you think Belief is pointless or not, you have to at least acknowledge that it's there, whether you agree in its pointlessness or not.

Ie: Athiests believe there is no God. But they do not know, because knowing is derived from testing and proving that their beliefs are fact.

Christians believe that there is a God. But they also do not know, because knowledge is still derived from testing and proving that their beliefs are fact.

Its the same thing. An Athiest and a Christian are almost identical (their beliefs aside), in the fact that they both a belief or if you prefer, a hypothesis, but either have yet to be proven, and so neither have the knowledge or certainty that either are right or wrong.

Now considering that we dont know which is right or wrong, either could be true. Like you said, because you havent seen a proven case for either, you choose not to believe out of your rationality - derived from looking at the propability of both cases. But regardless of what the truth is, you still believe in this until proven otherwise.

I cant prove that there is a God, nor should be expected to also given the nature of the arguement in general - that it cant be proven either way.

Yet I still believe. Which is still just as inconcequencial to the truth.

Suppose that there is a God, that makes me correct, and you wrong. Suppose that there isnt, that makes you correct, and me wrong. Belief is not entirely disconnected from reality. If it was, then belief would equal delusion.

If you believe that, then we are all delusional. Perhaps we dont even exist, then. :p

Thus you reject all scientific method.No.

No.

So how does scientific method work without the principle of falsifiability?

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

Going by just the logical processes alone, you ask for the impossible.

It is not possible to prove a negative, that's Logic 101.

But, that aside, just as it is not possible to PROVE God, it is not possible to DISPROVE Him.

If it were possible to prove God, then some might alter their disbelief in God because of said proof - even if it's only one individual.

Once that alteration has taken place, Free Will has been thwarted. Even if it's only one person whose Free Will has been removed because of the proof, that is enough.

So, in this hypothesis, in order that Free Will is maintained, proof of God must be unattainable.

Regardless of whether you think Belief is pointless or not, you have to at least acknowledge that it's there, whether you agree in its pointlessness or not.

Ie: Athiests believe there is no God. But they do not know, because knowing is derived from testing and proving that their beliefs are fact.

Christians believe that there is a God. But they also do not know, because knowledge is still derived from testing and proving that their beliefs are fact.

Its the same thing. An Athiest and a Christian are almost identical (their beliefs aside), in the fact that they both a belief or if you prefer, a hypothesis, but either have yet to be proven, and so neither have the knowledge or certainty that either are right or wrong.

Now considering that we dont know which is right or wrong, either could be true. Like you said, because you havent seen a proven case for either, you choose not to believe out of your rationality - derived from looking at the propability of both cases. But regardless of what the truth is, you still believe in this until proven otherwise.

I cant prove that there is a God, nor should be expected to also given the nature of the arguement in general - that it cant be proven either way.

Yet I still believe. Which is still just as inconcequencial to the truth.

Suppose that there is a God, that makes me correct, and you wrong. Suppose that there isnt, that makes you correct, and me wrong. Belief is not entirely disconnected from reality. If it was, then belief would equal delusion.

If you believe that, then we are all delusional. Perhaps we dont even exist, then. :p:rolleyes:
Is it possible that god/s exists? Yes.
Is it possible that god/s do/es not exists? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating.

So how does scientific method work without the principle of falsifiability?It doesn't.

1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?





1) Jesus did exist, they believe he wasn't the son of god.

2) You can't prove it either way.

3) It counterdicts itself.

Okay, it's ur second point three that is wrong. Where in the Bible does the Bible contradicts itself? It doesn't, unless ur reading a selective and edited version, which, by the way, is against God's law, because he says in the Bible that you are not to change the Bible in any way, save for translating it into different languages so that more people could understand it. Ur wrong.

:rolleyes:
Is it possible that god/s exists? Yes.
Is it possible that god/s do/es not exists? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating.

Thankyou.

This has been my point all along.

It doesn't.

So, are you claiming to know the principle?

If you are, then upon what principle is that based?

Lately I have been looking at a site which asks for the opposite of this thread, but similar arguments may be brough up, have a look:http://townofautumn.com/blog/2006/12/15/10000-reward-for-proof-god-exists/

1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?


God cannot be proven to exist or not exist, therefore god is impossible to objectively analyze.

When one side can just cop out and say "God did it" it's kind of hard to win an argument rationally.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science

So, in this hypothesis, in order that Free Will is maintained, proof of God must be unattainable.

An interesting idea, perhaps this is why God prefers to remain hidden.

Why does it have to be one side with the burden of proof. The way I see it, this issue really constitutes both sides having to assert some form of proof.

God exists. Ok, prove it.
Well, God doesn't exist. Alright then, prove it.

In my humble opinion, I don't believe either side can fully prove their respective claims. God, according to His nature, cannot be proven materialistically because He is not a material being. Likewise, He cannot be disproven by material means. If one is to argue either side of this issue, he or she must do it outside of material evidence.

<snip>

Exactly.

Although there is no definitive proof for either the proving of god, or the disproving allow me this:

Since the majority of people on the planet have religion, all varying but similar, There must be a reason for this belief.

God Does exist:
This mass belief is obvious proof that there is a god. How could so many different societies arrive at belief in higher power independently? There must have been clues to make them believe. Clues that we can no longer see because we have lost connection to the earth, (Ex. Before a big tsunami, natives and animals fled to high ground, civilized society stood and was smitten).

God Doesn't exist:
Of course there is a reason for religion: Society. Let me define society for my uses: Advanced interdependent economy with similar values. I.e. many people working together in harmony.
In order to allow our economies and our cities, and our standard of living we had to become similar. We had to have no conflicting views and a good moral sense. Religion provides the perfect tool for this: It provides a set of morals, and motivation: (Heaven and Hell).
For society to evolve, we HAD to have religion! Just for interests sake, look at small village style natives, and mass economic wonders. The villagers have a simple religion, the mass first world countries have many books on the subject!!!

Ernway food for thought. If you want my personal opinion to detect any bias it is this:
I disbelieve ALL religious beliefs. However I believe it an extremely effective tool to keep a common morality within a country: Religion is fake, but good.

Well, that applies only to gods who hide.
Hahaha :-)

So, are you claiming to know the principle?
If you are, then upon what principle is that based?It seems you are in a pseudo-philosophical spin.

Thankyou.

This has been my point all along.Nevertheless, you choose one way and to believe?

Nevertheless, you choose one way and to believe?

Yeah.

I believe because I have been brought up that God exists, and that he's actually interested in me. I was never really a churchgoer though, until I was twelve and found God for myself. For me, when I was in his presense, the idea that he was real was unmistakenable, although I had never been told what God feels like. And so I started on this life, of following what I believe to be God... and I see the benefits of following God the more I learn about him.

God isnt always rational, but his cause makes sense. The reason I should follow him makes sense. Even if isnt real, I suppose I am glad that I dedicated myself to a higher cause, if not a higher power. Reason: I am able to give in this way, I have a reason to live, I get to see other people grow and become better people (more emotionally stable, the erradication of mental disease if they've got it, people achieving goals, people fufilling their lives, etc etc).

Its probably hard to describe why I choose to follow God, but all I know, is that I choose to believe in him, and to follow him, and these things I am unwilling to give up on.

It seems you are in a pseudo-philosophical spin.

That is what epistemology actually is - philosophy. Now, care to answer to the question without evasion?

That is what epistemology actually is - philosophy. Now, care to answer to the question without evasion?

Lol, I think we've all gathered that he's conceeded defeat, hence why he started responding to things in such a way which was obvious evading the answer you desired, even if they defyed all rationality. There's no real point in pursuing it further. :p

Yeah.

I believe because I have been brought up that God exists, and that he's actually interested in me. I was never really a churchgoer though, until I was twelve and found God for myself. For me, when I was in his presense, the idea that he was real was unmistakenable, although I had never been told what God feels like. And so I started on this life, of following what I believe to be God... and I see the benefits of following God the more I learn about him.

God isnt always rational, but his cause makes sense. The reason I should follow him makes sense. Even if isnt real, I suppose I am glad that I dedicated myself to a higher cause, if not a higher power. Reason: I am able to give in this way, I have a reason to live, I get to see other people grow and become better people (more emotionally stable, the erradication of mental disease if they've got it, people achieving goals, people fufilling their lives, etc etc).

Its probably hard to describe why I choose to follow God, but all I know, is that I choose to believe in him, and to follow him, and these things I am unwilling to give up on.So although you claim that what I expressed was your point, you choose to not follow it? And you even claim to actually be able to learn, to really gain substantial information about god? You should be made pope immediately :rolleyes:

So although you claim that what I expressed was your point, you choose to not follow it? And you even claim to actually be able to learn, to really gain substantial information about god? You should be made pope immediately :rolleyes:

Of course I follow it. I recognize other beliefs, and I recognize that they could be true. I guess my views could seem to be Agnostic in nature, in the sense that I agree there is no certainty.

But I still have my beliefs, and of course anyone can learn about any particular subject. If you studied the Bible and took it as truth, you would be learning also, so your point is kind of... moot, if thats the word.

As for your mockery that I should be made the Pope, it is not appreciated.

That is what epistemology actually is - philosophy.But the world is not philosophy.
Now, care to answer to the question without evasion?I already answered your question. I don't believe that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Of course I follow it. I recognize other beliefs, and I recognize that they could be true. I guess my views could seem to be Agnostic in nature, in the sense that I agree there is no certainty.How could you claim to recognize other beliefs if you adhere to teachings that explicitly exclude other possibilities?

But I still have my beliefs, and of course anyone can learn about any particular subject. If you studied the Bible and took it as truth, you would be learning also, so your point is kind of... moot, if thats the word.Since when does the bible have anything to do with any god? It's just a book. But if you indeed take its content as truth you automatically dismiss other possibilities, since the idea expressed therein is exclusive.

As for your mockery that I should be made the Pope, it is not appreciated.Well, you claim to be able to actually learn about god, which would require his factual existence that can be proven. So you in fact managed to erase one of the possibilities I pointed out. That's worth a papacy at the least...

I already answered your question. I don't believe that the Earth orbits the Sun.

I was referring to the one about your apparent claims to knowledge about the principle of falsifiability.

*sighs*

Like I've said multiple times, Im not getting into a religious debate. Nor am I going to discuss my personal faith with someone who doesnt really seek to gain personal understanding - but simply to try shooting holes in it.

If you want to argue, take it elsewhere.

I was referring to the one about your apparent claims to knowledge about the principle of falsifiability.I know what falsifiability means, but I am not aware of any specific "principle" surrounding that.

*sighs*

Like I've said multiple times, Im not getting into a religious debate. Nor am I going to discuss my personal faith with someone who doesnt really seek to gain personal understanding - but simply to try shooting holes in it.

If you want to argue, take it elsewhere.Then don't start talking about your beliefs, while claiming to keep all options, which obviously you don't.

The reason I don't believe is because when people don't understand something, they attribute it to higher powers.

In Jesus' time, earthquakes were attributed to God. In the Middle Ages epidemics and thunderstorms were attributed to God. Now we're in the twenty-first century and science can answer all of these things, though there are still some unanswered questions.

I believe that God was created by ancient peoples to help them understand why things happened, but then God was used to control people by the less ancient megalomaniacal despots.

Now there are many, many religions, with many, many sects in each, all of which claim to be right. They can't all be right, now can they?

And there is no proof either way that there is a God, but I choose not to believe.

I know what falsifiability means, but I am not aware of any specific "principle" surrounding that.

That science ought only be interested in testing hypotheses which are falsifiable.

That science ought only be interested in testing hypotheses which are falsifiable.I agree to that position. And?

Then don't start talking about your beliefs, while claiming to keep all options, which obviously you don't.

You asked about them... one generally assumes that a queston denotes you wanting somewhat of an answer.

I dont keep my options open, because I believe God to exist factually. What I dont claim however, is that I could ever be certain, and since the God I believe in requires faith and not evidence, I hardly see a problem.

The Bible is connected to God, because the Bible is the Word of God, or so my beliefs will say. The Bible is God's "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth", I'm sure that I believe that if my God inspired its writings, then I must also believe that God and the Bible are connected.

I really dont care for how much contradition you believe it has.

Nevertheless, if there's a book about God, inspired by God, who were to take as factually existant; Im sure that reading this book, and learning more about God, then this would be 'learning'.

Note, even by your beliefs of the non-existance of God, this would be learning, since the Bible contains 'information', and information does not always have to be 'fact'. And to greaten your understanding of any information, is learning.

I agree to that position. And?

Two things then:

1.) Yes, but do you believe it or know it?

2.) You must then concede that because science is never able to positively prove anything, but only declare things either disproven or not, all its results are provisional and subject to further revision in the light of new evidence. Thus your infered claim to 'know' that the Earth orbits the Sun deals with an unproven proposition. It therefore falls into exactly the same category of mental states that you ascribe to mere beliefs.

Two things then:

1.) Yes, but do you believe it or know it?

2.) You must then concede that because science is never able to positively prove anything, but only declare things either disproven or not, all its results are provisional and subject to further revision in the light of new evidence. Thus your infered claim to 'know' that the Earth orbits the Sun deals with an unproven proposition. It therefore falls into exactly the same category of mental states that you ascribe to mere beliefs.1.) neither. I agree to it. There is nothing knowable or believable to it.
2.) Why would science never be able to positively prove anything? And you think that the Earth orbiting the Sun is an unproven proposition?

1.) neither. I agree to it. There is nothing knowable or believable to it.
2.) Why would science never be able to positively prove anything? And you think that the Earth orbiting the Sun is an unproven proposition?

1.) So you neither know nor believe that science ought only be interested in testing hypotheses which are falsifiable, yes? What is the status of 'agreeing with' if it is neither knowing or believing?

2.) Why? Because that is how science works: it takes a hypotheses and constructs experiments which could disprove it. It has nothing to do with proving anything. If a hypotheses remains unfalsified after many experiments it is still not proven. At best we can say that it possesses supporting evidence, but there is always the possibility that a future experiment or piece of data will disprove it. Science is asymptotic.

The reason I don't believe is because when people don't understand something, they attribute it to higher powers.

In Jesus' time, earthquakes were attributed to God. In the Middle Ages epidemics and thunderstorms were attributed to God. Now we're in the twenty-first century and science can answer all of these things, though there are still some unanswered questions.

I believe that God was created by ancient peoples to help them understand why things happened, but then God was used to control people by the less ancient megalomaniacal despots.

Now there are many, many religions, with many, many sects in each, all of which claim to be right. They can't all be right, now can they?

And there is no proof either way that there is a God, but I choose not to believe.

And that *is* good reason to not believe, and good reason to misunderstand.

That would suggest that there is more to religion than meets the eye.

I think this thread is proof that god doesn't exist. I mean what kind of god would have allowed it to go beyond 3 pages? Seriously?

Trilby63;12134108']I think this thread is proof that god doesn't exist. I mean what kind of god would have allowed it to go beyond 3 pages? Seriously?

LOL

1.) neither. I agree to it. There is nothing knowable or believable to it.
2.) Why would science never be able to positively prove anything? And you think that the Earth orbiting the Sun is an unproven proposition? Now you're being irrational.

1.) So you neither know nor believe that science ought only be interested in testing hypotheses which are falsifiable, yes? What is the status of 'agreeing with' if it is neither knowing or believing?

2.) Why? Because that is how science works: it takes a hypotheses and constructs experiments which could disprove it. It has nothing to do with proving anything. If a hypotheses remains unfalsified after many experiments it is still not proven. At best we can say that it possesses supporting evidence, but there is always the possibility that a future experiment or piece of data will disprove it. Science is asymptotic.And one day it will come out that the sun orbits the earth?

And one day it will come out that the sun orbits the earth?

I'm pretty sure bothe the Earth and the sun orbit a common centre of gravity. This centre of gravity just happens to be inside the sun due to it's enormous mass compared to Earth.

Trilby63;12134132']I'm pretty sure bothe the Earth and the sun orbit a common centre of gravity. This centre of gravity just happens to be inside the sun due to it's enormous mass compared to Earth.

So the sun "orbits" a centre inside itself?

So the sun "orbits" a centre inside itself?

Something like that, yes. The planets have an effect on the Sun, making it move around slightly. Nothing out there in space is perfectly motionless.

Something like that, yes. The planets have an effect on the Sun, making it move around slightly. Nothing out there in space is perfectly motionless.

So what is this thing that is exerting gravity on both the sun and itself?

Trilby63;12134132']I'm pretty sure bothe the Earth and the sun orbit a common centre of gravity. This centre of gravity just happens to be inside the sun due to it's enormous mass compared to Earth.I know. But the issue here is whether or not one day the heliocentric set-up of the solar system could be disproved, such as to show a rather geocentric set-up as assumed by some folks in earlier times. Is it possible that our perception of the motion of and within the solar system will turn out inaccurate? Well, I figure that we figured out the broad strokes. Or not? Does the movement of stars and planets depend on someone's belief?

So what is this thing that is exerting gravity on both the sun and itself?

Well, it's all the planets in orbit around the sun, their masses tug on the Sun, just as its much, much greater mass tugs on them, see, and they get into this equilibrium ... *looks around* Is there an astrophysicist in the house?

Well, it's all the planets in orbit around the sun, their masses tug on the Sun, just as its much, much greater mass tugs on them, see, and they get into this equilibrium ... *looks around* Is there an astrophysicist in the house?Didn't you learn about Newton in school, and about the gravitational pull between any two masses?

Didn't you learn about Newton in school, and about the gravitational pull between any two masses?

Sure, but I can't explain it well. Humanities major here, and it's been a long time.

Well, it's all the planets in orbit around the sun, their masses tug on the Sun, just as its much, much greater mass tugs on them, see, and they get into this equilibrium ... *looks around* Is there an astrophysicist in the house?

:D

I know. But the issue here is whether or not one day the heliocentric set-up of the solar system could be disproved, such as to show a rather geocentric set-up as assumed by some folks in earlier times. Is it possible that our perception of the motion of and within the solar system will turn out inaccurate? Well, I figure that we figured out the broad strokes. Or not? Does the movement of stars and planets depend on someone's belief?
No; god, man. All it depends upon is a subject.

Just like god.

As far as using beliefs of the church, past or present that have been disproved over time, irrelevant. Those beliefs were their best guesses, just like science today is a collection of our best guesses. Scientests have had their theories, even laws disproved, does this make all of science wrong? No! Little of what we know is for certain, it is all a best guess.

I still don't give a shit.
then get off the thread, post whore! if you dont carem there is NO reason for you to be here.
And one day it will come out that the sun orbits the earth?
according to the Theory of Relativity, both the sun orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun.
And there is no proof either way that there is a God, but I choose not to believe.
exactly what should be going on. not the fact that you dont believe, persay, but the fact that you dont believe based on how "God is proven not to exist."
people can still argue how a religion is true or false, but giving "facts" to "prove" a beilief is just stupid.

it would be contradicting to tell Christians (or any group who trys to spread beliefs) that they need to have more respect and quit "forcing" religion. (while yes, its bad to acctually force religion, religion isnt always being forced.) it is part of the Christian belief to spreadthe gospel around, so to say that they arent allowed to do that is condeming a religion, which is exactly what youre telling them not to do.
its hypocritical to tell someone not to spread a belief, because it is a belief in itself.
on the other hand, shoving it down someones throat or waking them up at 7:00 on a saturday is NOT how to go about spreading religion or beliefs. you can still repect people and opinions while still tryingto get them to bleieve your own.

As far as using beliefs of the church, past or present that have been disproved over time, irrelevant. Those beliefs were their best guesses, just like science today is a collection of our best guesses. Scientests have had their theories, even laws disproved, does this make all of science wrong? No! Little of what we know is for certain, it is all a best guess.
So... there's no real knowledge?

if you dont carem...
Didn't you spell that wrong?

according to the Theory of Relativity, both the sun orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun.
And you see no contradiction in that?

No; god, man. All it depends upon is a subject.

Just like god.Is it possible that god/s exist/s? Yes.
Is it possible that god/s do/es not exist/s? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating.

And you see no contradiction in that?In fact both orbit a common gravitational center (which happens to be inside the Sun). But that's really not the issue here.

Is it possible that god/s exist/s? Yes.
Is it possible that god/s do/es not exist/s? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating.

From our perspective, everything that is exists ("it is" being the very definition of it exists).

As I say: it all depends on a subject.

In fact both orbit a common gravitational center (which happens to be inside the Sun). But that's really not the issue here.

Then how could the body in whose gravitational centre the thing they are "orbiting" be considered to be "in orbit" --that definition relies on a body being outside of the body it is orbiting.

It's actually very much the issue here, you just don't know it here.

From our perspective, everything that is exists ("it is" being the very definition of it exists).

As I say: it all depends on a subject.In what way?

In what way?

Well, if we place "true" existence upon the objective, then we say that we, as subjects, can never know the whole truth. And that, as a scientific proposition, is a good thing.

We say that we, as beings, can only provide testimony.

Well, if we place "true" existence upon the objective, then we say that we, as subjects, can never know the whole truth. And that, as a scientific proposition, is a good thing.

We say that we, as beings, can only provide testimony.?? What?

?? What?

What is "true"? Is "true" something we say?

What is "true"? Is "true" something we say?I never said anything about "true".

I never said anything about "true".

And yet, I did. Go figure. Do you want to discuss it?

So... there's no real knowledge?

No concreat knowledge. Fact and truth change. Assuming that perspective is in effect reality, you change reality by changing perspective. The Nazi's lost WWII, therefore Hitler is synomynous with evil. If they had won, Churchill would be synomynous with evil. In the future if we end up having selective breeding to create a superior race, the perspective will change, and he will be a revisionist hero. Like Louis Riel, or Thomas Scott(If you're an American you probably don't know who they are).

...and Cartman of South Nazareth says "God, I hate you Jesus."

Okay, I really don't care about the cookie but I'm 110% sure it didn't create the world. Because the cookie was created by humans and therefore humans must have existed before the creation of the world if the cookie created it.

Christianity was created by humans. There's as much reason to believe the cookie created the world as there is to believe God created it.

Am I going to hell? Maybe.
But when I get there I'll be so busy saying hello to every 'Christian' I've ever known, I won't even notice the flames.

Okay, it's ur second point three that is wrong. Where in the Bible does the Bible contradicts itself? It doesn't, unless ur reading a selective and edited version, which, by the way, is against God's law, because he says in the Bible that you are not to change the Bible in any way, save for translating it into different languages so that more people could understand it. Ur wrong.

Where different books of the Bible described the same events, they tend to give a different account. This is consistent with the Bible being compiled from a number of people who described what they honestly recalled happening. However, it is not consisitent with the Bible being an infallible work, to be taken literally in every passage.

You say that reading a 'selective and edited version' is against God's law.
How do you know what God's law is? The Bible tells you.
Can you not see the logical flaw in that argument?

Frankly I disbeive in the "Existance" of god. Just like I disbeleive in Santa Claus, we realize it's not the fact of an old fat man giving gifts, but rather the moral of generosity that counts.

God is the same: although I think he not to be real does it matter? It is the morals that come with it: Don't steel, or kill or cheat. Our society needs morals, religion can provide them.

There's as much reason to believe the cookie created the world as there is to believe God created it.

Then the only real answer you can give is that you do not know what created the world. Anything else is a belief.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to link sources but what the heck....

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm


That is lamer than a one-legged millipede. The story is an obvious and very unoriginal hoax. For more info, see the following (Christian) website:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

The same 'scientist' claims to have a sample of Christ's DNA. Does he strike you as remotely credible?


another Biblical Artifact....

http://www.dakotavoice.com/200603/20060312_3.html


Wow! Archaeological evidence that there really was a 1st Century AD! Amazing.


God's existance....

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html


Ah: 'The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning.'
So this website is where you get your daft ideas from. I thought you'd dreamed them up yourself - apparently I was giving you too much credit.

Am I going to hell? Maybe.

If God requires faith, then his Hell does, too. Hell is a place for believers.

And one day it will come out that the sun orbits the earth?

You're avoiding the questions. Again.

The joy of science is that the entiriry of the field is open to revision: there is no dogma which must remain sacred. Everything remains provisional.

i try not to talk about religion, and politics cause no one will ever agree. unless your a God fearing Right-Wing Republican. than i think you and i will get along just fine.... hahahahahahaaaaaa. but i kinda contradict myself because you would think that if i am a devout christian that i wouldnt do drugs, or have sex before marrage, and the list could go on, but i do those things. im so fucked up.

If God requires faith, then his Hell does, too. Hell is a place for believers.

non-believers. those who dont belive in the good new of Jesus are going to hell.

Is it possible that god/s exist/s? Yes.
Is it possible that god/s do/es not exist/s? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating.

Just a slight alteration to make it obvious how spurious this argument is:

Is it possible that little green men from Mars exist? Yes.
Is it possible that little green men from Mars do not exist? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculating

If God requires faith, then his Hell does, too. Hell is a place for believers.

I like that.
Luckily, I've already invented my own afterlife - a place outside of space and time where all disputes will be resolved, with no hard feelings. Who's up for it?

non-believers. those who dont belive in the good new of Jesus are going to hell.

Who are you to say that? Isn't claiming to know the mind of God an act of blasphemy? If not, damnit, why not?

Just a slight alteration to make it obvious how spurious this argument is:

Well, not really. That's too specific to really make sense; the existence of God is more like saying "does life exist anywhere else in the universe". The concept of God is way too broad to really fall in to the same category as specific statements about the nature of observable physical things.

I like that.
Luckily, I've already invented my own afterlife - a place outside of space and time where all disputes will be resolved, with no hard feelings. Who's up for it?

Sorry I will be joining up with rebel spirits to help bust people out of different Heavens and Hells.

I also need recruits.

the deadline for sign ups is: (never)

1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. _________________
6. _________________
7. _________________
8. _________________
9. _________________
10. _________________
11. _________________
12. _________________
13. _________________
14. _________________
15. _________________


15 souls should do right?

Who are you to say that? Isn't claiming to know the mind of God an act of blasphemy? If not, damnit, why not?

just saying whats in the Bible my good man :)

Who are you to say that? Isn't claiming to know the mind of God an act of blasphemy? If not, damnit, why not?

Well, Jesus says it pretty specifcally in the Gospels...the problem is, of course, that we don't really know what is Jesus' teachings and what is the additions of later followers who might have been more politically minded than spiritually minded.

Of course, not everyone within the Abrahamic monotheist faiths accepts that Jesus is the son of God, and the Jews are pretty adamant about that fact even to this day.

Luckily, I've already invented my own afterlife - a place outside of space and time where all disputes will be resolved, with no hard feelings. Who's up for it?

Sign me up.

Actually, my idea is fairly similar, but with the added ability to choose what exactly that existence is and what happens during it. The main things that we get from it are forgiveness and resolution of disputes and problems during life through whatever means necessary.

Occam's razor for me personally.

1. Stuff happened, things exist, as explained by scientific theory and laws to the best of the human ability.

2. A super powered being capable of doing anything exists from scratch, exists by default in the universe. He then creates the universe to fit his specifications. Then he instills the philosophy of "Worship me or I won't let you into my cool house." into one or more prophets and proceeds to vanish leaving no evidence of his existence behind.

Which one is simpler?


I find the idea of a god like the (stereotypical Bible thumping born again*) Christians like to tout laughable. Nothing so powerful can exist from the get-go, evolution not invented just to piss Christians off. And then, either he has a crazy sense of humor and enjoys watching millions of people attempt to believe in something which has no rational evidence, or he is a big whiny attention whore.

Neither is the kind of God that I'd want to worship, even if there were irrevocable proof of his existence. Toying with peoples lives and craving attention are both traits I frown upon in humans; I'm not going to worship a deity that does the same.

Then there is the idea that if there really is a God... Dang was he stupid. Did he really think he could instill so much free will and rebellion in to a critter like man and think that they'd believe in him without any evidence as to his existence? If you want to be worshiped dude, you gotta make your followers a little more gullible. And if you don't really care if you are worshiped, don't sentence them to eternal torture if they don't.


I would like to believe in some sort of higher power, but all the gods I've found worthy of my adoration are in fiction books, and I don't feel like starting a cult around The Crow Chronicles just yet. However, I'm a skeptic, and as much as I'd like to believe in those pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon, I'm won't until there is some hard evidence.


I also tend to operate on the basic idea that nothing exists except that which has evidence leading to its existence. If I did not believe in this, I would be constantly paranoid of being sucked into the black hole that does not exist under my bed. I refuse to believe in anything unless there is sufficient evidence, which varies on the thing. I require less evidence to believe that there is a red Camry somewhere in my town than to believe that there are aliens dancing in circles on Mars. And as there is no evidence that there is a black hole beneath my bed, I sleep soundly, just as I don't worry about going to Hell, because there is no evidence that it exists.


As for your other questions, I don't believe in Jesus except as a sort of symbolic figure of being nice to other people. He could have existed, he could have not, and either way, my above logic prevents me from thinking he is the son of God. Could he have had some radical ideas like "Hey, what happens if we stop killing each other and be nice for once?". The Bible? It is full of stupid things (like selling your daughters to slavery, and women should sacrifice doves after each of their periods to atone for their sin of being fricking female). Again, even if there were concrete evidence that the Bible was written as the literal word of God, I sure as heck wouldn't worship or give the time of day to that God. A lot of the more gruesome parts of the Bible seem to directly contradict Jesus's teachings. I.e., don't suffer a witch to live, but don't kill anyone. Those two statements are incompatible, you cannot believe and actively pursuit both goals at the same time. If just those two statements are incompatible, what about everything else? I know some things in the Bible are fine and dandy, but enough of it is ludicrous enough that I have a hard time taking any of it seriously.


I also intended to discuss the nature of religion at its core, and why it is a universal cultural constant, but I think I've talked enough.


*I say Christians a lot, but I'm usually talking about these fine fellows. My local UU church is very nice, as are most Christians in this world, at least those that don't believe in the literal Bible and/or push their religion down other's throats, but the squeaky wheel is what gets attention, be it grease or the hatred of a portion of the human race.

Sorry I will be joining up with rebel spirits to help bust people out of different Heavens and Hells.

I also need recruits.

the deadline for sign ups is: (never)

1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. _________________
6. _________________
7. _________________
8. _________________
9. _________________
10. _________________
11. _________________
12. _________________
13. _________________
14. _________________
15. _________________


15 souls should do right?

I'm, at this time, professing a keen interest, but as yet no commitments.
:)

Just a slight alteration to make it obvious how spurious this argument is:

Is it possible that little green men from Mars exist? Yes.
Is it possible that little green men from Mars do not exist? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculatingThough, like deities, science says it's highly unlikely.

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

'God' is 'impossible'. That's the whole point. If he was 'possible', he'd just be called Keith, or something.

If you want to claim with authority that it is 'factual' that 'god' exists, be prepared to be asked for evidence.

Does the Athiest have evidence of 'no god'? Of course not - how do you prove a negative?

But - far more importnantly... does the Atheist NEED evidence of 'no god'?

No - because the platform of the Atheist is a 'lack of belief'. Skepticism requires no proof, because it makes no claims, except that - perhaps - the world is how we see it.

If you want to claim with authority that it is 'factual' that 'god' exists, be prepared to be asked for evidence.

Well, Im not sure how much you've read this thread, but you might find that I never have tried to claim this. Your point is moot.

Just a slight alteration to make it obvious how spurious this argument is:

Is it possible that little green men from Mars exist? Yes.
Is it possible that little green men from Mars do not exist? Yes.
As long as neither way is proven, there is no point in going one way or the other (i.e. believing). The most intelligent way is to keep both possibilities as options and refrain from speculatingHow is that spurious? If you do not have information on an issue, don't say anything about it except that you do not have information. "I don't know" is a valid reply to almost every question. However, you can assign probabilities to the options according to what you have already surveyed or what others have surveyed (in an objective manner). Well, in the case of the Jewish/Christian god no-one has ever surveyed anything, so it is in fact wise to stfu.
So far the existence of this particular god has been neither proven nor disproven, because there is simply no evidence (yet?) for or against it. Nevertheless, if this god exists there should be evidence for his interaction with this planet and with humans. But all we have is a holy book written by a bunch of highly sinister folks who almost all wrote their texts based on hearsay. If this god exists it is in no way certain that he exists in the way the biblical stories suggest, after all these contradict many much older traditions about this god.

I didn't read the thread cause it's long as hell, but I will. Right now I'm just gonna post my initial opinion about this even though I think it's been said by a bunch of other people already.

I glanced at one post where someone made an analogy of belief in god to the belief (or disbelief) in martians... point being, that we don't know with certainty, and it would be presumptious to establish a whole system of belief in either one. I agree with what he said, that atheism is really just a "lack of belief" in god and all that. It's a position of skepticism, cause really, in this world every philosophical thought leads to confusion and uncertainty.

I think uncertainty is the basis of our existence here, and science can always make claims and work to discover the essence of things, but we can always wonder if there's something deeper, or some higher reality. But at least with empiricism we try and discover with what we have, instead of making claims based on books people have written. I think we have to work for the answers, while writing everything off in favor of god or the holy book is the product of a lazy mind.

Along with that, I've always thought that belief in god is kind of like a search for a heavenly father figure, cause it's scary to think we're here, out of the blue, stuck in some part of the universe where we're born and we die just like that. So for centuries people have been elaborating this system of belief into something that sounds much more credible and scientific, even though it's still fundamentally the same as some cave men thinking there must be a god who threw down those lightning bolts. In a way we've personified the universe into something that parallels human life. And then there's the whole institution of people who've taken advantage of our belief in god to control us.

I say I'm an atheist because I reject the notion of god. I don't say I know there is no god; I don't. But I'm an atheist in terms of anything that comes along without some credible evidence. It's basically a perspective, a viewpoint on things. It would be gullible for me to believe in god just as would be to believe in any idea someone comes up with for that explains the existence of the world. I think skepticism is the only intelligent perspective on things. What I'm saying also goes for all short and easy systems of belief that pretend to explain the world or people. Lots of philosophers have come up with five-point plans to explain the world and sometimes they're just as unfounded and up in the clouds as god... though at least they lean towards science.

'God' is 'impossible'. That's the whole point. If he was 'possible', he'd just be called Keith, or something.


Heh I think you have fallen right into the OP's trap there. You state as if from a persion of absolute knowledge that God is impposible, yet if I was to ask you for prove of this you would not be able to provide it, so you state what in fact is a belife of yours.


If you want to claim with authority that it is 'factual' that 'god' exists, be prepared to be asked for evidence.


That is correct? One can only state in an absolute manor what one has absolute proof for? Absolute proof does not exist, only subjetcive evidance does. One belife is as good an another, and anybody can infact state absolutly based soley on subjective evidance, as you have done in your first statement.



Does the Athiest have evidence of 'no god'? Of course not - how do you prove a negative?

But you have stated an absolute beliefe based on what evidance? As to the latter part of your question. What is 2 - -3? Ummm -1?


But - far more importnantly... does the Atheist NEED evidence of 'no god'?

No - because the platform of the Atheist is a 'lack of belief'. Skepticism requires no proof, because it makes no claims, except that - perhaps - the world is how we see it.

Granted, yet to uphold a non belife in something based on a lack of evidance is at least as a deluded though as to uphold a belife based on the same lack of evidance. The proper rational way would be the agnostic route.

Admittedly, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence, however, that we ought to presuppose the existance of the devine, and then disprove it, is wrong. Given the nature of "God", we ought to question more the evidence of its existance, not that which disproves it.

Admittedly, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence, however, that we ought to presuppose the existance of the devine, and then disprove it, is wrong. Given the nature of "God", we ought to question more the evidence of its existance, not that which disproves it.

Hehe I love the way in which we are all sucked into declaring this right or saying that is wrong?

How do you know 'that we ought to presuppose the existance of the devine, and then disprove it, is wrong'? Can you prove this to me, or is it just your personal belife?

I'm gonna go with the other, for a few reasons mainly because it is my belife that this is your belief, and secondly coz it gives me a chance to procliam:

All systems of belife are valid, not all have the same vaule or merit, but all are equaly valid. If it is your belife that there is no God, and it is mine that there is, then how do we sort out which belife is true? We can't so we don't what we can do though is find which has the better vaule, or is of the higher merrit. Heh this though is purley subjective, as vaule must be, so ultimatly we just argue over silly things like children and stick out tounges out to each other and go, 'you're wrong pfft' 'no you are pfft'

As to who is actulay wrong, well shit I don't know but I do know that my faith does good things for my life, and if your faith does the same for you(even if it appears to be the opposite of mine) then I can feel only good cheer for your happiness.

I say

Your mother is a tulip

You do not debate the issue with me because quite frankly
I have offered no kind of evidence or proof that my statement is valid.
You might however call me rude, insane or both.

If I did try to make even the weakest argument to support my case
then you might, I say might argue the point, depending on the strength
of my argument.

IE
your mother is from holland and we all know that the dutch
export tulips therefore your mother is made of tulips.

Would be extremely weak and wouldn't get a response unless you
particularly wanted to have the discussion or perhaps by randomly
labelling mothers of all nations as tulips or sauerkrauts or roast beefs
I have built up a lot of money, power or influence and you find that
objectionable.


My point is simply there is no argument about whether god exists or not
as people tend to offer no compelling arguments that there is one
but as many cults have a lot of money or power atheists sometimes
feel the need to be argumentative in an effort to counter the brainwashing
that has been inflicted on many intellectually challenged people from
a very early age.

While an agnostic position might reasonably be held on
whether their is alien life on other planets the same does not apply to
a discussion on the existence of a god.
Without some kind of evidence proving or even suggesting the possibility
of the existence of any god is offered, the only logical position is to be an atheist.


Once logic is ignored however
your mother being a tulip becomes a question of faith
and as I firmly believe it to be the case
you must respect my views.

Unless you can provide the requisite sampled and peer reviewed
evidence to disprove the tulipness of your mother then there will be
believers and agnostics (that is people who say your mother may or may not be a tulip but would need more evidence to come down firmly on one side or the other.)

Of course if you can prove your mother is not a tulip I will then move the
goalposts following 1 of 2 routes.

1) The scientific equipment and logical reasoning you employ are not
suitable for the task of identifying tulips as their results are at variance with
my beliefs.

2) That tulipness is a metaphor for something both more real and less tangible
than the strict literal definition.

probably making a massive error here, because i haven't reead most of this thread, and i'm chucking in my two pence worth anyway.

IF the existence of a god (either a god specific to a certain religion, or just some sort of supernatural omniscient power) was proven, the element of faith would be removed from religion and belief. It seems to me that faith allows all religions to be neither right or wrong, since it is an act of (blind) faith that makes something a religion as opposed to a fact, BUT without faith religion would lose it's meaning.

So i guess where i'm going with this is regardless of whether or not the existence of god can be proved, religion depends on the fact that it isn't proved (or can't be proved). Basically proof either way strips religion of it's significance and meaning.

I say
While an agnostic position might reasonably be held on
whether their is alien life on other planets the same does not apply to
a discussion on the existence of a god.
Without some kind of evidence proving or even suggesting the possibility
of the existence of any god is offered, the only logical position is to be an atheist.



Once logic is ignored

I just want to touch on these two bits from your post.

I find it astounding how you can say that an agnostic position may be reasonable for one belife without out proof, but not another? Then you further astound me by claiming to be logicaly accurate?

It is further evidance for my position, that my subjectice belife is as valid as yours.

You don't have one you say? Then please show me how it is loicgaly sound to be agnostic in regards to the question of alien life forms, and logicaly sound to be atheistin in regards to the question of the existance of God?

Coz from where I sit it looks nowt more than a belife based on subjective faith.

Once logic is igonred what we get is everyday people who have other interests in life than the big questions, I for one find myself everyso slightly envious of these people, that thay are allowed to just be, without being constantly asked to backup their claims.

I am always hearing things like, Logicly, or the default position, or the burden of proof, or irrational.

But the thing is, the default position, logicaly speaking is not one of modes of critical thought, but pure adulterated subjective thought based not on asolute knowledge or proof, but instead on subjective evidance, or faith.

Agnosticism applies ENTIRELY to the existence of God. The word itself, agnostic, means without knowledge, or unknowable. The basis of the agnostic philosophy is exactly what is being discussed in this thread, i.e. the impossiblity of having certain or absolute knowledge, whilst accepting that this perfect knowledge COULD be possible, but isn't yet.

Thomas Huxley came up with the phrase, and possibly the philosophy, of agnosticism.

Agnosticism applies ENTIRELY to the existence of God. The word itself, agnostic, means without knowledge, or unknowable. The basis of the agnostic philosophy is exactly what is being discussed in this thread, i.e. the impossiblity of having certain or absolute knowledge, whilst accepting that this perfect knowledge COULD be possible, but isn't yet.

Thomas Huxley came up with the phrase, and possibly the philosophy, of agnosticism.


Heheh not unless Thomas Huxley was born several thousand years ago? Agnosticisan has been around for a loooong time.

I just want to touch on these two bits from your post.

I find it astounding how you can say that an agnostic position may be reasonable for one belife without out proof, but not another? Then you further astound me by claiming to be logicaly accurate?


We know life exists on one planet
We know there are billions of other planets.
The reasonable and logical position with regards to life on other planets
is that there could be, not that there definitely is or is not.

We don't know that any gods exist or have ever existed.
We have absolutely no basis to make any claims that any gods exist.
There is no kind of proof in existence that would make you think that maybe just
maybe, no matter how far fetched it may sound that there could
be any god anywhere.
Therefore it would be illogical to take any position other than that of atheism.


Once logic is igonred what we get is everyday people who have other interests in life than the big questions, I for one find myself everyso slightly envious of these people, that thay are allowed to just be, without being constantly asked to backup their claims.

I am always hearing things like, Logicly, or the default position, or the burden of proof, or irrational.


I imagine that people who believe themselves to be napoleon
or that the voices in their heads are real also get sick of
being considered irrational. But then they are sick already.


But the thing is, the default position, logicaly speaking is not one of modes of critical thought, but pure adulterated subjective thought based not on asolute knowledge or proof, but instead on subjective evidance, or faith.

You seem to mean the default position if people don't think something through
is based on subjective evidence or faith.

You are right there.

My aged mother believed that our kettle at one time had a sensor in it
that meant that if there was not enough water in the kettle it would
not try to boil it.
Her subjective proof was that if you filled the kettle up to the maximum
it would then work.
In fact there was a loose wire and if you plugged the kettle in and switched
it on at the same time you closed the circuit but if the plug didn't have
pressure being exerted on it when you turned the kettle on then it just
didn't work.

You can believe whatever works for you but it doesn't mean that people should not either fix or replace the kettle or its lead.
Faulty wiring can cause problems more serious than the kettle not boiling water.

Heheh not unless Thomas Huxley was born several thousand years ago? Agnosticisan has been around for a loooong time.

That's why i said maybe the philosophy. It's nigh on impossible to determine who came up with a set of thoughts and maxims, but i can assure you, Thomas Huxley (who was born nearly 200 years ago) definatly coined the phrase agnostic.

We know life exists on one planet
We know there are billions of other planets.
The reasonable and logical position with regards to life on other planets
is that there could be, not that there definitely is or is not.

We don't know that any gods exist or have ever existed.
We have absolutely no basis to make any claims that any gods exist.
There is no kind of proof in existence that would make you think that maybe just
maybe, no matter how far fetched it may sound that there could
be any god anywhere.
Therefore it would be illogical to take any position other than that of atheism.

Whilst what you say is correct at least on the alien score, the mistake you have made is to equate subjective evidance with no evidance. We have plenty of mytholgy about God and Gos, we have hundereds if not thousands of holy scripure for many hundereds of differant types of belibe in Gods or God. If your stance then is to only count hard objective proof before makingyour mind up, then I would ask how to you get through life?

If I told you that your words are incorrect that in fact I have such subjective proof at my finger tips how would you respond I wounder? You would doubtlessly ask me for such proofs, and yet once I have given themyou would undoubtedly shun them. Fair doos really, it is my position that we all suffer under the illousin on subjective belifes, ifyou doubt this is true in your case, heh then perhaps we could disect things for you?



I imagine that people who believe themselves to be napoleon
or that the voices in their heads are real also get sick of
being considered irrational. But then they are sick already.



Shit and you know you are not sick, that your perception of relaity is the real one how?


You seem to mean the default position if people don't think something through
is based on subjective evidence or faith.

No I mean simply that the default position is not to think things through too much but instead rely that what people have told you is objectivly true.



You are right there.

My aged mother believed that our kettle at one time had a sensor in it
that meant that if there was not enough water in the kettle it would
not try to boil it.
Her subjective proof was that if you filled the kettle up to the maximum
it would then work.
In fact there was a loose wire and if you plugged the kettle in and switched
it on at the same time you closed the circuit but if the plug didn't have
pressure being exerted on it when you turned the kettle on then it just
didn't work.

You can believe whatever works for you but it doesn't mean that people should not either fix or replace the kettle or its lead.
Faulty wiring can cause problems more serious than the kettle not boiling water.

Heh great my whole point is one of the subj3ective nature of what is true and not, or what is right and not. Constantly I see this by the very way in which people comuneicate with each other. We o as a matter of course, as is the onlything we can do, communiocate only in a manor that is relative to us as indivdual, yet when we do this, when we produce our proofs, we call them objective.

Heheh that's rather grand don't you:D think?

The fact that the bible was actually written by men really puts me off. Also that it says shit like the passage where it clearly states that if you dont circumcise your child he'l be sent to hell then it turns around in the psalms and say he's compassionate and all loving. People who love you dont tell you to chop off your dick. Also if he created us in his image why would we need to change ourselves.

The fact that the bible was actually written by men really puts me off. Also that it says shit like the passage where it clearly states that if you dont circumcise your child he'l be sent to hell then it turns around in the psalms and say he's compassionate and all loving. People who love you dont tell you to chop off your dick. Also if he created us in his image why would we need to change ourselves.

TYhat I guess is why a lot of people can't get on with the Christian concept of God, it does not bear well with the concept of an all loving God.

The fact that the bible was actually written by men really puts me off. Also that it says shit like the passage where it clearly states that if you dont circumcise your child he'l be sent to hell then it turns around in the psalms and say he's compassionate and all loving. People who love you dont tell you to chop off your dick. Also if he created us in his image why would we need to change ourselves.

Maybe he has a poor self image
or maybe its like when you have photographs taken of you or hear your own
voice played back to you and don't like what you see or hear because
they don't match to your own perceptions of what you look like or how you sound.

That Abraham is nothing like me at all, if he cut off his foreskin he'd be more
like me.

Or maybe we were too like him.
You know like two women going to the same party in the
SAME outfit.


We can't be identical , cut the tip off your whatdoyoucallit
and it can be two different beach looks.

The fact that the bible was actually written by men really puts me off. Also that it says shit like the passage where it clearly states that if you dont circumcise your child he'l be sent to hell then it turns around in the psalms and say he's compassionate and all loving. People who love you dont tell you to chop off your dick. Also if he created us in his image why would we need to change ourselves.


Aslo why is it whenever the talk comes round to God, is there or isn't there? It's always the God of the bible?

It does seem a great pity to me that many Atheists are so because of the one concept of God, namly the Christian concept. They look at the bible and say shit that makes no sense it must all be false, therefore all religion must be false. hehe very locigal.

Aslo why is it whenever the talk comes round to God, is there or isn't there? It's always the God of the bible?

It does seem a great pity to me that many Atheists are so because of the one concept of God, namly the Christian concept. They look at the bible and say shit that makes no sense it must all be false, therefore all religion must be false. hehe very locigal.

Most of the militant athiests I know were brought up in a very fundamentalist family, which turned them against Christians heavily, and eventually God.

Sign me up.

Actually, my idea is fairly similar, but with the added ability to choose what exactly that existence is and what happens during it. The main things that we get from it are forgiveness and resolution of disputes and problems during life through whatever means necessary.

Yep, forgiveness and resolution are what 'my' afterlife is all about. Should be good. It'll be a damn fine party, as well.

Most of the militant athiests I know were brought up in a very fundamentalist family, which turned them against Christians heavily, and eventually God...the rather strange Jewish/Christian idea of a god.

..the rather strange Jewish/Christian idea of a god.

It usually gives them disdain and hatred of any concept of God.

It usually gives them disdain and hatred of any concept of God.


Which is a shame it's like forgoing the cantaloupe becuse one didn't like honeydew!:eek: That way lays only madeness.

..the rather strange Jewish/Christian idea of a god.

And what is your understanding of the "Jewish/Christian idea of a god"?

And what is your understanding of the "Jewish/Christian idea of a god"?Just read the bible and learn about how the bible was assembled.

Just read the bible and learn about how the bible was assembled.

That doesn't answer the question.

Even within Judaism there isn't full agreement on the nature of God - and Christians have fought continental wars over the differences.

You seem to be lumping them all together, and that smacks of ignorance.

That doesn't answer the question.

Even within Judaism there isn't full agreement on the nature of God - and Christians have fought continental wars over the differences.

You seem to be lumping them all together, and that smacks of ignorance.


Man I love that phrase, '...smacks of ignorance' What the hell does it mean?

just saying whats in the Bible my good man :)

Oh dear. Guess I'd better start living my life according to the Bible. Where can a person get some slaves these days? What's that you say? Slavery is illegal? But why? The Bible says it's perfectly fine...

Damn hippy liberals, taking away our freedom to follow our faith.

That doesn't answer the question.

Even within Judaism there isn't full agreement on the nature of God - and Christians have fought continental wars over the differences.

You seem to be lumping them all together, and that smacks of ignorance.

And yet they are all based on the same god story
funny that ain't it.

Man I love that phrase, '...smacks of ignorance' What the hell does it mean?

It's when you spank a child for knowing more than you.

alt dictionary definition

ie my own personal alternate dictionary

And yet they are all based on the same god story
funny that ain't it.

Of course Christians and Jews worship the same God, who the fuck didn't think that?

And yet they are all based on the same god story
funny that ain't it.

The interpretation of the God story diverges rather rapidly. Isn't that funny?

How about this. Those who think that the bible is real, should obey and follow everything written in it. Those who don't are just hypocrites. If its the word of god, everything in it must be true and upheld, even... no, especially the contradictions.

The interpretation of the God story diverges rather rapidly. Isn't that funny?Not in the fundamental aspects (e.g. monotheism, punishment by god, interaction with certain biblical figures). And really I don't see too much room for interpretation in most of the stories.

Not in the fundamental aspects (e.g. monotheism, punishment by god, interaction with certain biblical figures). And really I don't see too much room for interpretation in most of the stories.

Then you aren't sufficiently educated. That's pretty obvious.

Not in the fundamental aspects (e.g. monotheism, punishment by god, interaction with certain biblical figures). And really I don't see too much room for interpretation in most of the stories.

Really?

Heheh sooo what do you think Jesus meant when he perportedly said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me'

How would you interpret that?

Then you aren't sufficiently educated. That's pretty obvious.I guess, you just never read the bible. And the differences in interpretation are over minor issues really.

I guess, you just never read the bible. And the differences in interpretation are over minor issues really.

Oh, so you believe the wars of the Protestant Reformation were fought over minor issues?

How about this. Those who think that the bible is real, should obey and follow everything written in it. Those who don't are just hypocrites. If its the word of god, everything in it must be true and upheld, even... no, especially the contradictions.

What you call contradiction. I call misunderstanding. And on the subject of following everything the Bible tells you to... you're absolutely right.

Really?

Heheh sooo what do you think Jesus meant when he perportedly said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me'

How would you interpret that?Just as he said it. Yeshua claims to be one and the same with YHVH, and that only adherence to him will "save" them.

Just as he said it. Yeshua claims to be one and the same with YHVH, and that only adherence to him will "save" them.

But it does not say only those who adhere to my teachings will come to the father it says, no one comes to the father except through me.

So what then does it mean? It could mean what you have said, or it could mean that we should emulate Christs life, or it could mean only those who stive for the internal christ(become egoless) reach the father or it could even mean, only those who follow me the man, get to the father, or it could aluued to the Christs second coming.

You said that most of the Bible could only be interpreted 1 one, then you either lie, or can see no further than yopur subjective point of veiw, which one is it going to be? Gosh I hope it's just the latter, because it is far more forgiveable.

I am not claiming anything dipshit. I am just laughing because you won't disprove god..or atleast back up your atheism. Care to prove jesus never lived?



FYI, I am agnostic numbnuts.:D

I'm just browsing, posting the occasional humorous remark, not really contributing much, when I see this post.
Does this chap/chapess/neuter/hermaphrodite have severe emotional problems? Anybody know?

I'm just browsing, posting the occasional humorous remark, not really contributing much, when I see this post.
Does this chap/chapess/neuter/hermaphrodite have severe emotional problems? Anybody know?

Why would that be?

But it does not say only those who adhere to my teachings will come to the father it says, no one comes to the father except through me.

So what then does it mean? It could mean what you have said, or it could mean that we should emulate Christs life, or it could mean only those who stive for the internal christ(become egoless) reach the father or it could even mean, only those who follow me the man, get to the father, or it could aluued to the Christs second coming.

You said that most of the Bible could only be interpreted 1 one, then you either lie, or can see no further than yopur subjective point of veiw, which one is it going to be? Gosh I hope it's just the latter, because it is far more forgiveable.Ever cared to read the text surrounding that quote? It's John 14.

non-believers. those who dont belive in the good new of Jesus are going to hell.
But only if they believe. :)

'God' is 'impossible'. That's the whole point. If he was 'possible', he'd just be called Keith, or something.

Hahaha. :-)

...But all we have is a holy book written by a bunch of highly sinister folks who almost all wrote their texts based on hearsay. If this god exists it is in no way certain that he exists in the way the biblical stories suggest, after all these contradict many much older traditions about this god.

Actually, if god exists it is most likely that he exists exactly in the way the Bible prophets suggest: as spirit. That is the only way god can be objectively invisible (by being a subject that is not an object).

Ever cared to read the text surrounding that quote? It's John 14.

Well tell us what does it say then?

Well tell us what does it say then?It says:
Jesus Comforts His Disciples

1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."

Jesus the Way to the Father

5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
"Come now; let us leave.

I find it astounding how you can say that an agnostic position may be reasonable for one belife without out proof, but not another? Then you further astound me by claiming to be logicaly accurate?

It is further evidance for my position, that my subjectice belife is as valid as yours.

You don't have one you say?
Agnosticism is not having no belief --on the contrary, agnosticism is a firm belief that god is unknown and unknowable. Ironically, the firmest agnostic position is based on the subjective perspective.

Then please show me how it is loicgaly sound to be agnostic in regards to the question of alien life forms, and logicaly sound to be atheistin in regards to the question of the existance of God?
The agnostic atheist has a sound logical position that states that since god is unknown and unknowable there is no practical reason to believe in it.

It says:

and how does that prove your point?

Ah, but Christians are asked to prove their beliefs when they speak of them as undeniable certainty. If they just limited themselves to declare their opinions as simply based on their beliefs there would be no problem whatsoever.

But if they want to pass their beliefs as absolute irrefutable truth, then they'll have to prove that that's what they are. Since the burden of proof is in the one making the affirmation and proving a negative is nearly illogical, that's why they have to prove it.

True but it would be alot easier if people actually said they were there in some writing talking about jesus or Muhamad :headbang:

But it does not say only those who adhere to my teachings will come to the father it says, no one comes to the father except through me.

So what then does it mean?

"Me" is one individual's subjective perspective on the world. That is how one comes to realise god.

Originally Posted by Peepelonia
"But it does not say only those who adhere to my teachings will come to the father it says, no one comes to the father except through me.

So what then does it mean?"


Well in normal usages of English he could have meant
you have to fight Jesus to get to God
the only way to god being through him.

Or he could just have meant you have to keep Jesus sweet
cos he's like some kind of social secretary who can get you
into see God if he chooses to but if you want him to choose to;
you need to be giving him some pretty nice stuff.

I'm not saying this is what was meant just those would seem to be
the most reasonable options given the normal usage of phrases used.

Well, Im not sure how much you've read this thread, but you might find that I never have tried to claim this. Your point is moot.

I didn't say you did. I was using the collective 'you', to include anyone.

Example:If a sign says "You should not walk beyond this line", it isn't directed to on singular, specific person. Believe it or not - the world doesn't revolve around you. (That one is the specific 'you').

I notice you didn't respond to any of the other points I made though...

Heh I think you have fallen right into the OP's trap there. You state as if from a persion of absolute knowledge that God is impposible, yet if I was to ask you for prove of this you would not be able to provide it, so you state what in fact is a belife of yours.


Not at all - the OP misuses the terminology. God is 'impossible', in as much as he exists outside of the mundane sphere. If God is not limited by spatial constraint, energetic constraint, temporal restraint... then, by earthly reckoning, he is indeed 'impossible'.

That is a comment on whether God exists or not - that would be a separate question. It just means that, whether or not God exists, he/she/it does not fit any of our categorisations of 'possibility'.

Is that stated from 'absolute knowledge'? No - it is stated based on the fact that there are things we can call 'possible' - due to their conformation to certain physical constraints, and there are things we call 'impossible', based on their ability to NOT be conformed to constraint.

'God' is not 'possible', because he would be limited if her were.


That is correct? One can only state in an absolute manor what one has absolute proof for? Absolute proof does not exist, only subjetcive evidance does. One belife is as good an another, and anybody can infact state absolutly based soley on subjective evidance, as you have done in your first statement.


Stating an absolute seems like it is always a bad idea. Stating whether or not something fits the definitions of a phrase is less risky.



But you have stated an absolute beliefe based on what evidance? As to the latter part of your question. What is 2 - -3? Ummm -1?


I didn't state an 'absolute belief'. I said that, given what the word 'possible' entails, God cannot be adequately described by that word/phrase.


Granted, yet to uphold a non belife in something based on a lack of evidance is at least as a deluded though as to uphold a belife based on the same lack of evidance. The proper rational way would be the agnostic route.

Nonsense. To not believe something because there is no evidence is entirely logical. I don't believe pixies are about to fly out of my butt, because they never have - there is no evidence, so I lack belief.

The 'proper' way is not agnostic, because agnosticism doesn't ADDRESS the matter of what exists or doesn't exist - only what can be known.

Admittedly, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence, however, that we ought to presuppose the existance of the devine, and then disprove it, is wrong. Given the nature of "God", we ought to question more the evidence of its existance, not that which disproves it.

Absolutely true.

Again - I am not saying God doesn't exist - although I am, personally, very skeptical - just that the assumption shouldn't be made that 'God' must exist unless disproved.

By the same logic, there must be aliens, ghosts, yetis, goblins, and fairies...

Poster A: Prove that <insert religious person/event here> existed.
Poster B: Prove it didn't
*repeat for several hundred pages*
*thread stagnates*
*spammers move in*
*new thread appears*

Now we could all stop this, and become agnostic. But fence-sitting is no fun so this model will be able to describe NSG for years to come. (Until of course the robocalypse occurs)

The spammers will move in way before that[/self-fulfilling prophecy]

Of course Christians and Jews worship the same God, who the fuck didn't think that?

The Jews... they believe that the Christian worship of a second God is a direct conflict with Mosaic commandment.

Christians claim that they worship the same God... Jews think the Christian vision is idolatry and heresy.

Really?

Heheh sooo what do you think Jesus meant when he perportedly said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me'

How would you interpret that?

I'd question your translation, for one. Another way of saying it is 'No one comes to the father except because of me', which might mean that the vicarious substitution on the cross pays the bloodguilt debt for ALL people.

Which is actually irrelevent anyway, because Jesus also clearly states that there is knowledge that his 'Father' has that he doesn't... which means that God might accept even unrepentant sinners, and Jesus just didn't know.

(After all, 'with God, all things are possible'...)

"Me" is one individual's subjective perspective on the world. That is how one comes to realise god.

Very elegant. I like it.

The Jews... they believe that the Christian worship of a second God is a direct conflict with Mosaic commandment.

Christians claim that they worship the same God... Jews think the Christian vision is idolatry and heresy.

They still worship the same god none the less.

They still worship the same god none the less.

No - they don't.

Jews worship the one, true god... and Christians have stolen the story and added another 'god'.

No - they don't.

Jews worship the one, true god... and Christians have stolen the story and added another 'god'.

The jews worship God, and sometimes the holy spirit. The christians worship the trinity, however they are just different variations of the same God.

The jews worship God, and sometimes the holy spirit. The christians worship the trinity, however they are just different variations of the same God.

According to Christians.

According the the Hebrew scripture, Christians are worshipping false idols.

The fact that they profane the name of Yahweh with their idol-worshipping practises makes their crime worse - it does not make the two religions brothers in truth.

It's like saying a Toyota IS a Ford, because the one might be based on the other.

According to Christians.

According the the Hebrew scripture, Christians are worshipping false idols.

The fact that they profane the name of Yahweh with their idol-worshipping practises makes their crime worse - it does not make the two religions brothers in truth.

It's like saying a Toyota IS a Ford, because the one might be based on the other.

Look I am not trying to argue in favour of christians, just because you may disagree with the Christians idea of the trinity, does not mean their God is not the same. It is, with a bit added, that is all. Coming from a jewish family background my self, I know all about the hate and disdain for the Christian god, but if you were to call the trinity blasphemy that would almost suggest that it is a variation of the Jewish god, rather then a different God completely not making it blasphemes.

Look I am not trying to argue in favour of christians, just because you may disagree with the Christians idea of the trinity, does not mean their God is not the same. It is, with a bit added, that is all. Coming from a jewish family background my self, I know all about the hate and disdain for the Christian god, but if you were to call the trinity blasphemy that would almost suggest that it is a variation of the Jewish god, rather then a different God completely not making it blasphemes.

The First Commandment is justification enough for assuming that Christianity is heretical. The simple addition of a new 'god' to the worship of Yahweh is not a mere blasphemy (which would be speaking against the name of God), but a heresy - it changes the established 'truth'.

The Hebrew texts also explicitly state that 'messiah' will make no alterations to the established law - which is patently not the case with this heretical cult, whicfh actually prides itself on how it overturns the doctrine of the Hebrew scripture.

Are you actually me? No - we may resemble one another in some ways (same number of limbs, maybe?) but that does not make us identical or one. The 'gods' of the Greek scripture may resemble the one true god established in the Hebrew text, but that doesn't mean it is the SAME god.

Indeed - if Christians really accepted the truth of the Hebrew texts, they couldn't continue calling their founder 'messiah', and wouldn't break the First Commandment by insisting their founder is 'a god'. The fact that Christianity DOES perpetuate it's claims that 'Jesus' is 'god', is evidence enough that they do not believe their 'god' is the same god of the Hebrew scripture.