Great post Brainy, and good comparisons with Contact (plus the suicide bombing? ugh..)
One thing that did make me seriously laugh out loud on first read of your post was I was certain I read:
Originally posted by Brainy
This is in huge contrast to religon, because all the "facts" are 1000's of years old. God was relieving himself all over the place a couple thousand years ago, yet doesnt see fit to do so now. All the plagues, weather disasters ... are perfectly explainable today.
My first thought was "So THAT's where all our rain has gone in Australia!
Haha priceless
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
Great post Brainy, and good comparisons with Contact (plus the suicide bombing? ugh..)
One thing that did make me seriously laugh out loud on first read of your post was I was certain I read:
Originally posted by Brainy
This is in huge contrast to religon, because all the "facts" are 1000's of years old. God was relieving himself all over the place a couple thousand years ago, yet doesnt see fit to do so now. All the plagues, weather disasters ... are perfectly explainable today.
My first thought was "So THAT's where all our rain has gone in Australia!
Haha priceless
ROFL that is too funny! My drink went up my nose on that.
I think it's cute, what happens when you give a bunch of atheists a small room to discuss common interests, all they do is make fun of religion and those that believe in any sort of God...much like what has occured so frequently on this forum. Yet they are the first to jump on the "religion preaches hate" bandwagon.
How terribly and humorously ironic.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Bleh, I just don't like it when theists argue that there is proof of a God. Noone has any proof, so why even attempt to argue that you know whether or not a God exists?
Eyewtiness accounts have been proven inconsistent and biased time and time again, and miracles prove absolutely nothing. So a few people have been cured after visiting a fountain? What about the countless others that died?
The burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim, and I'm sorry, but faith isn't proof. So how about we all just admit that we have no idea about God, and leave it at that. When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity.
I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity. I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
You appear to be making the (fairly arrogant) assumption that because you have no experience of the divine, that others must be somehow making it up due to some weakness they possess that you don't. Those who have had a religious experience or have what they claim is a personal relationship with God are coming from a very different position to this debate from those who have had no such experience.
Those without that kind of experience can of course call them liars, say they must be delusional, or claim that they're puting divine interpretations on something that must have some other explanation. Those who have had the experience have a belief so strong that to them, they "know" that God exists.
I do not consider agnosticism any kind of insult either, and I'm not sure if anyone suggested that it might be so, it's just an honest position. Your definition isn't great though, and again assumes what I outlined above.
When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity. I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
You appear to be making the (fairly arrogant) assumption that because you have no experience of the divine, that others must be somehow making it up due to some weakness they possess that you don't. Those who have had a religious experience or have what they claim is a personal relationship with God are coming from a very different position to this debate from those who have had no such experience.
Those without that kind of experience can of course call them liars, say they must be delusional, or claim that they're puting divine interpretations on something that must have some other explanation. Those who have had the experience have a belief so strong that to them, they "know" that God exists.
I do not consider agnosticism any kind of insult either, and I'm not sure if anyone suggested that it might be so, it's just an honest position. Your definition isn't great though, and again assumes what I outlined above.
You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
Originally posted by mozis You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
So are you genuinely saying you'd like to read 200 "yes sir"/spam/pointless posts from every newer forum member before you find out their opinions on anything or are you just trying to put off new members from posting at all?
Originally posted by mozis You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
So are you genuinely saying you'd like to read 200 "yes sir"/spam/pointless posts from every newer forum member before you find out their opinions on anything or are you just trying to put off new members from posting at all?
Originally posted by mozis You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
So are you genuinely saying you'd like to read 200 "yes sir"/spam/pointless posts from every newer forum member before you find out their opinions on anything or are you just trying to put off new members from posting at all?
He's just kidding, lighten up a bit mate He's right you know, you should listen to the guy with the funny looking avatar and 5000+ posts! You might learn something...
tell you what...i'll make you another deal...i'll answer your questions if you answer mine...cool?
ok, here's the answer to your questions:
eyewitness accounts = anicdotal evidence. (make sure to click and read that...i want to make sure we're on the same page)
documented cases? = you assume i know of documented cases... maybe you can enlighten me like i've been more than generous by enlightening you. actually, there's been NO documented cases of miracles. i look forward to your equally convincing evidence of miracles (hint: you won't find this within the catholic hierarchy).
hey, cool, its still on page 1, yay. still a hot topic.
im feeling generous, so yeah, ill continue this discussion.
kk, first off, do you have any opinions and thoughts of your own? or do you just take what wiki says as genuine fact? ive noticed that thats where alot of your "enlightenment" is coming from. i was just wondering if its like your bible or something?
in answer to your eyewitness accounts = anicdotal evidence. that pretty much means that any evidence that i share from personal experience is going to be thrown out, right? any evidence from the Bible that speaks of eyewitness accounts is thrown out. any and all evidence that i would quote from pastors, teachers, preachers, and the like is thrown out. correct? so basicly, you dont want to hear any testamonies about experiences with God, you want scientific data done by a scientist, right?
kk, so obviously since im not a doctor i wont have access to medical files, but there were several documented cases of healings in our local church a few years back. one man was healed of stomach cancer, another of AIDS, another had one leg notably shorter than the other lengthened and spine straightened. i was there for all three, of course, me testamony means nothing, since i dont have access to medical files i cant quote from said files. so this notable miracle is thrown out because you want scientific data, and since im not a scientist i cant provide any. btw, im not catholic, and its not surprising that they dont have any documented cases of miracles.
i know that this doesnt fit into your "rational" logic of evidence. but last i checked, i didnt have to ask your permission to believe me own eyes.
originally posted by Tamalan
Hmm eye witness accounts....
A few years ago an author named Robert Rankin decided to create his own urban myth, that of a Griffin living on a small island in a pond in Brentford , London.
The papers picked it up, and a day later the local and then national news services.
A few days after that eye witness reports started coming in of Griffin sightings.
People will believe anything they are told, to the point of seeing things that arent even there.
PS: Plano, I guess you will want my home address so you can come 'kick my asswipe ass'. Seeing as though Im the only person ive spotted on these boards will an altered version of the drug % sig, Im guessing its aimed at me.
while it is true that people as a whole will believe what they are told, it is not a given that all people that believe a thing, only believe it because they were told to. some actually check things out themselves. believe it or not, not all religious people are stupid illiterate redneck retards that believe everything they are told to believe.
Oo and tam, ive seen several sigs making fun of the %2, i didnt even notice that yours was like that. and here i thought we were friends, lol, damnit.
originally posted by freethinker
not trying to troll or frustrate you, man. i honestly wish everyone could see logic and reason and we could progress as a society instead of always appealing to tradition, religion and the superstitious.
this kind of thought gets us nowhere. there's no need for the supernatural. none.
says the man that wont let anyone think or believe the way that they want, lol. dont you see your own hypocricies? ill leave you alone for now. fair? till you make another bullshit claim like this one^. sound familar? your kind have been around since the Bible itself was written and before. dont really see where you think that factoring out God because youve never seen Him=progress as a society.
Are you actually trying to assert that living a moral life = being religious here? (not a dig, but a question)
nope, and not really sure where you picked that out of me post either, but meh, whatever, lets run with it.
"God wills it!"
There's been more than enough murder, genocide, displacement, genocide, invasions, burnings at the stake, genocide etc performed "for the good of / in the name of / by the Will of / God" for me to know in myself that I could never follow such a rigid doctrine as religion.
you do realize that doctrine isnt interchangable with religion, right? last time i studied it, Hindu didnt share the same doctrine as Islamic, nor did Catholic share the same doctrine as Buddhism. so lumping them all up together like that is kinda like saying, "all black girls have huge butts". its just not an accurate assessment. its not logical, even freethinker would have to agree with that. what religion were those two boys in Columbine, that shot and killed a young girl for admitting that she believed in Jesus? they werent Christian, buddhist, hindu, Islamic, etc. they were selfproclaimed athiests. so dont try to claim that only religious people kill people. and seriel killers, i dont know too many seriel killers that are religious. most claimed to hear voices in their head. thats not religion, thats pyschotic <--sorry for spelling.
I've travelled through a few different countries with strong national religious beliefs (Hindu, Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist etc) and have experienced a very high amount of religious life in many different forms. ever heard of Pentacostal? ive not read where very many pentacostals killed or maimed anyone for not believing, have you? it will never cease to amaze me how people will always quote the Catholic dogma as the only example of Christianity, and then use it as the backbone of their arguement of how religious people kill in the name of God. if you do alittle more studying up on your religions, youll no doubt find that its not the only Christian church in existance, nor has it ever been the only Christian church in existance ever. there has always been a pentacostal church in existance, always. not always out in the open, sometimes because of the "Mother" church (Catholic), the pentacostal church had to operate underground so to speak. do some research, check something other than Wiki every once and a while for some good facts.
In my opinion, a truly moral life is one without religion, as then you would not have any predetermined judgements of people (of other religions different than your own) and would be in no way biased against other humans. except the predetermined judgement against religious people, lol. your entitled to your own opinion, unlike FreeThinker, im not going to judge you and make you work for your right to an opinion. however, i do disagree, i believe that without God there would be no morals, wed be no better than dogs. thats me own opinion.
Besides the fact that a good deal of religions we have in the world today are warped/bastardised/amalgamated versions of the religion as it used to truly exist. Such as Catholicism, which has absorbed pagan and wiccan beliefs and celebrations (Christmas anyone?) in an effort to absorb the participants of those olde ways. this i completely agree with, and have nothing at all to dispute about. Add to that the fact the Bible was composed many, many years after Jesus' supposed death, thus obliterating the possibility of any of what is written as being 'eye witness' accounts. ah, but the eye witness accounts are still in there. Jesus was seen after His death by upwards of over 500 people at the same time. Plus the fact that only a handful of many books were chosen for the Bible - a similarity that's horribly consistent with Government-based censorship of Media in modern day.
For me, after much travel and experience of the 'Divine', the closest I will ever get to a 'God' is sitting in a state of meditation, feeling the resonance of the very earth I am being supported by. And having had the profound and cherished experience to be at peace with myself, I no longer find a need to look outwards for something bigger, better and dominating, such as a God. if you are experiencing a God that is "dominating you" then youre not experiencing the God that i experience, lol. like you, i meditation. but i do it to get into sync with and contact with the creator. to get meself empty of ego, emotion, pride, worry, doubt and every other thing that would cloud me mind. and trust me, if you ever felt Him like ive felt Him, youd want to feel Him all the time. you wouldnt be satisfied with peace within yourself. youd want His peace.
I personally see no evidence of, and definitely no profound need for Religion, beyond people needing something to fill a void in their lives. To give them hope of something better. Which is fine if it is your belief, shared with fellow believers, and kept to your tight circles of belief. And of course, as long as it in no way promotes or brings harm to another living creature. true religion is not a violent religion. its a peaceful and joyful experience. it strikes me as so funny that people that obviously have never truly experienced true peace and joy in God would so rashly deem it a fallacy and unneeded in this day and age we live in. if there ever was a time we needed to feel peace and joy in God, its now.
As posted above (the Griffon sightings) I think people are willing to believe anything if it means they can convince themselves there is more to life than switching the lights off and rotting in the ground when you die. Again, it's called hope. but yet, you dont think that people should want hope? hope is a good thing.
I have no problem with people following religions. Just as long as they do not try to infect my peaceful existence with their beliefs; as long as they don't try to belittle other people with their "you don't realise what I do" attitudes (as opposed to just explaining their love of God from personal experience and leaving it at that). but thats exactly what you and several other nonbelievers are doing to those of us that do believe. the "you dont realize what i do" attitude has been perfected by FreeThinker and a few others. im in no way cramming me beliefs down anyones throat, if you dont want to believe what i believe, then by all means, dont. just dont treat me like an illogical, irrational, retard with no sense at all for believing the way i do.
Besides, to be truly 'religious' and in touch with God, it shouldn't matter what other people think. To be truly at peace in your God there would be no need for you to come to this thread and challenge anyone who questions your faith.
You should be able to just turn the other cheek and smile, to relate a loose comparison. actually, youre aiming that cannon in the wrong direction, pal. i simply stated what i believed, and promptly got told that me ideals were flawed and illogical. i challenged no one. and even if i did want to challenge someones beliefs, how exactly does that mean that im insecure in me own beliefs, lol. sounds like a copeout to me. kinda like a damned if you do, and damned if you dont type of thing. oO and your loose comparison, is actually a completely out of context, not really a comparison at all. why should i "turn the other cheek and smile"? you do realize that that is in referrance to when someone is abusing you, right? not when people are asking about your faith. do you know what the Bible says about those circumstances, should they arise? ill wait for your answer. since you seem to want to "loosely" quote the Bible.
To come here and rigorously defend and assert your beliefs (anti and pro God'ers alike, writing post after post about why they're right) leans more towards you being uncomfortable and unsure about your beliefs, rather than you being at peace with your beliefs, and more specifically, yourself. thank you, Dr. Phil, lol. no seriously, read me last paragraph.
This debate makes me think of the movie Contact, where at the end of the movie, the congressman said she should withdraw her testimony and admit she was just delusional, because all evidence was pointing opposite of what she experienced. They were obviously trying to parallel the religous debate. The problem in the movie however was that all evidence was not pointing against her statement. In fact there were actual inconsistancies with the entire thing regardless of her testimony or not. The chair in the machine being crushed. The off the chart magnetic/electrical enegy being produced by this machine, the unregistered vibration, the extra 6 hrs of video. All of those were happening in the present and could not be explained, additionally if they wanted to test the results all they had to do was repeat the experiment multiple times for to see the outcome. This is in huge contrast to religon, because all the "facts" are 1000's of years old. God was revealing himself all over the place a couple thousand years ago, yet doesnt see fit to do so now. All the plagues, weather disasters ... are perfectly explainable today. Anyone saying God was trying to punish xxxx policy with those disasters would be called a nutcase, even by religous leaders. Where are the "Jesus" of today? Is this age are we not priveleged enough to experience these things? Why cant "God" just send down a few copies of the 10 Commandments every once in awhile? That way we could at least evaluate the technology and at least could question our current belief system. Yet now all we have is people giving eyewitness accounts, yet nobody can catch it on film. I bet there are more eyewitness accounts by children that they have seen Santa Claus sled. If "God" really wanted us to only worship one "God" dont you think he would at least show himself to everyone and leave absolutely no doubt? That way if we still disbelieved then we would just be criminals and not worthy?
good anology, except that you do realize that she wasnt delusional, she really had experienced those things. they (not unlike many of you) kept trying to convince her that she was just crazy and stupid and irrational. they tried to explain away the inconsistancies that kept coming to light, (not unlike todays scientists). what you see as a problem as the movie being paralleled with the religious debate, i see as the very foundation of the religious debate. it mirrors it perfectly, IMO. to someone that sees the evidence of God plain as day, its the same as the scientists ignoring the 6 hrs of video static. to someone that has touched and been touched by God, its the same as knowing that if you wanted to test the results, all you would have to do is repeat me experience multiple times to see the outcome. but of course, you wont. youd rather believe that im lying, or simple, or stupid.
and the "Jesus" of today is in me heart, i experience Him frequently. im sorry for your loss. and what, exactly, would you catch on film regarding God? have you ever seen someone receive the Holy Ghost, ive seen it, on film and in person. i doubt that that would convince you though, since it wouldnt be you receiving anything.
not to mention god not being able to do something would contradict his omnipotence.
i've yet to hear a xian conceed the point that his/her god is not ominpotent.
and any christian worth his/her own weight wouldnt concede the point. theres nothing to concede. the only thing God cant do is lie. and the only reason He cant lie is because His word is law. whatever He says is. its an impossibility. not a contradiction.
Bleh, I just don't like it when theists argue that there is proof of a God. Noone has any proof, so why even attempt to argue that you know whether or not a God exists? Eyewtiness accounts have been proven inconsistent and biased time and time again, and miracles prove absolutely nothing. So a few people have been cured after visiting a fountain? What about the countless others that died? The burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim, and I'm sorry, but faith isn't proof. So how about we all just admit that we have no idea about God, and leave it at that. When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity. I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
i admit it when i dont know something. i know God. just because youve never felt or experienced Him doesnt automaticly make me a lier. Oo and btw, you can shove the "burden of proof" horseshit up your ass, frankly, i dont care what you believe. youre nobody that i have to convince.
Originally posted by mozis You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
So are you genuinely saying you'd like to read 200 "yes sir"/spam/pointless posts from every newer forum member before you find out their opinions on anything or are you just trying to put off new members from posting at all?
He's just kidding, lighten up a bit mate He's right you know, you should listen to the guy with the funny looking avatar and 5000+ posts! You might learn something...
yeah, right, because 5000+ spam posts means something, lol. go fart somewhere else.
Believing in a god? For what reason? I don't believe in ghosts why should I believe in a god. It serves no purpose and doesn't help explain anything that needs to be explained.
Believing in a creator? Who created the creator, who created the creators creator? Forget about a creator, we will some day understand it completely but to fill the void of knowledge with faith is pointless.
Therefore I am atheist because I have no reason not to be.
Bleh, I just don't like it when theists argue that there is proof of a God. Noone has any proof, so why even attempt to argue that you know whether or not a God exists? Eyewtiness accounts have been proven inconsistent and biased time and time again, and miracles prove absolutely nothing. So a few people have been cured after visiting a fountain? What about the countless others that died? The burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim, and I'm sorry, but faith isn't proof. So how about we all just admit that we have no idea about God, and leave it at that. When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity. I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
i admit it when i dont know something. i know God. just because youve never felt or experienced Him doesnt automaticly make me a lier. Oo and btw, you can shove the "burden of proof" horseshit up your ass, frankly, i dont care what you believe. youre nobody that i have to convince.
You "know" something exists, but aren't obligated to provide a shred of proof? I'm fine with you believing in God, but you need to realize that you think God exists, because noone knows. How do you know God? Did he come have a conversation at the dinner table? How do you know that your experience of God was completely legitimate? Have you never considered the possibility that these feelings might have been influenced by a message that has been instilled in you every week at church, or a certain book?
You "know" something exists, but aren't obligated to provide a shred of proof? I'm fine with you believing in God, but you need to realize that you think God exists, because noone knows. How do you know God? Did he come have a conversation at the dinner table? How do you know that your experience of God was completely legitimate? Have you never considered the possibility that these feelings might have been influenced by a message that has been instilled in you every week at church, or a certain book?
How do you know your best friend is a real person? How do you know you are reading the English language? How do you know anything exists at all when it all could be a trick of your senses, a dream or a memory implant?
At some point, most people need to start trusting their senses and their experiences and even heresay and received wisdom to believe something exists, if for no other reason that the alternative leaves you knowing and believing nothing, maybe not even your own existance.
You can't see the wind, yet you "know" it's there because you can feel it and see its effects. You can't see friendship or anger or yesterday but you "know" they exist because you have experienced them.
Personally, I'm of the belief that you can "know" God in as much as you "know" anything. I think it actually takes a lot more faith to "know" that God doesn't exist - how can anyone know that?
For someone who is "no way cramming me beliefs down anyones throat, if you dont want to believe what i believe, then by all means, dont" you sure are going to great lengths to make sure we know exactly what you believe and why we are non-believers.
Going to skip over most of the quotes because there's no point in continuing to discuss something we obviously think completely different about.
But then... we don't really. Essentially what you 'find' when you meditate (God) is just the same as what I find. Though to me I don't see it as God, and you do. It's just a matter of perception. Where you see God, I see Nature. (And no, I do not consider it the same, because I do not believe in one authoritarian ruler, or one benevolent God etc.) Where you find a connection to the Divine, I find inner peace.
Same shit, different packaging. And the reason why so many wars have been fought in the name of religion and their God really.
oO and your loose comparison, is actually a completely out of context, not really a comparison at all. why should i "turn the other cheek and smile"? you do realize that that is in referrance to when someone is abusing you, right? not when people are asking about your faith. do you know what the Bible says about those circumstances, should they arise? ill wait for your answer. since you seem to want to "loosely" quote the Bible.
Yeah, it's from the Beatitude from memory (Matthew?).
"Blessed are the meek..."
"Blessed are the merciful..."
"Blessed are the peacemakers" "The cheeeeesemakers?"
Can't remember the exact quote cos, well, I honestly don't care to (can you quote the Quran?) but it's something along the lines of:
"... don't resist he who is evil, but if he strikes your right cheek, offer to him the other. If he asks you to go a mile, go instead two" or some such. Don't turn away he who asks to borrow from you etc etc.
ie Be stronger than the 'evil' that confronts you. By not returning the violence, by turning the other cheek, you go beyond that violence, becoming stronger than that which wishes to harm you.
And violence does not need to be physical. It is just as often mental and verbal violence. Which is all that can be used upon another person on a forum.
So my comparison, in my opinion, is perfectly valid. If you're a Christian, live by the Bible and Its teachings, you shouldn't feel the need to join the confrontation, fuel the fire, continue the circle of verbal 'violence' which is this thread.
And I can tell already you're going to say you're doing no such thing. Which is bullshit.
You should find no need to justify your beliefs and your love of God.
But clearly you are.
Oh PS, I was raised a Catholic, so it's not like I've never had the opportunity to try to find God in the same light that you have. I looked, for a long time. And never found it. Not even a trace.
Each to their own eh?
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
You "know" something exists, but aren't obligated to provide a shred of proof? I'm fine with you believing in God, but you need to realize that you think God exists, because noone knows. How do you know God? Did he come have a conversation at the dinner table? How do you know that your experience of God was completely legitimate? Have you never considered the possibility that these feelings might have been influenced by a message that has been instilled in you every week at church, or a certain book?
How do you know your best friend is a real person? How do you know you are reading the English language? How do you know anything exists at all when it all could be a trick of your senses, a dream or a memory implant?
At some point, most people need to start trusting their senses and their experiences and even heresay and received wisdom to believe something exists, if for no other reason that the alternative leaves you knowing and believing nothing, maybe not even your own existance.
You can't see the wind, yet you "know" it's there because you can feel it and see its effects. You can't see friendship or anger or yesterday but you "know" they exist because you have experienced them.
Personally, I'm of the belief that you can "know" God in as much as you "know" anything. I think it actually takes a lot more faith to "know" that God doesn't exist - how can anyone know that?
So now you're comparing concrete objects with an abstract being? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? I know this keyboard exists because I'm typing on it. If you're interested in a philosophy discussion, then start a new thread, because the "how do you know anything is real" argument has no place in this topic.
Wind can hit you in the face, literally. Wind can pick up houses and carry them for miles. When wind blows in the dirt, you can see it. When God slaps me in the face, or picks up my house, I'll "know" he exists. You'll probably say that God doesn't need to manifest himself, and one must have faith that he exists. Well, I'm sorry, but if God was all fire and brimstone in the Old Testament, the least he can do is make an appearance or two.
As for your argument about friendship and anger, it is completely off base and illogical. Friendship and anger don't exist, they are just conrete words used to help us associate a word to an intangible object. Much like "God" is used to represent a big bearded man in the sky. Anger, friendship, and God don't necessarily exist. They are just placeholders.
I never said I "know" God exists or doesn't exist. As an agnostic, I don't try to comprehend the uncomprehendable. But yes, I agree, it takes just as much faith to "know" God deosn't exist. That's why both theists and atheists need to stop saying they know the answers to everything, because they don't.
Voted atheist because it was closest, but I really consider myself an agnostic. Agnostic means that I think the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.
On top of that, I have very little trust in the leadership of the big churches. I think many of them are just as power hungry and self-serving as politicians. In a way, they are politicians.
I really dont have a problem with the belief in God(s) or superior beings or being Agnostic to the entire thing. As our existence and this universes existence is difficult to explain.
But my main problem is with the Bible. To me you cant use any reasoning and still believe in that.
One of the big problems I see with the "Bible" is why is everything happening 2k years ago? Basically all within a few years. Do you realize how old the universe is, and God decides to make an appearance for a couple of year strech, 2000 years ago? Why isnt the bible being constantly updated with the current events? How are a couple dozen people 2000 years ago more informed then priests today or 200yrs ago?
Why didnt a majority of people who "eyewitnessed" these events, believe in God at that point. Actually Jews dont even believe in Jesus and he is a Jew. Then there is the entire thing with millions of people who lived in remote areas of the earth. What they just get an automatic pass to hell. God doesnt think they are worthy enough of his omni attention? Then theres the whole thing that is pretty wild to believe that some God that created the universe could even talk our primative language. What dont animals have to believe or deserve to go to heaven? Or do they get a free pass?
What about when we were just coming out of Ape stage, at what point did we have to "believe" in God to go to "heaven", and at what point did we stop getting a free pass like all the other animals.
Where does evolution exactly fit into the bible? If you were could actually be convinced with absolute proof that we evolved from apes would that change your opinion of the Bible? Or have you already factored that problem into your new belief system?
If we were made in "Gods" image, was that a monkey? Because how could "God" be human looking if we evolved from Apes.
Honestly I really think people who believe in religion and havent tried to answer these questions are just mentally lazy and are following what they feel is the least path of mental resistance.
Comments
One thing that did make me seriously laugh out loud on first read of your post was I was certain I read:
My first thought was "So THAT's where all our rain has gone in Australia!
Haha priceless
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
not to mention god not being able to do something would contradict his omnipotence.
i've yet to hear a xian conceed the point that his/her god is not ominpotent.
==========================
Haha priceless
ROFL
I think it's cute, what happens when you give a bunch of atheists a small room to discuss common interests, all they do is make fun of religion and those that believe in any sort of God...much like what has occured so frequently on this forum. Yet they are the first to jump on the "religion preaches hate" bandwagon.
How terribly and humorously ironic.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Bleh, I just don't like it when theists argue that there is proof of a God. Noone has any proof, so why even attempt to argue that you know whether or not a God exists?
Eyewtiness accounts have been proven inconsistent and biased time and time again, and miracles prove absolutely nothing. So a few people have been cured after visiting a fountain? What about the countless others that died?
The burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim, and I'm sorry, but faith isn't proof. So how about we all just admit that we have no idea about God, and leave it at that. When people try to say that they "know" God exists, it is just a sign of insecurity.
I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
You appear to be making the (fairly arrogant) assumption that because you have no experience of the divine, that others must be somehow making it up due to some weakness they possess that you don't. Those who have had a religious experience or have what they claim is a personal relationship with God are coming from a very different position to this debate from those who have had no such experience.
Those without that kind of experience can of course call them liars, say they must be delusional, or claim that they're puting divine interpretations on something that must have some other explanation. Those who have had the experience have a belief so strong that to them, they "know" that God exists.
I do not consider agnosticism any kind of insult either, and I'm not sure if anyone suggested that it might be so, it's just an honest position. Your definition isn't great though, and again assumes what I outlined above.
You appear to be making the (fairly arrogant) assumption that because you have no experience of the divine, that others must be somehow making it up due to some weakness they possess that you don't. Those who have had a religious experience or have what they claim is a personal relationship with God are coming from a very different position to this debate from those who have had no such experience.
Those without that kind of experience can of course call them liars, say they must be delusional, or claim that they're puting divine interpretations on something that must have some other explanation. Those who have had the experience have a belief so strong that to them, they "know" that God exists.
I do not consider agnosticism any kind of insult either, and I'm not sure if anyone suggested that it might be so, it's just an honest position. Your definition isn't great though, and again assumes what I outlined above.
You are obviously new to the forums, so let me fill you in. Once you have 200+ posts you are allowed to voice your opinion, until then you kiss everyone's ass.
He's just kidding, lighten up a bit mate
He's just kidding, lighten up a bit mate
------------------------------------------------------
Do I ever sleep?
hey, cool, its still on page 1, yay. still a hot topic.
im feeling generous, so yeah, ill continue this discussion.
kk, first off, do you have any opinions and thoughts of your own? or do you just take what wiki says as genuine fact? ive noticed that thats where alot of your "enlightenment" is coming from. i was just wondering if its like your bible or something?
in answer to your eyewitness accounts = anicdotal evidence. that pretty much means that any evidence that i share from personal experience is going to be thrown out, right? any evidence from the Bible that speaks of eyewitness accounts is thrown out. any and all evidence that i would quote from pastors, teachers, preachers, and the like is thrown out. correct? so basicly, you dont want to hear any testamonies about experiences with God, you want scientific data done by a scientist, right?
kk, so obviously since im not a doctor i wont have access to medical files, but there were several documented cases of healings in our local church a few years back. one man was healed of stomach cancer, another of AIDS, another had one leg notably shorter than the other lengthened and spine straightened. i was there for all three, of course, me testamony means nothing, since i dont have access to medical files i cant quote from said files. so this notable miracle is thrown out because you want scientific data, and since im not a scientist i cant provide any. btw, im not catholic, and its not surprising that they dont have any documented cases of miracles.
i know that this doesnt fit into your "rational" logic of evidence. but last i checked, i didnt have to ask your permission to believe me own eyes.
originally posted by Tamalan
Hmm eye witness accounts....
A few years ago an author named Robert Rankin decided to create his own urban myth, that of a Griffin living on a small island in a pond in Brentford , London.
The papers picked it up, and a day later the local and then national news services.
A few days after that eye witness reports started coming in of Griffin sightings.
People will believe anything they are told, to the point of seeing things that arent even there.
PS: Plano, I guess you will want my home address so you can come 'kick my asswipe ass'. Seeing as though Im the only person ive spotted on these boards will an altered version of the drug % sig, Im guessing its aimed at me.
while it is true that people as a whole will believe what they are told, it is not a given that all people that believe a thing, only believe it because they were told to. some actually check things out themselves. believe it or not, not all religious people are stupid illiterate redneck retards that believe everything they are told to believe.
Oo and tam, ive seen several sigs making fun of the %2, i didnt even notice that yours was like that. and here i thought we were friends, lol, damnit.
originally posted by freethinker
not trying to troll or frustrate you, man. i honestly wish everyone could see logic and reason and we could progress as a society instead of always appealing to tradition, religion and the superstitious.
this kind of thought gets us nowhere. there's no need for the supernatural. none.
says the man that wont let anyone think or believe the way that they want, lol. dont you see your own hypocricies? ill leave you alone for now. fair? till you make another bullshit claim like this one^. sound familar? your kind have been around since the Bible itself was written and before. dont really see where you think that factoring out God because youve never seen Him=progress as a society.
______________________________
______________________________
good anology, except that you do realize that she wasnt delusional, she really had experienced those things. they (not unlike many of you) kept trying to convince her that she was just crazy and stupid and irrational. they tried to explain away the inconsistancies that kept coming to light, (not unlike todays scientists). what you see as a problem as the movie being paralleled with the religious debate, i see as the very foundation of the religious debate. it mirrors it perfectly, IMO. to someone that sees the evidence of God plain as day, its the same as the scientists ignoring the 6 hrs of video static. to someone that has touched and been touched by God, its the same as knowing that if you wanted to test the results, all you would have to do is repeat me experience multiple times to see the outcome. but of course, you wont. youd rather believe that im lying, or simple, or stupid.
and the "Jesus" of today is in me heart, i experience Him frequently. im sorry for your loss. and what, exactly, would you catch on film regarding God? have you ever seen someone receive the Holy Ghost, ive seen it, on film and in person. i doubt that that would convince you though, since it wouldnt be you receiving anything.
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
He's just kidding, lighten up a bit mate
yeah, right, because 5000+ spam posts means something, lol. go fart somewhere else.
______________________________
Believing in a creator? Who created the creator, who created the creators creator? Forget about a creator, we will some day understand it completely but to fill the void of knowledge with faith is pointless.
Therefore I am atheist because I have no reason not to be.
You "know" something exists, but aren't obligated to provide a shred of proof? I'm fine with you believing in God, but you need to realize that you think God exists, because noone knows. How do you know God? Did he come have a conversation at the dinner table? How do you know that your experience of God was completely legitimate? Have you never considered the possibility that these feelings might have been influenced by a message that has been instilled in you every week at church, or a certain book?
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
How do you know your best friend is a real person? How do you know you are reading the English language? How do you know anything exists at all when it all could be a trick of your senses, a dream or a memory implant?
At some point, most people need to start trusting their senses and their experiences and even heresay and received wisdom to believe something exists, if for no other reason that the alternative leaves you knowing and believing nothing, maybe not even your own existance.
You can't see the wind, yet you "know" it's there because you can feel it and see its effects. You can't see friendship or anger or yesterday but you "know" they exist because you have experienced them.
Personally, I'm of the belief that you can "know" God in as much as you "know" anything. I think it actually takes a lot more faith to "know" that God doesn't exist - how can anyone know that?
For someone who is "no way cramming me beliefs down anyones throat, if you dont want to believe what i believe, then by all means, dont" you sure are going to great lengths to make sure we know exactly what you believe and why we are non-believers.
Going to skip over most of the quotes because there's no point in continuing to discuss something we obviously think completely different about.
But then... we don't really. Essentially what you 'find' when you meditate (God) is just the same as what I find. Though to me I don't see it as God, and you do. It's just a matter of perception. Where you see God, I see Nature. (And no, I do not consider it the same, because I do not believe in one authoritarian ruler, or one benevolent God etc.) Where you find a connection to the Divine, I find inner peace.
Same shit, different packaging. And the reason why so many wars have been fought in the name of religion and their God really.
oO and your loose comparison, is actually a completely out of context, not really a comparison at all. why should i "turn the other cheek and smile"? you do realize that that is in referrance to when someone is abusing you, right? not when people are asking about your faith. do you know what the Bible says about those circumstances, should they arise? ill wait for your answer. since you seem to want to "loosely" quote the Bible.
Yeah, it's from the Beatitude from memory (Matthew?).
"Blessed are the meek..."
"Blessed are the merciful..."
"Blessed are the peacemakers" "The cheeeeesemakers?"
Can't remember the exact quote cos, well, I honestly don't care to (can you quote the Quran?) but it's something along the lines of:
"... don't resist he who is evil, but if he strikes your right cheek, offer to him the other. If he asks you to go a mile, go instead two" or some such. Don't turn away he who asks to borrow from you etc etc.
ie Be stronger than the 'evil' that confronts you. By not returning the violence, by turning the other cheek, you go beyond that violence, becoming stronger than that which wishes to harm you.
And violence does not need to be physical. It is just as often mental and verbal violence. Which is all that can be used upon another person on a forum.
So my comparison, in my opinion, is perfectly valid. If you're a Christian, live by the Bible and Its teachings, you shouldn't feel the need to join the confrontation, fuel the fire, continue the circle of verbal 'violence' which is this thread.
And I can tell already you're going to say you're doing no such thing. Which is bullshit.
You should find no need to justify your beliefs and your love of God.
But clearly you are.
Oh PS, I was raised a Catholic, so it's not like I've never had the opportunity to try to find God in the same light that you have. I looked, for a long time. And never found it. Not even a trace.
Each to their own eh?
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
How do you know your best friend is a real person? How do you know you are reading the English language? How do you know anything exists at all when it all could be a trick of your senses, a dream or a memory implant?
At some point, most people need to start trusting their senses and their experiences and even heresay and received wisdom to believe something exists, if for no other reason that the alternative leaves you knowing and believing nothing, maybe not even your own existance.
You can't see the wind, yet you "know" it's there because you can feel it and see its effects. You can't see friendship or anger or yesterday but you "know" they exist because you have experienced them.
Personally, I'm of the belief that you can "know" God in as much as you "know" anything. I think it actually takes a lot more faith to "know" that God doesn't exist - how can anyone know that?
So now you're comparing concrete objects with an abstract being? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? I know this keyboard exists because I'm typing on it. If you're interested in a philosophy discussion, then start a new thread, because the "how do you know anything is real" argument has no place in this topic.
Wind can hit you in the face, literally. Wind can pick up houses and carry them for miles. When wind blows in the dirt, you can see it. When God slaps me in the face, or picks up my house, I'll "know" he exists. You'll probably say that God doesn't need to manifest himself, and one must have faith that he exists. Well, I'm sorry, but if God was all fire and brimstone in the Old Testament, the least he can do is make an appearance or two.
As for your argument about friendship and anger, it is completely off base and illogical. Friendship and anger don't exist, they are just conrete words used to help us associate a word to an intangible object. Much like "God" is used to represent a big bearded man in the sky. Anger, friendship, and God don't necessarily exist. They are just placeholders.
I never said I "know" God exists or doesn't exist. As an agnostic, I don't try to comprehend the uncomprehendable. But yes, I agree, it takes just as much faith to "know" God deosn't exist. That's why both theists and atheists need to stop saying they know the answers to everything, because they don't.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
On top of that, I have very little trust in the leadership of the big churches. I think many of them are just as power hungry and self-serving as politicians. In a way, they are politicians.
I really dont have a problem with the belief in God(s) or superior beings or being Agnostic to the entire thing. As our existence and this universes existence is difficult to explain.
But my main problem is with the Bible. To me you cant use any reasoning and still believe in that.
One of the big problems I see with the "Bible" is why is everything happening 2k years ago? Basically all within a few years. Do you realize how old the universe is, and God decides to make an appearance for a couple of year strech, 2000 years ago? Why isnt the bible being constantly updated with the current events? How are a couple dozen people 2000 years ago more informed then priests today or 200yrs ago?
Why didnt a majority of people who "eyewitnessed" these events, believe in God at that point. Actually Jews dont even believe in Jesus and he is a Jew. Then there is the entire thing with millions of people who lived in remote areas of the earth. What they just get an automatic pass to hell. God doesnt think they are worthy enough of his omni attention? Then theres the whole thing that is pretty wild to believe that some God that created the universe could even talk our primative language. What dont animals have to believe or deserve to go to heaven? Or do they get a free pass?
What about when we were just coming out of Ape stage, at what point did we have to "believe" in God to go to "heaven", and at what point did we stop getting a free pass like all the other animals.
Where does evolution exactly fit into the bible? If you were could actually be convinced with absolute proof that we evolved from apes would that change your opinion of the Bible? Or have you already factored that problem into your new belief system?
If we were made in "Gods" image, was that a monkey? Because how could "God" be human looking if we evolved from Apes.
Honestly I really think people who believe in religion and havent tried to answer these questions are just mentally lazy and are following what they feel is the least path of mental resistance.