Spirituality
11 Jan 12
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by AgergI don't need to justify my faith to you. And we are told all of the properties of God that we need to know.
I disagree - it may be a step too far to absolutely positively affirm that there does not exist anything which we cannot perceive but that's no grounds to stipulate it has some set of properties (as is the case with human invented gods) with no justification other than "faith".
Indeed, to put it another way, you can't just assume I don't have a favourite nu ...[text shortened]... pens to be, say, 19438357249438 then your position, without good evidence, is indefensible.
Your favorite number analogy falls somewhat flat, but maybe that's just me. There's is no way of knowing what the number is. We are given the tools to know God. You could say they are power tools, and the power they use is Faith.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by c antunesThis is not true. As an unbeliever yourself, you'll excuse me if I harbor no faith for your opinion of God.
Suzianne: "He doesn't want...", "He shows you...", "He can crush you...", etc - I always find it quite hilarious when people say what God wants or does as if they had a personal knowledge...
Also the God you describe/believe is quite an ugly thing, and if He were as you say he would strike (crush!) you down as a poor advocate that will alienate any possible converts!😉
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you have read anything we've been posting, you're at least aware that Christians say there is a decision to be made, and indeed what that decision is between. If you have read the entirety of the Bible, you would also know. In this way, RJH is right, in that the Bible informs all men who read it and who understand it. It is only the entire point of the Bible (at least the New Testament, the Old Testament has other lessons).
I am not even aware there is a decision to be made. The Bible is clearly wrong.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI do not need to distinguish between true evidence and false evidence. False evidence is very often obviously false. Even most false evidence that fools most people is eventually proven false.
Don't forget about false and true evidence. False evidence causes false
teachings in both religion and science. 😏
On the other hand, evidence that has been corroborated and tested repeatedly and not proven false is most likely true, despite how badly one wishes to believe it is false.
23 Jan 12
6 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneWhether you want to justify your faith or not is your call; that said my objection to your statement that (paraphrasing) our disbelief is unsupportable if we simply deny what we cannot see is still standing pretty strong. Furthermore, you are told the properties of your god (that you "need to know" ) by a book which no one has succeeded in demonstrating is anything other than a work of humans referencing something that doesn't exist.
I don't need to justify my faith to you. And we are told all of the properties of God that we need to know.
Your favorite number analogy falls somewhat flat, but maybe that's just me. There's is no way of knowing what the number is. We are given the tools to know God. You could say they are power tools, and the power they use is Faith.
and as for my numbers analogy falling flat because you cannot know what my favourite number would be, precisely the same is true of your "God" - hence why I formed the analogy in the first place! Indeed out of the infinite supply of potential gods, for all you know, the right deity might be a 7 eyed hermaphrodite cluster god who hates bees, hates humans, has a penchant for sprouts, and spends its Thursdays turning planets into pogo sticks (for its own amusement)
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by Agerg
Whether you want to justify your faith or not is your call; that said my objection to your statement that (paraphrasing) our disbelief is unsupportable if we simply deny what we cannot see is still standing pretty strong. Furthermore, you are told the properties of your god (that you "need to know" ) by a book which no one has succeeded in demonstrating is any ...[text shortened]... ely the same is true of your "God" - hence why I formed the analogy in the first place![/b]
... by a book which no one has succeeded in demonstrating is anything other than a work of humans referencing something that doesn't exist.
and as for my numbers analogy falling flat because you cannot know what my favourite number would be, [b]precisely the same is true of your "God" - hence why I formed the analogy in the first place![/b]Well then, I guess by definition, we will simply have to agree to disagree. 🙂 And maybe to realize that neither will convince the other.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by Agerg
Whether you want to justify your faith or not is your call; that said my objection to your statement that (paraphrasing) our disbelief is unsupportable if we simply deny what we cannot see is still standing pretty strong. Furthermore, you are told the properties of your god (that you "need to know" ) by a book which no one has succeeded in demonstrating is any ...[text shortened]... sprouts, and spends its Thursdays turning planets into pogo sticks (for its own amusement)
Indeed out of the infinite supply of potential gods, for all you know, the right deity might be a 7 eyed hermaphrodite cluster god who hates bees, hates humans, has a penchant for sprouts, and spends its Thursdays turning planets into pogo sticks (for its own amusement)Not so fast... The God I speak of is the God of Abraham, the God of the Bible, The Most High, The One God. And as we are told, He is not as you describe here. An "infinite supply of potential gods" does not concern me and I don't see why it should. This is probably one of the more foolish of typical atheist arguments, and why the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was a non-starter also.
23 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by c antunesAgreed. The christians version of "God" cannot possibly be right, ie. a being separate from the rest of creation.
Suzianne: "He doesn't want...", "He shows you...", "He can crush you...", etc - I always find it quite hilarious when people say what God wants or does as if they had a personal knowledge...
Also the God you describe/believe is quite an ugly thing, and if He were as you say he would strike (crush!) you down as a poor advocate that will alienate any possible converts!😉
It may be a very useful word ("God" ), but ultimately there is no "He" behind it all.
23 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneGiven that I've already justified to you why I see no reason to accept your god is the only god that should potentially exist, coupled with the fact you see no reason to justify your faith i think I'll maintain my present speed and course thank you very much.Indeed out of the infinite supply of potential gods, for all you know, the right deity might be a 7 eyed hermaphrodite cluster god who hates bees, hates humans, has a penchant for sprouts, and spends its Thursdays turning planets into pogo sticks (for its own amusement)Not so fast... The God I speak of is the God of Abraham, the God of the Bi f typical atheist arguments, and why the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was a non-starter also.
Indeed I acknowledge you are unconcerned with the prospect of infinitely many gods (since you have been conditioned to believe there must be precisely one god (namely yours)). I however am free from such bias, and free to consider any number of other gods; as such I cannot, in good conscience, pander to the constraints you impose unless the discussion absolutely requires it or it serves my own interests to do so.
Given my entry point into our conversation here, this is not one of those occasions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by SuzianneHang on...Indeed out of the infinite supply of potential gods, for all you know, the right deity might be a 7 eyed hermaphrodite cluster god who hates bees, hates humans, has a penchant for sprouts, and spends its Thursdays turning planets into pogo sticks (for its own amusement)Not so fast... The God I speak of is the God of Abraham, the God of the Bi ...[text shortened]... f typical atheist arguments, and why the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was a non-starter also.
You claim that you believe in god (your god) based on faith alone in the complete absence of evidence.
And that in fact it must be so because if there was any evidence then you wouldn't be able to believe
based on faith alone and thus your god would have to roast you in hell for all eternity for not believing
in him based on faith alone.
This despite the fact that your god made up these rules and thus could also presumably have made them
different or change them, but that's an aside.
Thus you assert that there is no evidence for the existence of your god, and that no such evidence could
exist.
Given then that there are an infinite possible number of potential god concepts (or at least an astronomically
large number of them) none of which you have any evidence for or against, how can you know that the one
you picked is the right one, assuming that there is one.
Surely you must not only believe in your god on faith, but believe that you have picked the right god on faith
as well. In fact you must have a belief that you (and those who believe as you do) have managed to ascertain
which of the myriad (if not infinite) possible gods you could believe in is right through sheer blind luck.
Because there can be no evidence, and thus no reason, for believing in any of them... On that you are clear.
The fact that this reasoning can be used to believe in absolutely anything doesn't matter, it only applies to this
one god... because you say so...?
Believing on faith alone is irrational, it's illogical, it's dangerous (you can justify anything), and it's stupid.
And you hold it up as a virtue.... Forgive us if we don't agree with this nonsense.
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou are always asking for proof. Did you know that science can not
Hang on...
You claim that you believe in god (your god) based on faith alone in the complete absence of evidence.
And that in fact it must be so because if there was any evidence then you wouldn't be able to believe
based on faith alone and thus your god would have to roast you in hell for all eternity for not believing
in him based on faith al ...[text shortened]... d.
And you hold it up as a virtue.... Forgive us if we don't agree with this nonsense.
prove anything. 😏
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, because it isn't true, science can indeed prove things, claiming otherwise is nonsense.
You are always asking for proof. Did you know that science can not
prove anything. 😏
There are potentially things that can't be proven, but that doesn't mean that nothing can
be proven.
And the reason I ask for proof (or even some evidence at all would be nice) is that you (and
any and all other theists) want me to believe a positive claim....
That your god exists and that I should worship it.
Given that I don't 'believe' in believing things without a rational justification for doing so I ask
you to prove that such a justification exists, I ask for evidence, for proof, that your claims are
true. And until you provide such proof or evidence I consider it irrational (by definition) to
believe that your claims are true.
Moreover, I have evidence that directly contradicts some or all of your claims, which makes it
rational to disbelieve your claims.
For example the mountains of evidence that suggest that the brain is responsible for all that we
are and that there is nothing other than the materiel workings of the brain and no hidden soul.
The non-existence of the soul being a direct contradiction of any and all beliefs based around the
idea of it's existence.
So when you make claims that contradict everything we can determine about the universe through
rational enquiry and observation for which you provide no evidence whatsoever I respond that you,
and all like you, are deluded and irrational.
You personally also lie, glory in your ignorance, and support those who advocate genocide as long as
it is against people you don't like.
You are despicable.
So wipe that stupid smug grin off your posts.
25 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou have it reversed. 😏
science examines the pool of available information then formulates a picture of the universe based on what is known.
religion formulates a picture of the universe then picks and chooses from the pool of available information anything that might support it, and disregards the rest.
P.S. At least concerning what the evolutionists do.