Why "GOD" is an empty concept.

Originally posted by howardgee

3. Every proof of God invented by mankind is fundamentally flawed. Given this and the fact that nobody has ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted (oo-er) GOD; there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for GOD's existence and no reason to believe in him (except for similarly misguided peer pressure).

QED.[/b]

Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see?

Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.

Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your 'receiver' (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

Originally posted by Starrman
😴 Blah 😴 blah 😴 blah 😴 POST 😴 SOMETHING 😴 ORIGINAL 😴 YOU 😴 CAN 😴 ACTUALLY 😴 UNDERSTAND! 😴

lol everytime i see a dj2 paste job
I say to myself ' THank God? for mousewheels '

What the Bible Boys don't get, never will get, and never care to get is this:

They can ejaculate all the scripture they want all over this site, basically saying the same crap over and over again. One thing in their defense, none of us can categorically prove they are wrong and say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God.

But the opposite is also true and this is what they have trouble with:

They can offer no conclusive evidence to the existence of a God. Like you wrote, Howard, the entire subject is moot.

The only difference is most of us who either believe in another God, not sure which God to believe in, or don't believe in God at all are not obessive-compulsive about converting the world to our way of thinking.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see?

Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical even ...[text shortened]... the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

here's some test you can make
test1
Go outside on a windy day. wet your index finger in and hold point it up to the heavens and say "Wind are you real?" .. you will feel the wind .
test 2
get down on you knees and put you hands together and pray to god and say " God are you real?" ..you will still the feel wind.

the wind is real

Originally posted by frogstomp
here's some test you can make
test1
Go outside on a windy day. wet your index finger in and hold point it up to the heavens and say "Wind are you real?" .. you will feel the wind .
test 2
get down on you knees and put you hands together and pray to god and say " God are you real?" ..you will still the feel wind.

the wind is real

I'm not coming down on the side of the 'beleavers' but this is a lousy example. Unless you'd care to stand in front of a cathode ray emmiter and deny that radiation is real, and I'll see you in the chemotheripy ward later

Just because we can't see, smell, touch or taste something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
Just because we can't see, smell, touch or taste something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think he was just using his finger as a general 'sense,' like your
Geiger counter (or whatever it was).

The claim is repeatedly made about God that He cannot be 'detected'
unless He wants to be detected, that He can break the rules of nature
with impunity.

That is very different than a person's inability to detect radiation without
a machine.

(I am taking a stab at what frogman was trying to communicate.)
Nemesio

Originally posted by dj2becker
Actually, true Christianity is not a religion, but a person, Jesus Christ.

This statement, which I grow weary of hearing, is illogical nonsense. It is the line xtians use when they are weary of defending the errors of their religious beliefs, the behaviors of their fellows, or the facts they think their Bible contradicts.

Saying that your faith is a personal relationship with an executed revolutionary (who would no doubt vote differently than you do, were he a citizen in your country) is a statement of religious faith. It does not distinguish Christian beliefs from religious beliefs.

To say that Christianity is unique is to claim absolute historical knowledge with insufficient data. We do know that Christianity emerged out of Judaism, which itself absorbed elements of several tribal religions in the so-called Middle East. We also know that Christianity became the leading religion of Europe, where it absorbed many pagan religions, being changed in the process. For example, all the major xtian holidays are pagan religious holidays that have been corrupted or transformed (depending on your point of view) by new mythologies. We know that Christianity served as convenient justification for European political and economic imperialism, that xtian missionaries from Europe failed to separate their beliefs from their culture, and that nevertheless, many fourth-world peoples transformed the Christian faith as they embraced it.

Because Christianity has been spread so widely, and grown so diverse, to call it unique says nothing at all. But it does allege that no other minor tribal religions once practiced--ultimately less successful in their evangelistic purpose--were similarly constituted through some mythological relationship with a founder. This allegation, in all likelihood, is completely false. But the evidence for these other faiths would quite naturally be suppressed by xtians, just as they do all they can to supress the extent to which they have absorbed pagan holidays, such as the celebrations of the winter solstice and the spring equinox.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think he was just using his finger as a general 'sense,' like your
Geiger counter (or whatever it was).

The claim is repeatedly made about God that He cannot be 'detected'
unless He wants to be detected, that He can break the rules of nature
with impunity.

That is very different than a person's inability to detect radiation without
a machine.

(I am taking a stab at what frogman was trying to communicate.)
Nemesio

I agree perhaps a better example might have provided more insight but I'm guessing what the author of this thread inferred and what I infer in this:

People have developed and created their own definitions of whatever God means to them. I don't think any of them are right or wrong but the very nature of Christianity preached here (and I am not attempting to bash it) is that they are 100% right and everything else is wrong.

To me, I take this as an insult and I respond back the same way. While they think all of us non-believers are just perhaps unenlightened and they are just trying to steer us on the right path, they trample on everybody else.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
I'm not coming down on the side of the 'beleavers' but this is a lousy example. Unless you'd care to stand in front of a cathode ray emmiter and deny that radiation is real, and I'll see you in the chemotheripy ward later

Just because we can't see, smell, touch or taste something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I know that.
I just wanted simple tests.

applying the scientific method to both test can only produce result in test1.
Test2 however shows why argments like dj2's are fallacies of testibility and don't belong in science.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think he was just using his finger as a general 'sense,' like your
Geiger counter (or whatever it was).

The claim is repeatedly made about God that He cannot be 'detected'
unless He wants to be detected, that He can break the rules of nature
with impunity.

That is very different than a person's inability to detect radiation without
a machine.

(I am taking a stab at what frogman was trying to communicate.)
Nemesio

hey, i did say INDEX finger.
test2 could have been a modification of Ben Franklyn's exoeriment!

Originally posted by Joe Fist
What the Bible Boys don't get, never will get, and never care to get is this:

They can ejaculate all the scripture they want all over this site, basically saying the same crap over and over again. One thing in their defense, none of us can categorically prove they are wrong and say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God.

But the opposite is also tr ...[text shortened]... eve in God at all are not obessive-compulsive about converting the world to our way of thinking.

You are right, but for one thing. The burden of proof lays with the claimant, this is what theists never seem to realise. If they are going to claim god exists, it is up to them to demonstrate the truth of their claim. So, these debates rarely come to any resolution because there is no attempt made to do this, they merely attempt to show that atheists are wrong for their position. But that position is not one of claim, it is a state of denial, not claiming anything, but denying the possibility of god, based on a lack of evidence. Unfortunately, until they admit this is the position they must operate from, there will be no advance 🙁

Originally posted by Starrman
You are right, but for one thing. The burden of proof lays with the claimant, this is what theists never seem to realise. If they are going to claim god exists, it is up to them to demonstrate the truth of their claim. So, these debates ...[text shortened]... s the position they must operate from, there will be no advance 🙁

Yeah you are right. To me, it's both funny & at the same time insulting why some folks are just relentless about trying to proof this? I said this before but I don't think I have ever read any threads by atheiest, agnostics, or anyone else stamping their feet to tell you they are right. I think most of us don't care about destroying someone's beliefs but some of the Xian folks do.

At least the self appointed spokespersons for the Xian God are not the greatest communicators:

dj2becker: Well (paste) God (paste) (2000 pasted lines later)

RBHILL: You arrr giong two Helle four knot beelleafing in Gawd

BlindFaith101: IspellbetterthanRBHILLbuthavenotfiguredoutthespacebar

Darfius: I witness this, I witness that. I witness God and that is that.

Originally posted by howardgee
Ok, here it is at last - I found time to briefly outline this truth.

GOD = An omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent entity who created the universe.

1. God created the universe, but what created God? If God has always been in existence, then why not simply accept that the Universe has always been in existence? Inventing the concept of "GOD" to exp ...[text shortened]... xistence and no reason to believe in him (except for similarly misguided peer pressure).

QED.

2. God is slow to anger that is way he doesn't do anything to stop it.

3. If you have a relationship you have done all of these, and Jesus say if you have seen him you have seen the fatheer.

John 6:46 - Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

John 14:9 - Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Originally posted by Pullhard
The religious would deny they invented the concept. They would say that God presented Himself to them.

That is true, but truly being a Christian you don't have to be religious.