Printable View
So why must something be "proven" in order for it to be true? You seem well-learned, and I'm sure you know that most "scientists" will agree that even with all the laws of physics and such, that there are still MANY things that just cannot be explained away, yet they are quite definately in existence.
1. Where did I say that "something has to be proven to be true"? The last few words of my last post are "I have no beef with belief, just with attempts to justify it through faulty logic." Don't put words in my mouth!Quote:
Originally Posted by sdr4jc
2. There are many things that can't be explained YET. That doesn't mean that they never will be explained. It's not too long ago that the Earth was believed to be flat and the sun to revolve around it. We have come a long way in a relatively short time but the quest for knowledge is unending. It's a little early to concede that the jigsaw of science has missing pieces.
3. And I am well-learned; it's not a mere semblance, thank you. ;)
hmmm.. it is true that somethings are a bit hard to rationalize. But i have a small problem with "just letting them go." :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by sdr4jc
the reason being that, through my humble knowledge of chirstianity, judaism and islam, God spoke to man (when he/she/it first spoke) through the word of logic.
People were asked by prophets to challenge and rationalize their beliefs and see if it makes sense that the universe has no creator. To me, it doesn't. however, it also doesnt make sense that this creator would create and judge beings like us for a reason that is not quite clear. It also doesnt make sense that this creator comes from nowhere and that we shouldnt know what was before us or after us. :brickwall
If we were supposed to use our minds in order to reach evidence of God's existence, y shouldnt we use our minds examining other unknowns about this universe. It ALL has to make sense. I think! :)
the answer is simple. it might be hard to understand but here goes.....
God allways was and allways will be. Christians might have only been arround for 2,000 years, but people have believed in God for centuries because he allways was. My Grandpa is an Atheist, but even he admits there was something that created the universe. And I'm not trying to get on your bad side or any thing but if you profess to be an Atheist (which meens you don't believe in anything) woulden't you be believeing in something right there? God is all knowing and all powerfull and he never "changed his mind" just read the Bible you will see that God cast out angels from heaven(i won't go into any details until you read it yourself),and that's where the dino's died, then he rebuilt (if you would put it that way) the earth in 7 days. so Christianity isn't a religion it's a belief
There are more things in heaven and earth, Xamonas, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;) I feel as though I can identify with both sides of this debate. As an agnostic I can well understand having a faith in some higher power than us. I believe very firmly in what people refer to as god. Yet while I see this higher power as the basis and inspiration for most of the world's religions, I don't believe specifically in the mythologies of any of these religions. I think that organized religion provides many good things in providing the context for discussing the big questions, encouraging people to help one another, and comforting people in their times of distress, and I respect those who sincerely believe in their religions as a way to a good and giving life. Yet I've seen too often how easily the attribution of our human ideas to the unknowable "god" can be turned to bad ends and the power of religious ideology abused to suit, not a higher but a human purpose. I believe that the spirit we call "god" is truly unknowable, and so I do not believe in trying to apply human logic to understand it. So I suppose I agree with Xamonas in that I don't see the point of a logical argument attempting to prove the existence of god, and that many of the personifications of the almighty are in fact human inventions. Still, I agree from a very different position, one which readily embraces the existence of god. I suppose taking both sides in a sense may make mine the least popular position on this thread. Throw your stones gently. ;)
Then he's not an atheist!Quote:
Originally Posted by swimangel
Please see the "atheists" thread for many examples of what atheists do believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by swimangel
1. I have read it. All of it. Most of it many times. Have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by swimangel
2. The dinosaurs died because God threw the angels out of heaven? Where does it say that in the bible? Where does it mention dinosaurs in the bible at all, for that matter? Did the angels land on the dinosaurs heads and crush them?
3. God re-created the Earth in 7 days? You are reading an interesting book there, but it sure ain't any bible I know! No mention of multiple creations in there. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Silmarillion or something?
Ok, first of all, I'm an atheist. Secondly, your strategy resembles someone throwing as much crap as possible at a wall and hoping most of it sticks. That's fine when you're talking to a fifth grader, but did you really expect that to work here?
Let's get to your argument. You start off by saying:
Would you like to back this up with credible evidence? Because that statement can't and never will be proven and to make such a statement, without proof, is idiotic.Quote:
the answer is simple. it might be hard to understand but here goes.....
God allways was and allways will be.
You then say:
Ok, atheists don't believe in a creator. If they really are atheist, that is. Because the creator would be a divine being, which would make him a theist.(theos = divine being = god) So, your grandpa doesn't fully represent what atheists believe in. He's more of an agnostic than anything else.Quote:
My Grandpa is an Atheist, but even he admits there was something that created the universe. And I'm not trying to get on your bad side or any thing but if you profess to be an Atheist (which meens you don't believe in anything) woulden't you be believeing in something right there?
Here's the fun part:
I'm sure all of that is 100% truth, right? Just because the Bible says it? You can't use the Bible to prove Christianity, it's just circular reasoning. Also, I HAVE read the Bible. I see nothing about dino's dying or the earth getting REBUILT in there. Again, textual evidence would be nice. By the way, the Nephilim weren't dinos if that's what you're getting at.Quote:
God is all knowing and all powerfull and he never "changed his mind" just read the Bible you will see that God cast out angels from heaven(i won't go into any details until you read it yourself),and that's where the dino's died, then he rebuilt (if you would put it that way) the earth in 7 days.
Annndddd to top it all off:Try telling a priest that. Or a Catholic. Or a Christian. Hell, try that with anybody. Is Judaism a belief as well? How about Buddhist? That too?Quote:
so Christianity isn't a religion it's a belief
Ok, now I'm sure this looks like a personal attack and in some respects it is. However, I think you need to be shocked into doing a little more research and learning how to argue correctly. Do not use "faith" or "because the Bible says so", because those are as valid as "I think so" and "It's my opinion that". Consider this being thrown into an icebath. It'll suck, but you'll learn from it.
Stop throwing crap and you won't get it back.
You sell Pepsi by stopping Coke production. Enough said.
Question to all~
Why is there such an urgency to disprove the existence of God?
God is nothing apart from love and mercy...so why all the negativity on this end?
I have no such urgency - believe what you like - I just have a compulsion to point out bad logic and shaky arguments when I see them. I'm not looking to shake anyone out of their beliefs; just to ask a few awkward questions and see what answers I get.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdr4jc
I am genuinely interested in how believers think; in the different ways that each rationalises his or her faith. I am also half-researching an idea for a short story involving religion.
Love and mercy are all good but why is the urge to believe in a divine being to have those in your life?Quote:
Originally Posted by sdr4jc
To me, this is like saying that one needs to have imaginary friends to value friendship.
I also agree with XC that asking questions does not necessarily mean one is trying to persuade others otherwise. When one sees arguments, it is only natural to react and question those. The Forum Rules states that:Quote:
If you are going to post to this part of the forums, you must be willing to subject yourself to other members' points of views and opinions, which may not agree with yours.
All of the first Christians were Jews who held quite vast views as to the history of all nations. Their immediate disciples were quite a number of other Jews that saw Christianity as the matured estate of their nation's Destiny, as prophesied from before the Covenant of Moses was given. JESUS HIMSELF contrasted things Moses wrote about, which had been from the beginning, with concessions granted temporarily in the Mosaic administration in Israel. Had the sons of Israel not been so dull spiritually in Moses' time, they would have been ready to have had CHRIST HIMSELF immediately succede Moses with the Covenant HE established. Moses himself possessed a heart that could not comprehend the weaknesses in those he led about in the wilderness, which were the cause for certain parts of the Law.
For one that gives due consideration to the fact that Genesis mentions a Prophecy near the beginning of it, about a Woman and her SEED (a phrase indicating that the Woman, not some human father, would first have the first particle of the CHILD's Humanity in her), there is good reason to believe that one Religion was foretold from the beginning, centering on the SEED of the Woman as the Hope of Salvation, and giving due consideration to the Woman's participation with HIM. Also, there is the implication of a People that regard the SEED's Mother as their own also. The Catholic Church, established by JESUS CHRIST, the VERY SEED HIMSELF, was from the beginning known by many as born of a Virgin. All Catholics regard Mary as the Second Eve, our Mother (but not a goddess) in the order of the Church (Which is peopled by her and her spiritual children).
The fact that so many numerous heathen religions try to find a place for a mother goddess reflects the original universal knowledge of the Prophecy of a Woman and her SEED, which many cultures, detached from the ONE that first spoke it, aspired to see fulfilled in their own provinences. Thus all the things that many have ignorantly said the Church stole from heathens' myths were misapplications of a Prophecy given before heathenism entered the then small race of man.
From the beginning, Israel saw their Religion under Moses as the continuation of the first Religion, but under the new Covenant given since the Exodus from bondage in Mistrayim (Egypt). The first Christians saw the Catholic Faith as the perfect full Tree grown out of the nation of Israel's spiritual essence, into a growing body ready to fill all the earth, embracing all the nations. It is the ultimate Judaism, attaining, in Faith, what those before the nation of Israel's birth passed on in Spirit.
Jews regard their Religion as that of Abel, except kept according to a new Covenant given through Moses. Christians regard the Religion in that Covenant to be the one that is now Christianity, hidden in the SPIRIT within the shell of a seed, so to speak. Moses was a good example of one that delved into the SPIRIT, within that seed, and obeyed the Law in loyalty to HIM he also looked forward to the Revelation of in history with prophetic Hope.
I don't see any time in history as being without the true Religion, nor is there evidence of a time before Religion. Things long held to be meaningless markings by "missing links" are now being deciphered as expressing sentences. The layers of the earth used for dating the passage of time reveal proportions of time equal to those enumerated in the Bible - could the modern count be wrong?
All of the earliest myths correlate in some very extraordinary ways.
Many sects breathe a certain way as though for holistic benefit. One word translated as "meditate" from Hebrew literally means to "inspire". The fact that two types of religions have religious terms that involve breathing reflects a common earlier religious vocabulary, while it is obvious that the lungs cannot profit the Spirit, thus the Hebrew idea of breathing in spiritually, not carnally, must be the original Devotion, the other being not even worth wasting breath on.
“Love and mercy are all good but why is the urge to believe in a divine being to have those in your life?”
Love and mercy are as necessary to human life as reason. The disagreement that I have with the bulk of atheist postings here is that they seem to leave no room in their world for such experience. Unnamable has quoted Goethe, once or twice, that liberals have no ideas only sentiment – it could be argued that reason without sentiment does not get far in facing anything that matters.
One of the problems we have here in discussing God is that many people stop thinking about God when they start puberty. This means that they are stuck with the language and anthropomorphic view that is appropriate to childhood. Anyone whose ideas of God develop beyond the childish knows that He is not he, that He is omniscient yet knows nothing in any way that would make sense to us, that He is both transcendent and immanent at once, that there is no rational way of describing Him. Which makes discussion a little difficult.
I do not think there is a need to “believe in a divine being” in any image-of-human way. If you recognize love and mercy, you experience the divine. If I may hearken back to the leaf-describing game that I mentioned earlier in this thread, I would say that the divide between “believers” and “atheists” is that “believers” hold that there is a qualitative difference between the trees on the other side of the car-park and the asphalt of the car-park. The fact that this difference cannot be logically described simply demonstrates, to the believer, that logic is not sufficient to describe the world. Sentiment, in spite if the contempt of the atheists, is necessary for understanding.
.
It might be well to note that Buddhism is not a religion, only a loyalty to a revolutionist, and a loyalty to a mentor as Plato was to his disciples. It is more one man's experiment. It doesn't define any religion at all - it only says "Try this, and you may hit on something you never might have hit on in any other frame of mind".
As for Hinduism, there is no single Hindu religion, for to be Hindu has meant from the beginning to belong to a collition (if somewhat forced) of various ethnic entities in a particular region for which all therein are named.
Shiva's and Vishnu's devotees hate Brahma. Their ancient myths say that Brahma is left without a single worshipper. That has long proved false: for there is but one enduring temple to Brahma. That there is but the one is due to this only other major division of ancient Hindu culture failing to have any universal appeal. But in Hindu religions are residual kernals of the First Religion.
The Hindus claim, like the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, to be the first civilization, while all three calim to have never left anywhere else to be where they now reside! Ancient maps showed no aquatic rift between India and Africa.
In Genesis, we read of the first post-Flood civilization, in the land of "Shinar". In Hebrew it is "Shin'ar" (the apostrophe representing a back of throat gutteral sound that many replaced with an /H/, /G/, or silent phonetic.
The first component of "Shin'ar", "Shin-", is like the name used by many Hindus of themselves from ancient times: "Sind". The second component, "'ar", may be a variant of Hebrew "'iyr", meaning "city", not unlike our "-gard" ending in names like "Midgard".
Genesis says that Nimrod was the first post-Flood impericist - his sin was the start of all wars to follow: he intruded on ethnic allotments, taking land that belonged to the Assyrians, rather than dwelling under the rightful rulers of his brethren in the land of his inheritance. He happened to be a Cush-ite, of the people the Ethiopians and various of the Arabs descend from. This could be the root to the black/white conflict - because a dictator just happened to be dark-skinned, those of his subjects that were lighter skinned incidentally banned together to recover lands given them in earlier generations by lot from their forefather Noah.
History bears out the mortal conflict between white Assyrians and the Babylonian empire begun by a Cush-ite. It also bears out the mortal conflict between the white Brahmins and the dark-skinned Dravidians in India.
The Sumerians were described in the same manner as Ethiopians, that is, as "dark-faced". They are the oldest Mesopotamian super-power. There has been found no cogent reason for discounting that "Sumer" equals "Shinar".
The lighter-skinned Arabs are often said to have "Arabicized", which means they were not of the original gene-pool of the Arabs. There are Semitic words that sound like the word "Arab", which could imply their being named for something of a conquesting legacy, as with Nimrod's.
Ancient historians used to confound India with Ethiopia. There is to this day a number of regions in India that sound reminiscent of the name "Cush", the father of Nimrod.
Genesis also says that around the time that languages were scrambled, the earth was divided. If this was a literal rending, and the ancient maps showing no rift between West India and East Africa were once accurate, then this might be sufficient to explain three cultures all making the same boast of primacy, and of still remaining in the birthplace of their pre-eminant culture.
There seems to be evidence in China, Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia, of parallel developments of writing. Interestingly enough, if it was in a Mesopotamian quarter of the originally in tact Shinar that the languages were scrambled, at Babel, then that accords well with all of the efforts made in Mesopotamia to compare languages and write out the literatue in parallel translation. This would be the expexted reaction of a super-power trying to regain the communications lost in an instant, that immediately crippled all imperial progress.
Love and mercy are as necessary to human life as reason. The disagreement that I have with the bulk of theist postings here is that they seem to leave no room in their world for such experience.
.
"In Genesis, we read of the first post-Flood civilization, in the land of "Shinar". In Hebrew it is "Shin'ar" (the apostrophe representing a back of throat gutteral sound that many replaced with an /H/, /G/, or silent phonetic.
The first component of "Shin'ar", "Shin-", is like the name used by many Hindus of themselves from ancient times: "Sind". The second component, "'ar", may be a variant of Hebrew "'iyr", meaning "city", not unlike our "-gard" ending in names like "Midgard"."
So the first settlement after the Flood was called Sin City? Makes the Flood a bit pointless, no?