I don't know if there's a better word for me than atheist. It's not that I don't know, it's more that I don't care.

Who made the marble?

Who tilts the bowl?

Decka will shred your analogy like so much cheese -- he is the master analogizer.

I can't wait to find out how the world is like a football game or God is like a basketball coach. :eek:
please! that one is a cake walk...if there was intent, the hand that does the tilting or even drops the marble into the bowl is intelligent.

I see sedan's satire got the better of you both.

Who made the marble?

Who tilts the bowl?

Decka will shred your analogy like so much cheese -- he is the master analogizer.

I can't wait to find out how the world is like a football game or God is like a basketball coach. :eek:


God is The Coach,The Game and The world.
It's takes a true FooL to discount such phenomena.!


Aurora Leigh {1857}
" Earth's fanatics make
Too frequently heavens's saints
And we all have known
Good critics,who have stamped out poets'
hopes;
Good statesmen,who pulled ruin on the
state;
Good patriots,who for a theory,risked a
cause:
Good kings,who disembowelled for a tax;
Good popes,who brought all good to jeopardy;
Good Christians,who sat still in easy chairs,
And damned the general world for standing
up.---
Now,may the good God pardon all good
men! "
Bk.IV

I see sedan's satire got the better of you both.
no, it was just lost.

I would have responded to the original post, but there seemed to be a lot of personal opinion that just wasnt worth replying to.
That seems to be your M.O.
Basic logic that adds up to nothing but personal opinion in the end.

I do have to admit, some of it makes for an interesting read.
You seem dramatically sunk in the basic nature of reality.
I was thinking about this the other day, kind of wondering about peoples perception of reality.
I think it's all personal opinion, especially in your case.
Sometimes personal opinion happens to be popular choice. I think the atheist here are loving you.
To bad we dont have anything to say exactly what reality is.

Well, it is not just opinion, it is a choice to accept reality as it appears around us, instead of making up a personal reality that suits my wishes, like most religious people do. This has little to do with opinion and reality and everything to do with rational thinking. If you want to reject everything I say by stating that it is only my opinion and therefore carry no weight, you at the same time disarm yourself, and even more so, because your religious opinions are not based on reality, logic or rational thinking.

I accept that there are things we cannot know the answer to, hence me being agnostic. At the same time I realize how little these supernatural theories have to do with the reality in which we exist. God is not needed to explain anything, he is something you may add to the equation in some capacity without him making even the slightest difference. If you replace reality with god however, very little of the reality we see around us adds up or make much logical sense anymore.

As a person who study science instead of cherry picking from it, that last point may be the dominant reason why I will always remain agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I would define myself as an agnostic who at the same time find the possible god irrelevant.

Well, it is not just opinion, it is a choice to accept reality as it appears around us, instead of making up a personal reality that suits my wishes, like most religious people do. This has little to do with opinion and reality and everything to do with rational thinking. If you want to reject everything I say by stating that it is only my opinion and therefore carry no weight, you at the same time disarm yourself, and even more so, because your religious opinions are not based on reality, logic or rational thinking.

I accept that there are things we cannot know the answer to, hence me being agnostic. At the same time I realize how little these supernatural theories have to do with the reality in which we exist. God is not needed to explain anything, he is something you may add to the equation in some capacity without him making even the slightest difference. If you replace reality with god however, very little of the reality we see around us adds up or make much logical sense anymore.

As a person who study science instead of cherry picking from it, that last point may be the dominant reason why I will always remain agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I would define myself as an agnostic who at the same time find the possible god irrelevant.
While, fundamentally, I agree with you, I think saying, "If you want to reject everything I say by stating that it is only my opinion and therefore carry no weight, you at the same time disarm yourself, and even more so, because your religious opinions are not based on reality, logic or rational thinking." is a tad off the mark. I don't think "religion" should be looked upon as absolute, and barring the fundies out there, many people who go to church feel the same way I do. Religion, or the concept thereof, is nothing more than a buffet; take what you like, and leave the rest. If you let it preordain your life, then you're an indoctrinated fool (i.e. a typical Muslim), but when you use it to look for answers in your personal life, then it's not about logic or rational thinking here - it's about reading a parable and deciphering the message to see if it's applicable to you in your life. I don't think any rational person buys into the Old Testament, and certainly, no one takes everything it says as (pardon the pun) gospel. All I'm saying is, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

All I'm saying is, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Religion as philosophy is one thing, not quite what I was aiming at, was responding directly to Inviolable who was talking about logic and reality. People with strong religious beliefs are not open minded like you, and tend to see it all in absolutes, which is very irrational when it comes to philosophy.

As a philosophy there are plenty of stuff to cherry pick from the religions, I like many aspects of Buddhism for instance. Philosophy is not absolute and doesn't need to be based in reality.

The beauty with pure philosophy is that it completes science. Problem with religion, fundamentalist religion in particular, is that it intrudes on both with great arrogance...

People with strong religious beliefs are not open minded.
Some, sure - but I think there are two ways to be "strongly" religious nowadays; in the philosophy of it, or in the dogma. I do tend to agree with you in the sense that I believe most zealots are, by nature, driven by the dogma, and not the social teachings. Those are the people who give religion a bad name, IMHO.
Philosophy is not absolute and doesn't need to be based in reality.
Of course it's not, but I do, however, think it relies of reality, or it would cease being valid in most cases. Prime example: existential philosophy.
The beauty with pure philosophy is that it completes science. Problem with religion, fundamentalist religion in particular, is that it intrudes on both with great arrogance...
I wouldn't disagree with that.

Of course it's not, but I do, however, think it relies of reality, or it would cease being valid in most cases. Prime example: existential philosophy.

Certainly. What I meant was that philosophy is often an interpretation of reality rather than a conclusion based on scientific data.

Certainly. What I meant was that philosophy is often an interpretation of reality rather than a conclusion based on scientific data.
No doubt. I'm in full agreement.

No doubt. I'm in full agreement.

yay, I believe we just won this topic ;)

Problem with religion, fundamentalist religion in particular, is that it intrudes on both with great arrogance...

You can believe what you want AngelinaC... But the it seems that you are the one reaking with arrogance with your attitude towards people such as myself, who happen to believe in a supernatural God. Nobody actually knows, so why should one side claim "dibs", and put down the other based on theories? That is where "faith" comes in, it's believing WITHOUT proof.

I'd like to see you prove "love" exists... Is "love" defined by actions? Is there a certain point where mutual attraction becomes "love"? On what scientific data can you base that on?

Do you ever think to yourself that a supernatural God could have placed anything anywhere as "evidence" in order to convince, for example, the many athiests or agnostics on this board to second guess their faith? Nature shows us that "tough love" exists, and that a mother has to be hard on her kids to prepare them for the real world. Perhaps a God can "love" it's children without giving each and every single one paradise, which is what naysayers seem to expect from God.

You can believe what you want AngelinaC... But the it seems that you are the one reaking with arrogance with your attitude towards people such as myself, who happen to believe in a supernatural God. Nobody actually knows, so why should one side claim "dibs", and put down the other based on theories? That is where "faith" comes in, it's believing WITHOUT proof.

I haven't made any such claims if you actually read my posts. I was referring to fundamentalist religions as arrogant on the basis that they are the only ones who claim absolute truth and knowledge, something not even science dare to.

I'd like to see you prove "love" exists... Is "love" defined by actions? Is there a certain point where mutual attraction becomes "love"? On what scientific data can you base that on?

Plenty of scientific data on love and brain chemistry. Anyway, you can't compare a human emotion who can be studied and observed to a supernatural being who can be neither.

Do you ever think to yourself that a supernatural God could have placed anything anywhere as "evidence" in order to convince, for example, the many athiests or agnostics on this board to second guess their faith? Nature shows us that "tough love" exists, and that a mother has to be hard on her kids to prepare them for the real world. Perhaps a God can "love" it's children without giving each and every single one paradise, which is what naysayers seem to expect from God.

There is a million things god could have done or not done or whatever, all I'm saying is that there is no thing in nature that requires god to work or exist, therefore it is up to you and your faith whether to believe in him or not. I choose not to as I have no interest in being controlled by religion or told what to do by a 2000 year old book with a promise of a reward no one ever can confirm even exist, and a punishment even less convincing. It reeks of manipulation from one end to the other.

I haven't made any such claims if you actually read my posts. I was referring to fundamentalist religions as arrogant on the basis that they are the only ones who claim absolute truth and knowledge, something not even science dare to.

I agree fundamentalists in religions can get out of line when they force their beliefs on others. But simply believing and expressing your beliefs is no harm no foul.. freedom of speech, right?

And don't even try to say science "has not dared" to claim absolute truth and knowledge... you might as well say hitler never tried to kill a jew.


Plenty of scientific data on love and brain chemistry. Anyway, you can't compare a human emotion who can be studied and observed to a supernatural being who can be neither.

Do tell.. mutual attraction, lust, love, liking, admiration.. they all have a certain "brain code"? I'm all ears.

I didn't ask you to compare a human emotion to a supernatural being, i just simply asked for proof of a certain human emotion.


There is a million things god could have done or not done or whatever, all I'm saying is that there is no thing in nature that requires god to work or exist, therefore it is up to you and your faith whether to believe in him or not.

Thanks, that's the first bit of humility i've seen come from your way. I will choose to believe. Oh, and I think there still has to be some sort of supernatural being for the world to exist... there are holes in how we came to be scientifically... how did the universe and time just "start"? how did a bunch of life just "start"? How did a lizard become a bird? You can't really explain that scientifically.. so what else is there? I sure don't know, but science can't explain it, and it seems to convenient.


I choose not to as I have no interest in being controlled by religion or told what to do by a 2000 year old book with a promise of a reward no one ever can confirm even exist, and a punishment even less convincing. It reeks of manipulation from one end to the other.

I would say enjoying your life to the fullest isn't being "controlled"... I realize there are messed up cults and small portions of christianity that have it wrong IMO, but come on. Do you see your average christian packing a nine, saying "fuck you", being egocentric to the core, etc.? Being a christian, or most religions, is all about love for another, living in harmony, and treating others with respect and having humility. If we all followed those prinicipals, we'd be in a pretty good world if you ask me.

Oh, and I'd let the creator of the universe "manipulate me" any day of the week, I don't know about you. Depends on how much you think you're worth.

there are holes in how we came to be scientifically... how did the universe and time just "start"?
No one knows. Including you.
how did a bunch of life just "start"?
Again, no one knows, though it has been suggested that eventually some amino acids produced through lightning began to bond together, then replicate.
How did a lizard become a bird?
That one's easy. Through evolution. Do we know the specific steps? No. But we can make inferences based on what few fossils we can find.

I agree fundamentalists in religions can get out of line when they force their beliefs on others. But simply believing and expressing your beliefs is no harm no foul.. freedom of speech, right?

And don't even try to say science "has not dared" to claim absolute truth and knowledge... you might as well say hitler never tried to kill a jew.

Science, not individual scientists, big difference because they don't all have honest motives. Science is all about interpreting observable data. A theory is always open for debate and under "attack".

Do tell.. mutual attraction, lust, love, liking, admiration.. they all have a certain "brain code"? I'm all ears.

They are, there has been done a lot of studies on the brain and chemistry, of course they don't have all the answers, but there is plenty of info around.

I didn't ask you to compare a human emotion to a supernatural being, i just simply asked for proof of a certain human emotion.

Observations

Thanks, that's the first bit of humility i've seen come from your way.

Then you are not reading my posts or reading a lot more into them than what they say...

I will choose to believe. Oh, and I think there still has to be some sort of supernatural being for the world to exist...

"You think there has to be" ergo faith. That is fine, but there is no scientific reason to say ther ahs to be.

there are holes in how we came to be scientifically... how did the universe and time just "start"? how did a bunch of life just "start"? How did a lizard become a bird? You can't really explain that scientifically..

Of course you can explain that scientifically, there are holes obviously, but sticking god in those holes aren't really a very scientific approach now is it?

so what else is there? I sure don't know, but science can't explain it, and it seems to convenient.

You are pretty much stating that based on little knowledge of scientific research.

I would say enjoying your life to the fullest isn't being "controlled"... I realize there are messed up cults and small portions of christianity that have it wrong IMO, but come on. Do you see your average christian packing a nine, saying "fuck you", being egocentric to the core, etc.? Being a christian, or most religions, is all about love for another, living in harmony, and treating others with respect and having humility. If we all followed those prinicipals, we'd be in a pretty good world if you ask me.

None of those principles are exclusive to religion, it is as much a part of my values as yours.

Oh, and I'd let the creator of the universe "manipulate me" any day of the week, I don't know about you. Depends on how much you think you're worth.

How do you know it is the creator and not just the people taking his place? You have to have a lot of faith and trust in people to do that. Especially keeping in mind how easily power corrupts, something that has been shown to a great extent in religious circles too lately.

Science, not individual scientists, big difference because they don't all have honest motives. Science is all about interpreting observable data. A theory is always open for debate and under "attack".

Science is never absolute... there is always information to trump the old theories.


They are, there has been done a lot of studies on the brain and chemistry, of course they don't have all the answers, but there is plenty of info around.

Please.. do tell. PROVE to me that love exists.


Observations

I can make observations about religion.. about how people who are prayed for are more likely to be healed (there was a scientific study on that), about how great most religious folk act and their perspective on life. If there was no proof in the pudding, if there was no God... I don't think religion would be around anymore.


Then you are not reading my posts or reading a lot more into them than what they say...

Maybe I missed the other ones, but it seems you are "hell-bent" on dismissing any notion of a God existing, even though you label yourself an agnostic.


"You think there has to be" ergo faith. That is fine, but there is no scientific reason to say ther ahs to be.

I agree.. I don't NEED science.. that is what faith is. But the holes in these scientific theories are glaring, and will probably never be answered. So in effect, you are using faith as well. Science has become a religion lately.


Of course you can explain that scientifically, there are holes obviously, but sticking god in those holes aren't really a very scientific approach now is it?

I'm not one to take the scientific approach on everything... I don't think numbers and bits of data control the world.


You are pretty much stating that based on little knowledge of scientific research.

No, I'm stating that on "scientific fact"... that much of our beginnings cannot be explained, and miracle healings cannot be explained, and sudden occurances cannot be explained... you use faith in science to say that science HAS to produce the answer.. I use faith in a God.


None of those principles are exclusive to religion, it is as much a part of my values as yours.

They actually are... most religions have those listed virtues as their core values. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, etc...


How do you know it is the creator and not just the people taking his place? You have to have a lot of faith and trust in people to do that. Especially keeping in mind how easily power corrupts, something that has been shown to a great extent in religious circles too lately.

You seem to be trying to understand why religions and books were written in the past based on today's standards. Nobody went out to "write" the bible, they were just written accords which were seen to have divine influence. Same with the Qu'ran... and all other religious books. What would these people have to gain by just creating something? People were men of their word in that day more so than now... I just don't see such simple people being so devious and perplexing to create a religion. Like I said, there would be nothing to gain, and you would be risking blasphemy, which had the sentence of being killed. What theory are you exactly trying to convey?

Angelina.. I don't mind you believing what you believe at all... I'm not out to change anyone's mind. But you are mildly attacking certain beliefs.. so i'm just displaying my point of view.. and you seem to not respect it very much. There is a certain amount of decency one can use when talking about someone's parents, death of a loved one, or in this case.. religion. I havn't stomped on you for your beliefs, but you seem to want to attack mine. You will get very mixed reactions from different christians. People like me will let you know that you could be opening yourself up to an emotional response. I know better.. but some christians get all pissed off when someone uses language which you use... and if you continue to use it, you might piss some people off. If it were up to me, I'd tell them (the example "pissed off christians" i used) to chill out and slap them to get some sense into their brains... but nonetheless... Just food for thought. Not everyone thinks as you do.

Science is never absolute... there is always information to trump the old theories.
Yes, you just repeated exactly what she said. Tell me who you think you're proving wrong here?


Please.. do tell. PROVE to me that love exists.
Love is a subjective concept in the first place. You can't even create an objective definition of love, so obviously "proving" empirically that it exists is impossible. You can, however, create an objective definition of god (at least of the God of the big three religions). It's comparing apples to oranges.


I can make observations about religion.. about how people who are prayed for are more likely to be healed (there was a scientific study on that), about how great most religious folk act and their perspective on life. If there was no proof in the pudding, if there was no God... I don't think religion would be around anymore.
I think healing by prayer is more a testament to the power of the human mind than a direct testament to the existence of God. In short, you can believe that prayer heals whether you believe in God or not. As for the existence of religion as an argument for the existence of God... well, that's pure speculation, as you well know. You could turn that argument around easily and ask why, if God exists, are there multiple religions? Shouldn't everyone follow the "one true religion?"


I agree.. I don't NEED science.. that is what faith is. But the holes in these scientific theories are glaring, and will probably never be answered. So in effect, you are using faith as well. Science has become a religion lately.
What possible evidence could lead you to say that our questions "will probably never be answered" by science? It isn't as if scientific discovery has reached its peak. You said yourself that new evidence, leading to new theories, constantly appears to change our perspective. And Angelina is NOT using faith, since she openly says that science does not have all the answers and that she doesn't either. I thought faith was a bit more absolute than that (e.g. "God definitely exists, Jesus was definitely the son of God, and I absolutely know the answer to everything." Never heard anything like that coming from Angelina.).

No, I'm stating that on "scientific fact"... that much of our beginnings cannot be explained, and miracle healings cannot be explained, and sudden occurances cannot be explained... you use faith in science to say that science HAS to produce the answer.. I use faith in a God.
She never said that science had to produce the answer. Science is only as infallible as the humans who study it. I think that there ARE explanations for everything, but I doubt that we will find every last one.


They actually are... most religions have those listed virtues as their core values. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, etc...
That absolutely doesn't prove that moral values are "exclusive to religion", as you are claiming here. That is tantamount to saying that irreligious people are all immoral, and I hope you are smarter than that, Decka. I'm not religious, and I was not raised in a religious home by any means, yet I still know that it's wrong to kill someone, wrong to hurt a child, wrong to torture an animal, etc.


Angelina.. I don't mind you believing what you believe at all... I'm not out to change anyone's mind. But you are mildly attacking certain beliefs.. so i'm just displaying my point of view.. and you seem to not respect it very much. There is a certain amount of decency one can use when talking about someone's parents, death of a loved one, or in this case.. religion. I havn't stomped on you for your beliefs, but you seem to want to attack mine. You will get very mixed reactions from different christians. People like me will let you know that you could be opening yourself up to an emotional response. I know better.. but some christians get all pissed off when someone uses language which you use... and if you continue to use it, you might piss some people off. If it were up to me, I'd tell them (the example "pissed off christians" i used) to chill out and slap them to get some sense into their brains... but nonetheless... Just food for thought. Not everyone thinks as you do.
You are very sensitive, apparently, because I think Angelina has been quite courteous when addressing your beliefs and the beliefs of others. If you think she's rude just for expressing her opinion that Christianity is wrong, well then you must have very thin skin. And if she is being impolite, why is it then that you can say atheism, Islam, agnosticism, Buddhism, etc. are wrong and not consider it rude?

You can believe what you want AngelinaC... But the it seems that you are the one reaking with arrogance with your attitude towards people such as myself, who happen to believe in a supernatural God. Nobody actually knows, so why should one side claim "dibs", and put down the other based on theories? That is where "faith" comes in, it's believing WITHOUT proof.

I'd like to see you prove "love" exists... Is "love" defined by actions? Is there a certain point where mutual attraction becomes "love"? On what scientific data can you base that on?

Do you ever think to yourself that a supernatural God could have placed anything anywhere as "evidence" in order to convince, for example, the many athiests or agnostics on this board to second guess their faith? Nature shows us that "tough love" exists, and that a mother has to be hard on her kids to prepare them for the real world. Perhaps a God can "love" it's children without giving each and every single one paradise, which is what naysayers seem to expect from God.

Yes, " Love " is a good analogy.
Isn't it just remarkable how people { True Atheists } like Christopher
Hitchens are so damn sure of themself,and pushy about attacking those
with Religion.One could accurately call those like { The Portable Atheist }
World's Biggest Bigots.
That's Not gOOt !
Irony - Under definition of a bigot :
WORLD HISTORY - Bigots may have more in common with God than
one might think.From 15th century Old French BIGOT meant " an
excessively devoted or hypocritical person "

I have PROOF that God exists. What PROOF do atheists have that he doesn't?

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/GOD.jpg

;)
SMW

I have PROOF that God exists. What PROOF do atheists have that he doesn't?
What you have is a logical conundrum. What you want us to have, is yet another logical conundrum.

I have PROOF that God exists. What PROOF do atheists have that he doesn't?

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/GOD.jpg

;)
SMW
Oh, Pleeeeeeease... :rolleyes:

Oh, Pleeeeeeease... :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Praetorian
No doubt. I'm in full agreement.

yay, I believe we just won this topic ;)

No more Oh Pleeeeeeease than this exchange.

Like I said... I have PROOF to back up the existence of God. What PROOF do any of you have to back up the NON-existence of God?

:corn:

Like I said... I have PROOF to back up the existence of God. What PROOF do any of you have to back up the NON-existence of God?
So the Bible and a Lily is your "proof", eh? Pfffft -

Mmmkay. :rolleyes:

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/retard.jpg

So the Bible and a Lily is your "proof", eh? Pfffft -

Mmmkay. :rolleyes:

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/retard.jpg

Not the lily... that was extra. The picture is much like the Bible... I didn't create it, just take it for what it is.


Mmmmkay? :rolleyes:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Yun.gif

You know, I think out of all the poster's here, only SMW would be so stupid as to claim that the Bible is proof of God.

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. - Henry S. Haskins

The picture is much like the Bible... I didn't create it, just take it for what it is.
And what is that, exactly? I'm curious....

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. - Henry S. Haskins
SMW isn't claiming to have faith. She claims to have proof

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. - Henry S. Haskins

I like that. :)

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. - Henry S. Haskins
Believe it or not, I respect "faith" - I'm just having a difficult time swallowing her "proof". Her supposed "evidence" is preposterous in the extreme. To me, actually proffering that as infallible sounds like something a fundie would say; IOW, spooooooooky.

And what is that, exactly? I'm curious....

Proof that God exists... and that he created the heavens and the earth, etc.

Come on now, Prae, it's really not that complicated. I'm just saying that those who believe in God accept the Bible as proof that he exists. And I'm simply asking those who DON'T believe in God what they accept as proof the whole devine creator thing is a farce?

That's all. Real simple.

:corn:

This whole proof concept seems to elude you, SMW. Proof, by its very definition, is factual evidence towards something. The Bible is anything but fact.

Science is never absolute... there is always information to trump the old theories.

Uhm, yeah, that is what I said...

Please.. do tell. PROVE to me that love exists.

Human emotions are observable and also measurable on brainscans and brainchemistry. What more proof do you want from something as abstract as human emotion?

I can make observations about religion.. about how people who are prayed for are more likely to be healed (there was a scientific study on that), about how great most religious folk act and their perspective on life. If there was no proof in the pudding, if there was no God... I don't think religion would be around anymore.

There was indeed a study on it, and a bad one at that. I linked a proper one in another topic, or was it earlier in this one. Anyway it shows that prayer has no measurable effect.

Maybe I missed the other ones, but it seems you are "hell-bent" on dismissing any notion of a God existing, even though you label yourself an agnostic.

No, I'm just providing rational arguments against irrational superstition.

I agree.. I don't NEED science.. that is what faith is. But the holes in these scientific theories are glaring, and will probably never be answered. So in effect, you are using faith as well. Science has become a religion lately.

Never has and never will be a religion. All you do by comments like that is reveal how little you know about science or that you are one of those who cherry pick out of convenience. I would never argue on a topic I had no knowledge about, that's why you don't see me in teh sports section, or arguing specific US politics.

I'm not one to take the scientific approach on everything... I don't think numbers and bits of data control the world.

Fine, but then don't abuse science to support your opinion when you find it convenient. Stick to faith instead.

No, I'm stating that on "scientific fact"... that much of our beginnings cannot be explained, and miracle healings cannot be explained, and sudden occurances cannot be explained... you use faith in science to say that science HAS to produce the answer.. I use faith in a God.

You seem to be very confident that these things cannot be explained, what evidence can you provide that clearly shows these are unexplainable? Or is this another "truth" you pulled out of your sleve?

They actually are... most religions have those listed virtues as their core values. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, etc...

Wrong again, they predate all current religions and are merely adopted by them.

You seem to be trying to understand why religions and books were written in the past based on today's standards. Nobody went out to "write" the bible, they were just written accords which were seen to have divine influence. Same with the Qu'ran... and all other religious books. What would these people have to gain by just creating something? People were men of their word in that day more so than now... I just don't see such simple people being so devious and perplexing to create a religion. Like I said, there would be nothing to gain, and you would be risking blasphemy, which had the sentence of being killed. What theory are you exactly trying to convey?

I wasn't saying religion was created to serve a manipulating purpose, just that it has been used for that throughout history as it was a convenient tool already established.

Angelina.. I don't mind you believing what you believe at all... I'm not out to change anyone's mind. But you are mildly attacking certain beliefs.. so i'm just displaying my point of view.. and you seem to not respect it very much.

You are dragging my beliefs through the mud here all the time...

There is a certain amount of decency one can use when talking about someone's parents, death of a loved one, or in this case.. religion. I havn't stomped on you for your beliefs, but you seem to want to attack mine.

You seem to be a bit blind to what you're doing. You are defending your beliefs by attacking mine, I am merely defending mine in return by trying to correct all the misconceptions you have.

You will get very mixed reactions from different christians. People like me will let you know that you could be opening yourself up to an emotional response. I know better.. but some christians get all pissed off when someone uses language which you use... and if you continue to use it, you might piss some people off. If it were up to me, I'd tell them (the example "pissed off christians" i used) to chill out and slap them to get some sense into their brains... but nonetheless... Just food for thought. Not everyone thinks as you do.

If they get pissed off I certainly must have hit the nail on the head. Religious argumentation is fundamentally flawed and is very easy to respond to, usually it ends up with the believer getting hurt. I am very well versed in the ways of christianity and know the Bible very well. I have also studied science all my life and I have long found the answers to all those questions for myself. I am also well aware of the hundreds of christian versions and misconceptions of scientific concepts and I have heard them a million times. The sad thing is that your case is built on lies and half trues (when it comes to arguing science that is). Why can't religious people just limit their religion to faith and stop trying to be what it cannot be?

This whole proof concept seems to elude you, SMW. Proof, by its very definition, is factual evidence towards something. The Bible is anything but fact.

Prove it's not factual, Nappy. Surely you know someone from 4 BC you can call, right?

:corn:

Believe it or not, I respect "faith" - I'm just having a difficult time swallowing her "proof". Her supposed "evidence" is preposterous in the extreme. To me, actually proffering that as infallible sounds like something a fundie would say; IOW, spooooooooky.

If you have "proof" then it is no longer "faith".

I have PROOF that God exists. What PROOF do atheists have that he doesn't?

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/GOD.jpg

;)
SMW

here is OUR proof :)

http://www.godvsthebible.com/images/holeybabble.jpg

here is OUR proof :)

http://www.godvsthebible.com/images/holeybabble.jpg

So, Ang... you believe in graffiti, eh?

I don't have a problem with that. Except, of course, for the fact that it was only 'invented' in the last century or so.

I'm sure you have something else, right? Some brilliant scientific research book that states THERE IS NO GOD?

No hurry... I'll wait while you find one.

:corn:

So, Ang... you believe in graffiti, eh?

I don't have a problem with that. Except, of course, for the fact that it was only 'invented' in the last century or so.

I'm sure you have something else, right? Some brilliant scientific research book that states THERE IS NO GOD?

No hurry... I'll wait while you find one.

:corn:

You are not providing any serious arguments, so neither am I :)

Prove it's not factual, Nappy. Surely you know someone from 4 BC you can call, right?

:corn:
All the more reason for you to dismiss it. Case in point: The world is only six thousand years old - dinosaurs never existed - the world is flat, and the earth is the center of the universe - the Sun revolves around earth - demons, invisible spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, angels, snakes, bushes, and donkeys can talk - virgin birth is possible - god and Jesus live in the clouds above - prayer has secret powers over "our" god - miracles and blessing do occur - invisible souls can either be saved or unsaved, depending on what a person decides to believe personally - the heart is the center of all thought and emotion - people can be raised from the dead - people can walk on water - water can be turned into wine - 5000 people can easily be fed with two loaves and two fishes - diseases are caused by "demons" - science is evil - a person can live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights - ad nauseum.....

As I've mentioned before, in Genesis, God created the Heavens and Earth in six days, yet Islands are still forming in the Pacific. Go figure.

If he actually did create the earth in 6 days, then why did it take him forty days and nights to write the Ten Commandments???

Now it's important to God that Jesus be beaten, flogged, spit on, dragged, cursed, and persecuted, so that OUR sins may be forgiven, but of course, God could’ve just eliminated all sin to begin with, but why do that when the Catholic Church profits from using such a bizarrely deceptive story that employs fear and guilt to coerce people into forking their hard-earned over?!?

In short, after Jesus arrives, we have spirits, souls, and 'miracles', etc, eh? All this sounds just a tad contrived, doesn't it? Maybe a bit man-made, perhaps???

That's some nice "proof" you got there, SMW. :rolleyes:

The bible is a joke - it's something you draw inspiration from in your personal life; not something you deem as infallible in 2008. You sound like a goddamned fundie. You should be embarrassed by that fact alone.

All the more reason for you to dismiss it. Case in point: The world is only six thousand years old - dinosaurs never existed - the world is flat, and the earth is the center of the universe - the Sun revolves around earth - demons, invisible spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, angels, snakes, bushes, and donkeys can talk - virgin birth is possible - god and Jesus live in the clouds above - prayer has secret powers over "our" god - miracles and blessing do occur - invisible souls can either be saved or unsaved, depending on what a person decides to believe personally - the heart is the center of all thought and emotion - people can be raised from the dead - people can walk on water - water can be turned into wine - 5000 people can easily be fed with two loaves and two fishes - diseases are caused by "demons" - science is evil - a person can live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights - ad nauseum.....

As I've mentioned before, in Genesis, God created the Heavens and Earth in six days, yet Islands are still forming in the Pacific. Go figure.

If he actually did create the earth in 6 days, then why did it take him forty days and nights to write the Ten Commandments???

Now it's important to God that Jesus be beaten, flogged, spit on, dragged, cursed, and persecuted, so that OUR sins may be forgiven, but of course, God could’ve just eliminated all sin to begin with, but why do that when the Catholic Church profits from using such a bizarrely deceptive story that employs fear and guilt to coerce people into forking their hard-earned over?!?

In short, after Jesus arrives, we have spirits, souls, and 'miracles', etc, eh? All this sounds just a tad contrived, doesn't it? Maybe a bit man-made, perhaps???

That's some nice "proof" you got there, SMW. :rolleyes:

The bible is a joke - it's something you draw inspiration from in your personal life; not something you deem as infallible in 2008. You sound like a goddamned fundie. You should be embarrassed by that fact alone.


I dont see your point with islands still forming and God not creating Earth in 6 days. Do you think He never meant for things to continue to form???? I mean if that was the case Earth would have been long gone before you had a chance to fight againist creation.

All the more reason for you to dismiss it. Case in point: The world is only six thousand years old - dinosaurs never existed - the world is flat, and the earth is the center of the universe - the Sun revolves around earth - demons, invisible spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, angels, snakes, bushes, and donkeys can talk - virgin birth is possible - god and Jesus live in the clouds above - prayer has secret powers over "our" god - miracles and blessing do occur - invisible souls can either be saved or unsaved, depending on what a person decides to believe personally - the heart is the center of all thought and emotion - people can be raised from the dead - people can walk on water - water can be turned into wine - 5000 people can easily be fed with two loaves and two fishes - diseases are caused by "demons" - science is evil - a person can live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights - ad nauseum.....

As I've mentioned before, in Genesis, God created the Heavens and Earth in six days, yet Islands are still forming in the Pacific. Go figure.

If he actually did create the earth in 6 days, then why did it take him forty days and nights to write the Ten Commandments???

Now it's important to God that Jesus be beaten, flogged, spit on, dragged, cursed, and persecuted, so that OUR sins may be forgiven, but of course, God could’ve just eliminated all sin to begin with, but why do that when the Catholic Church profits from using such a bizarrely deceptive story that employs fear and guilt to coerce people into forking their hard-earned over?!?

In short, after Jesus arrives, we have spirits, souls, and 'miracles', etc, eh? All this sounds just a tad contrived, doesn't it? Maybe a bit man-made, perhaps???

That's some nice "proof" you got there, SMW. :rolleyes:

The bible is a joke - it's something you draw inspiration from in your personal life; not something you deem as infallible in 2008. You sound like a goddamned fundie. You should be embarrassed by that fact alone.

You're the one who insists on bringing up Bible stories, Prae. And aren't you the same person who was so level-headed to FT the other day.. explaining how religion was like a 'buffet' with everyone taking what they needed and discounting the rest? If so, you seem to be back-sliding into making hateful comments and talking down to believers.

You may consider the Bible a joke. I consider it proof God exists.

End of discussion.

(unless, of course, you come up with something to prove God DOESN'T exist?)

You are not providing any serious arguments, so neither am I :)

My argument is serious as a heart attack, Ang. You're the one who's posting cartoons.

But again... if you have any tangible proof to backup your beliefs, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

:corn:

I dont see your point with islands still forming and God not creating Earth in 6 days.
Okaaaay, then lemme ask you a relatively simple question here: do YOU buy it?
Do you think He never meant for things to continue to form????
How would I know??? Far be it from me to assume anything when the guy who supposedly authored that book (by using proxies, of course) constantly contradicts himself. I couldn't even begin to tell you what his intentions are.
I mean if that was the case Earth would have been long gone before you had a chance to fight againist creation.
Is that in Genesis?

How could the Bible be "proof" that God exists? Someone writes that God exists and therefore he does?

I think I'll write that rainbow striped unicorns exist, so then they will and I'll be able to get one and ride it around.... :)

How could the Bible be "proof" that God exists? Someone writes that God exists and therefore he does?

I think I'll write that rainbow striped unicorns exist, so then they will and I'll be able to get one and ride it around.... :)

Sounds like a good plan, DF. Then in a few thousand years, if your words are still relevant and your book is still a best-seller, the whole world might believe in rainbow striped unicorns and we'd all have you to thank!

:banana:

You're the one who insists on bringing up Bible stories, Prae.
Yeah - because you're calling it PROOF that god exists. If that's "proof" in your mind, then lemme sell you a miracle product I JUST DEVELOPED; it's great on carpet stains. My carpet was a mess just 2 days ago!!!!! - take my word for it, but now, it looks like this:

http://www.beavercarpets.com/Shaw_carpet/shaw_carpet_room.png

At only $29.95 it's a real steal. If you act now, I'll double the quantity at no charge.

Okaaaay, then lemme ask you a relatively simple question here: do YOU buy it?

How would I know??? Far be it from me to assume anything when the guy who supposedly authored that book (by using proxies, of course) constantly contradicts himself. I couldn't even begin to tell you what his intentions are.

Is that in Genesis?


Yes I believe in God and the Bible.

Glad you don't pretend to know God's intentions.

My argument is serious as a heart attack, Ang. You're the one who's posting cartoons.

But again... if you have any tangible proof to backup your beliefs, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

:corn:

What I have is that so far all that science has explained that previously was "done by god", does not in any way need a god for it to be explained. Now prove something that god must have done.

I have a lot to get back to, and not tons of time to do it, so i'll reply to posts in order LOL.. as this seems to be a "hot topic".. and wow i havn't shopped there in awhile.

Yes, you just repeated exactly what she said. Tell me who you think you're proving wrong here?

I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong dark, you must misinterpret my tone or intentions. I'm just trying reiterating the message.


Love is a subjective concept in the first place. You can't even create an objective definition of love, so obviously "proving" empirically that it exists is impossible. You can, however, create an objective definition of god (at least of the God of the big three religions). It's comparing apples to oranges.

The thing is, "love" is a perfectly acceptable and common notion in today's society.. yet we can't prove it exists. "love" is believed by pretty much everyone, athiests AND believers... but yet it can't be proven. I see that to be ironic, because that reason is why athiests refuse to believe that a God could possibly exist. But "love" is acceptable...

Of course "God" and "Love" aren't the same thing.. but what is the same is proving something which you can't see or 100% define.



I think healing by prayer is more a testament to the power of the human mind than a direct testament to the existence of God. In short, you can believe that prayer heals whether you believe in God or not. As for the existence of religion as an argument for the existence of God... well, that's pure speculation, as you well know. You could turn that argument around easily and ask why, if God exists, are there multiple religions? Shouldn't everyone follow the "one true religion?"

Wow you are opening up a deep can of worms dark. First off.. I think prayer helps.. whether it's an "energy force" or "God's healing".. it is proven to work. So SOMETHING supernatural is going on here, in my opinion.

I really don't go out and try to "prove" God exists.. because you come to God through faith. To the naysayer, it's a convenient answer, and they can choose not to believe.. that's fine. I, however, choose to believe...

Now the "multiple religions" thing could be a whole thread in itself. I'll try to sum up my feelings the best I can. It is entirely possible that all religions are guided towards the same supernatural being, but through different interpretation. There are many similarities in religions... but certain beliefs keep them separate, like reincarnation, Jesus, Mohammad, etc...

We, being sinful human beings, are bound to not perfectly receive God's word, so why would you expect a perfect system of religion down here in earth? Of course, I'm just throwing out theories. Nothing can be proven, but I think God is performing "tough love" by not "controlling" us, but letting us live our lives and seeing what we do. Giving man free will to sin. That IS really the only way you can judge a man on whether or not he gets into heaven.. right? (if it exists).


What possible evidence could lead you to say that our questions "will probably never be answered" by science? It isn't as if scientific discovery has reached its peak. You said yourself that new evidence, leading to new theories, constantly appears to change our perspective. And Angelina is NOT using faith, since she openly says that science does not have all the answers and that she doesn't either. I thought faith was a bit more absolute than that (e.g. "God definitely exists, Jesus was definitely the son of God, and I absolutely know the answer to everything." Never heard anything like that coming from Angelina.).

Faith is just believing.. is it wrong to have beliefs? As long as you don't harass other people about theirs.. who cares right? And the scientific questions WILL probably "never be answered".. i don't see how they could.. and with so many holes in the story, I don't see how you can come to a conclusion that science alone is responsible for our being here. It's a stretch of the imagination to say so. I'm just willing to say "we don't know".. and I'm glad you and Angelina are willing to say that too. But since "we don't know".. then isn't really any of the major theories at least POSSIBLE? I mean, I don't DISMISS that lizards became birds, but it seems like a stretch. It's a theory, and so is a creator of our universe.


She never said that science had to produce the answer. Science is only as infallible as the humans who study it. I think that there ARE explanations for everything, but I doubt that we will find every last one.

Well there HAS to be an explanation for everything, or else it wouldn't happen. It just has to be known. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seems that science is "the way, the truth, and the light" for Angelina...



That absolutely doesn't prove that moral values are "exclusive to religion", as you are claiming here. That is tantamount to saying that irreligious people are all immoral, and I hope you are smarter than that, Decka. I'm not religious, and I was not raised in a religious home by any means, yet I still know that it's wrong to kill someone, wrong to hurt a child, wrong to torture an animal, etc.

A simple misunderstanding, I'm just saying what moral values religions have, I never said they were "exclusive to religion".. I don't know where you got that quote from, but it wasn't me. Of course a non-religious man can have these values.



You are very sensitive, apparently, because I think Angelina has been quite courteous when addressing your beliefs and the beliefs of others. If you think she's rude just for expressing her opinion that Christianity is wrong, well then you must have very thin skin. And if she is being impolite, why is it then that you can say atheism, Islam, agnosticism, Buddhism, etc. are wrong and not consider it rude?
[/QUOTE]
First off... My message to Angelina was not what I thought, but what many christians, or people of religion, think. I wanted her to realize how touchy of a subject she is addressing, and when you talk about a touchy subject, you use certain language. I even said I don't care, but others do. Others get offended, and I don't know why, but they do. It's just the reality of religion. Some people hold it near and dear to their hearts, like a mother or a father... and when someone shits on it, they get pissed.

I'll site some examples of mildly "touchy" words used by Angelina:

instead of blindly adopting what he has been told by others.

you see, that's saying that people of religion blindly adopt their religion, and have no basis for it. Don't we all "blindly adopt" most of our core values? Calling everyone of religion "blind" is pretty negative and insulting.. why not be happy that they have a core and belief that brings them happiness?

Bible is full of excuses to cover up the fact that things happen the exact same way whether one tries to invoke God or not.

Ripping the bible, another way to piss people off. Depending on the person, some people see the bible as a divine book in itself... and when someone insults the divine book, they insult God itself. Especially saying the bible is "full of excuses".. that is poor, poor language.

Problem with religion, fundamentalist religion in particular, is that it intrudes on both with great arrogance...

While she tried to cover her behind with teh "fundamentalist" part.. she still said religion intrudes with great arrogance. PEOPLE can be arrogant, but religion sure isn't.


How do you know it is the creator and not just the people taking his place? You have to have a lot of faith and trust in people to do that. Especially keeping in mind how easily power corrupts, something that has been shown to a great extent in religious circles too lately.

Now we have the hint of a conspiracy theory.. .PEOPLE created religion for gain!! who knew!!

Okay, enough with the examples... the bottom line is that while I personally wasn't offended, I just wanted to warn Angelina that some people will be.

Oh, and Dark, I never said athiesm, buddhism, islam, etc.. .were all wrong.. where did you get that from?

How could the Bible be "proof" that God exists? Someone writes that God exists and therefore he does?

I think I'll write that rainbow striped unicorns exist, so then they will and I'll be able to get one and ride it around.... :)
No, DF - rainbow-striped unicorns aren't very profitable. Or scary. You need to find a way to frighten (yet paradoxically, cajole) people into forking over their cash for your newfound savior. All hail the benevolent Unicorn (so long as you play by his rules, that is)!!!

Glad you don't pretend to know God's intentions.
Glad I'm talking to someone who pretends to know him, and thinks the earth was created in 6 days. It'll make our future interaction really easy for me to deal with.

Glad I'm talking to someone who pretends to know him, and thinks the earth was created in 6 days. It'll make our future interaction really easy for me to deal with.


You're right it will. Now you can think everything I say is dumb and stupid.

Bring on the negative comments. It's getting kinda old around here but it seems to be all people here know how to do.

Stick to what you know!

Stick to what you know!
Or, in your case, what you don't.

Decka:
Didn't feel like quoting your very long post, since I only have a couple things to say...

First, about the "exclusive to religion" thing... Angelina said, "None of those principles are exclusive to religion, it is as much a part of my values as yours.". Then you said, "They actually are... most religions have those listed virtues as their core values. Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, etc..." Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. :)

Second, about calling religion "blind". Well don't believers use the term "blind faith"? I thought it was a good thing?

On a more general note, most of your post tells me what I already know, and what I think you also know - that this argument is subjective. Like you said, you come to religion through faith. There is no convincing people of one side or the other.

I'll site some examples of mildly "touchy" words used by Angelina:

"instead of blindly adopting what he has been told by others."

you see, that's saying that people of religion blindly adopt their religion, and have no basis for it. Don't we all "blindly adopt" most of our core values? Calling everyone of religion "blind" is pretty negative and insulting.. why not be happy that they have a core and belief that brings them happiness?

Well. mr kettle, that was a direct response to you accusing Borg for "jacking off his own ego" :)

Anyway, we do not all "blindly adopt", you seem to confess you do, but I certainly don't. It's called independant thought. So if I was right in your case, why so offended?

"Bible is full of excuses to cover up the fact that things happen the exact same way whether one tries to invoke God or not."

Ripping the bible, another way to piss people off. Depending on the person, some people see the bible as a divine book in itself... and when someone insults the divine book, they insult God itself. Especially saying the bible is "full of excuses".. that is poor, poor language.

But I don't belive the bible is anything more than myths and legends, so why should I hold it in any reverence? I see christians rip off great scientific work and other religious texts as "work of the devil" all the time...

"Problem with religion, fundamentalist religion in particular, is that it intrudes on both with great arrogance..."

While she tried to cover her behind with teh "fundamentalist" part.. she still said religion intrudes with great arrogance. PEOPLE can be arrogant, but religion sure isn't.

Cover? Not all religious people are fundamentalists, I was specifically referring to the fundamentalists. Are you annoyed you couldn't pin that one on me?
You're losing it :)

"How do you know it is the creator and not just the people taking his place? You have to have a lot of faith and trust in people to do that. Especially keeping in mind how easily power corrupts, something that has been shown to a great extent in religious circles too lately."

Now we have the hint of a conspiracy theory.. .PEOPLE created religion for gain!! who knew!!

It is a known historical fact that religion has been abused as means of control and power. Denying that is just silly, but hey, feel free :)
Anyway, you exaggerate my point, I didn't say religion was created for gain, you're making that part up. I said it was used for gain, and that is hard to argue against.

You seem to be trying to build a personal case against me, don't know what you intend to achieve, but I do not intend to play that game. You are the one going personal here...

Glad I'm talking to someone who pretends to know him, and thinks the earth was created in 6 days. It'll make our future interaction really easy for me to deal with.
Well, I have a slight problem with this... You don't have to believe that the earth was created in six literal days to be a Christian. My boyfriend is fairly religious, and he certainly believes in evolution, the big bang, and whatnot.

That alone for me does not discount Christianity, just fundamentalist (or literalist) Christianity. Perhaps God's "day" is different than ours. Maybe at the beginning of the world a day lasted a million years (or something like that)... Or maybe, just maybe, the writers of the Bible would not understand the complicated process with which the earth was created. Therefore, they represented it by saying that he created certain things on certain days.

I think that taking the Bible completely literally, especially the Old Testament (I think the New Testament may have been meant to be taken more literally than the Old), is one of the greatest flaws in Christianity today. The Bible and science only contradict each other if you take everything literally. We must remember that many Bible stories are allegorical, and they represent certain morals, not literal events. We must also remember that the people who wrote the Bible were human. They could get things wrong, or (especially important) translate them wrong. Many things have come out in recent years as mistranslations from the original Bible. For instance, the Vulgate (the first Latin translation) brought the Bible to Western Europe. However, it wasn't exactly the same Bible that Easterners were reading in Greek.

Or, in your case, what you don't.


And what was it I don't know again??

Remember all I said was that I didn't see your point in the correlation of islands still forming and God's 6 day creation.

Interesting to me....you had to ask me if I bought it. Like that mattered in the way you were going to answer me.

Can you give me the answer and just pretend I'm on the side your following?? I'm curious to know what that answer would be.

Adding to DFs post...

The Bible (OT specifically) is not a scientific or historical book, it is a book of stories with moral, poetry and prophecy. Taking all the stories literally is what get religion into trouble in the first place. There are as many interpretations of genesis as there are readers of it, and that alone should make it clear that it is not fit to base a scientific theory upon. I would say those Christians are the ones who show the most disrespect for their holy book.

What I have is that so far all that science has explained that previously was "done by god", does not in any way need a god for it to be explained. Now prove something that god must have done.

"Science" isn't exactly something you can hold in your hand and read, is it? It's mortals' opinions based on unprovable theories. I'm actually kinda surprised that someone as smart as you would believe something so intangible.

Until you have something more concrete to base your nonbelief on, think I'll just continue to rely on the written word.

Unless, of course, you have some written word to back up science's claim? Something that's survived for many centuries would be preferable.

:corn:

Adding to DFs post...

The Bible (OT specifically) is not a scientific or historical book, it is a book of stories with moral, poetry and prophecy. Taking all the stories literally is what get religion into trouble in the first place. There are as many interpretations of genesis as there are readers of it, and that alone should make it clear that it is not fit to base a scientific theory upon. I would say those Christians are the ones who show the most disrespect for their holy book.

And you know that because.....

"Science" isn't exactly something you can hold in your hand and read, is it? It's mortals' opinions based on unprovable theories. I'm actually kinda surprised that someone as smart as you would believe something so intangible.

The only reason you can't hold it in your hand is that the amount of information that you can read would never fit into a single book.

Until you have something more concrete to base your nonbelief on, think I'll just continue to rely on the written word.

You don't have to base nonbelief on anything, you have to base belief on something. Your logic is rather twisted :)

Unless, of course, you have some written word to back up science's claim? Something that's survived for many centuries would be preferable.

I am starting to wonder what alternate reality you come from, cause the amount of written word on science is just astronomical.

:corn:

I find it hard to take you serious, I suspect you are just trolling now :)

And you know that because.....

I and millions of others have read it (including Christians) and it is quite obvious?

I and millions of others have read it (including Christians) and it is quite obvious?

Obvious to whom? You???

Like I said... prove it... or admit that you can't.

SMW:
Did you read my post about the Bible and literalism? I'm curious as to what you think of it. :)

"Science" isn't exactly something you can hold in your hand and read, is it? It's mortals' opinions based on unprovable theories. I'm actually kinda surprised that someone as smart as you would believe something so intangible.
Yeah, science has never been right about anything! Uh. Except for the whole round Earth thing. Oh, and it revolving around the sun. ...And relativity. Medicine's done pretty well, too. And Newton was right on some things, I guess...
Until you have something more concrete to base your nonbelief on, think I'll just continue to rely on the written word.
Are you serious? There's no fucking way you can be serious here. The irony is way too much.

Obvious to whom? You???

Like I said... prove it... or admit that you can't.

Ok

Geological data indicates that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Therefore the interpretation of the bible saying the earth is 6000 years old is wrong, or the Bible is wrong.

There is not enough water on the planet to cover it by a flood reaching the mountaintops. Either the story in the bible is a metaphor or the bible is wrong.

You cannot live inside the belly of a fish for three days, either the story is a metaphor or the bible is wrong.

Get my drift?

You can choose to take everything literally and throw rational thought out the window, or you can see the value in the stories as they are and not take it all literally.

SMW:
Did you read my post about the Bible and literalism? I'm curious as to what you think of it. :)

Well, I have a slight problem with this... You don't have to believe that the earth was created in six literal days to be a Christian. My boyfriend is fairly religious, and he certainly believes in evolution, the big bang, and whatnot.

That alone for me does not discount Christianity, just fundamentalist (or literalist) Christianity. Perhaps God's "day" is different than ours. Maybe at the beginning of the world a day lasted a million years (or something like that)... Or maybe, just maybe, the writers of the Bible would not understand the complicated process with which the earth was created. Therefore, they represented it by saying that he created certain things on certain days.

I think that taking the Bible completely literally, especially the Old Testament (I think the New Testament may have been meant to be taken more literally than the Old), is one of the greatest flaws in Christianity today. The Bible and science only contradict each other if you take everything literally. We must remember that many Bible stories are allegorical, and they represent certain morals, not literal events. We must also remember that the people who wrote the Bible were human. They could get things wrong, or (especially important) translate them wrong. Many things have come out in recent years as mistranslations from the original Bible. For instance, the Vulgate (the first Latin translation) brought the Bible to Western Europe. However, it wasn't exactly the same Bible that Easterners were reading in Greek.

I couldn't agree more, DF. Taking the Bible literally is something very few people actually try to do. That's one reason alot of Christians go to church... where ministers with years of training interpret the meaning of God's word.

In fact, I think it'd be safe to say the Bible is taken more literally by people trying to prove there is no God than the other way around.*

:)
SMW

*see Ang's post above.

Yeah, science has never been right about anything! Uh. Except for the whole round Earth thing. Oh, and it revolving around the sun. ...And relativity. Medicine's done pretty well, too. And Newton was right on some things, I guess...

Are you serious? There's no fucking way you can be serious here. The irony is way too much.

Chill, Borg. All I'm asking for is proof there is no God.

I have proof there is... right there in my Bible. Show me your proof there's not and I'll be happy.

:corn:

I couldn't agree more, DF. Taking the Bible literally is something very few people actually try to do. That's one reason alot of Christians go to church... where ministers with years of training interpret the meaning of God's word.

In fact, I think it'd be safe to say the Bible is taken more literally by people trying to prove there is no God than the other way around.*

:)
SMW

*see Ang's post above.
Yeah, I didn't think you were one of those literalists. Angelina assumed you were, so I thought I may have missed something somewhere... Good to clear that up. :)

I could have posted a comment on this issue... but I'll defer since I'm drunk when I post anything that offends or attacks anyone.


I guessh Ish schood jusht be squiet, ossifer.

Chill, Borg. All I'm asking for is proof there is no God.
Burden of proof, hon. YOU have to prove his existence. And don't give me that "The Bible tells me so" BS...the Bible doesn't prove God's existence any more than J.K. Rowling's books prove that there is a school called Hogwarts.

Burden of proof, hon. YOU have to prove his existence. And don't give me that "The Bible tells me so" BS...the Bible doesn't prove God's existence any more than J.K. Rowling's books prove that there is a school called Hogwarts.

I beg to differ, Borg. The very first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth..."

Now that that's settled, show me your proof.

:corn:

Burden of proof, hon. YOU have to prove his existence. And don't give me that "The Bible tells me so" BS...the Bible doesn't prove God's existence any more than J.K. Rowling's books prove that there is a school called Hogwarts.
Well, Borg, J.K. Rowling's books haven't been around for thousands of years! Therefore they must be wrong, and the Bible must be completely right. See, you don't know anything. You're just a godless scientist. :slap:

I beg to differ, Borg. The very first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth..."

Now that that's settled, show me your proof.

:corn:
And the Harry Potter books say that Voldemort tried to take over the world and was defeated by a baby. :)

Yeah, I didn't think you were one of those literalists. Angelina assumed you were, so I thought I may have missed something somewhere... Good to clear that up. :)

I have already stated I know she is trolling :)

Anyway SMW, I say there is a china teapot in orbit between earth and mars, can you prove there isn't?

I could have posted a comment on this issue... but I'll defer since I'm drunk when I post anything that offends or attacks anyone.


I guessh Ish schood jusht be squiet, ossifer.
:lolhit: I saw you hanging around in here, OP. I for one would like to know what you think of this.

I have already stated I know she is trolling :)

Trolling? Does that mean asking questions you can't answer, Ang?

Yeah, maybe I am trolling... as in fishing for proof there is no God. So far, I haven't even gotten a bite.

;)
SMW

And the Harry Potter books say that Voldemort tried to take over the world and was defeated by a baby. :)


and that your rainbow striped unicorn would be worth major bucks:eek:

Trolling? Does that mean asking questions you can't answer, Ang?

Yeah, maybe I am trolling... as in fishing for proof there is no God. So far, I haven't even gotten a bite.

;)
SMW

You know perfectly well there is no proof either way :)

I beg to differ, Borg. The very first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth..."

Now that that's settled, show me your proof.

:corn:
You don't seem to understand the main thrust of my argument. You can't take a book merely at face value, no matter what claims IT makes about ITS divinity. You're not too stupid to understand this, so I'm not entirely certain why you're being so dense, but I'll repeat it on the assumption that you simply haven't had your coffee today: The Bible is not a work of nonfiction. It is incumbent on you to prove that it is if you're going to run around citing it.

Trolling? Does that mean asking questions you can't answer, Ang?

Yeah, maybe I am trolling... as in fishing for proof there is no God. So far, I haven't even gotten a bite.

;)
SMW
There is no proof that there is a God, and there is no proof that there isn't. There is evidence for both. Proof is objective - if there were proof, no one could argue with it. Evidence is subjective; people are convinced by it, but it certainly isn't unarguable.

I have already stated I know she is trolling :)

Anyway SMW, I say there is a china teapot in orbit between earth and mars, can you prove there isn't?

I don't have to. I have all the proof I need to back up my belief in God. It would be up to YOU to prove what you say is accurate. Have you actually seen a written account of the orbiting teapot?

Better yet... have you actually seen a written account that God only exists in people's minds?

If so, please provide a link.

:corn:

Maybe you should all do what I do and don't discuss religion with SMW. Do something more productive.

I don't have to. I have all the proof I need to back up my belief in God.

No you don't :)

Not more than I have written proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...

There is no proof that there is a God, and there is no proof that there isn't. There is evidence for both. Proof is objective - if there were proof, no one could argue with it. Evidence is subjective; people are convinced by it, but it certainly isn't unarguable.

Au contraire, my dear. There IS proof there is a God! Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But you're right about one thing... there is NO proof He doesn't exist. If there was, I'm pretty sure this board would be filled with evidence as we speak.

;)
SMW

Burden of proof, hon. YOU have to prove his existence. And don't give me that "The Bible tells me so" BS...the Bible doesn't prove God's existence any more than J.K. Rowling's books prove that there is a school called Hogwarts.


But Rowling never sold her book as fact. So it's kinda a bad comparison.

Maybe you should all do what I do and don't discuss religion with SMW. Do something more productive.
She certainly is frustrating on this subject. Normally she's fairly sane and often makes cogent arguments and surprisingly insightful analyses, but throw religion into the mix and she becomes the homeless guy ranting to you about God while asking for your spare change. It's a rather frightening change, actually.

Well, I have a slight problem with this... You don't have to believe that the earth was created in six literal days to be a Christian.
That's all well and good, but I asked her that question specifically, and she responded with, "Yes I believe in God and the Bible". In light of my inquiry (and not to mention, her response), I think I was absolutely correct in assuming that she believes the Earth was created in 6 days.

No you don't :)

Not more than I have written proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...

Genesis 1: In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth...

Now, show me yours?

That's all well and good, but I asked her that question specifically, and she responded with, "Yes I believe in God and the Bible". In light of my inquiry (and not to mention, her response), I think I was absolutely correct in assuming that she believes the Earth was created in 6 days.


Actually I agree with what she said. I don't know what God's time frame is.

But yes I agree it was done in 6 days...however long that day was.

She certainly is frustrating on this subject. Normally she's fairly sane and often makes cogent arguments and surprisingly insightful analyses, but throw religion into the mix and she becomes the homeless guy ranting to you about God while asking for your spare change. It's a rather frightening change, actually.

Don't get nasty just because you can't come up with an answer, Borg. It's very un-mod-like of you.

;)
SMW

Now, show me yours?

Hang on a second, that is only proof if you can prove that the bible is trustworthy...

That's all well and good, but I asked her that question specifically, and she responded with, "Yes I believe in God and the Bible". In light of my inquiry (and not to mention, her response), I think I was absolutely correct in assuming that she believes the Earth was created in 6 days.

Catch up, Prae... we already discussed that very few people take the Bible literally. Really, dear, you're usually much more on top of discussions than this.

:)
SMW

Now, show me yours?
Could you possibly come up with a BETTER and MORE CREATIVE argument than this non-proof? Jesus Christ, I've already told you why this is invalid. You're more fucking intelligent than the children's arguments for God you've been using.

Hang on a second, that is only proof if you can prove that the bible is trustworthy...

See, you don't understand Ang. I don't have to prove anything. The Bible's trustworthiness has been proven by the mere fact that it's survived through thousands of years of investigation and disbelievers to remain the most powerful book on this planet in 2008.

Now you may not believe what it says, but you can't deny it exists.

Could you possibly come up with a BETTER and MORE CREATIVE argument than this non-proof? Jesus Christ, I've already told you why this is invalid. You're more fucking intelligent than the children's arguments for God you've been using.

May I sing?

*Jesus love me, this I know. Because the Bible tells me so.*

See? Even most little children are more enlightened than you.

What's invalid about demanding proof that God doesn't exist? Besides the fact that you can't provide it, I mean.

The Bible's trustworthiness has been proven by the mere fact that it's survived through thousands of years of investigation and disbelievers to remain the most powerful book on this planet in 2008.
And yet, by your own admission, it's not to be taken literally. How do you know that God isn't really just an extended metaphor?

See, you don't understand Ang. I don't have to prove anything. The Bible's trustworthiness has been proven by the mere fact that it's survived through thousands of years of investigation and disbelievers to remain the most powerful book on this planet in 2008.

Now you may not believe what it says, but you can't deny it exists.

All religious texts we have have survived for equally or longer times than that, so that argument does not stand on it s own. Same goes for old greek and egyptian myths who incidentally are remarkably similar to biblical figures :)