Angel Proves God's Existence

[DeafAtheist]

Yosef Ben Matityahu aka Titus Flavius Josephus did document or write about the existance of "John the Baptist" some said he mentioned Jesus, but I think it was added in later on. Ok , they say he mentioned John , Jesus brother but the name Jesus was a very common name at the time as much as it is in Mexico today.

Josephus wasn't an eyewitness he wasn't even born until after Jesus' alleged death. And yes the bulk of the text in reference to Jesus was largely a forgery yet apologists still cite it as real simply out of desperation of the fact that historical mentions of Jesus are woefully scarce, most which just refer to the Christus which is actually a title. Christ isn't part of Jesus' name, it's a title, just like Caesar isn't Julius Caesar's last name, it's his title. Christ was a title bestowed upon more people in history than the alleged Jesus Christ. Even if John the Baptist is a real person just because a real person, place, or event exists in a book or story doesn't make the whole thing real. Take the movie Titanic for example... there really was a ship called the Titanic that sank and there were even characters in the movie like Molly Brown who were real people that were on the Titanic that fateful night it hit an iceberg and sunk, but the characters and story of Jack and Rose are complete fiction.

[impqueen]

I'm not saying all theists are false. Nor am I saying specific ones are. Maybe the Christians are right. Maybe the Muslims. Maybe the Hindus. Maybe the Jews. The point is they can't all be right and therefore that would make those who aren't right false yet they believe it so that would make their beliefs false regardless of the number of people who hold it. So the original point I was making is that just because the majority of people share a common idea that doesn't make the idea true.

Why does anyone need to be right? If there's no higher power/deity/alien/whatever, then you're right and the big prize is.... nothing. Yay you!

I think the basic definition of truth is what we're dancing around here. My definition of truth may not be the same as yours, and that's cool. Truth for you is that there is no evidence of a deity. Truth for me is that I have too much experience with patients who report experiences after near death or clinical death to ignore that. All I can attest to is what I've experienced in my own life - not what I've been spoon-fed, but what I've learned on my own.

Once again apples and oranges. Sexual orientation isn't a belief. It's based on a person's sexual preference. A straight person or gay person isn't straight or gay based on who they've shagged. It's based on who they're attracted to. So yes. A virgin saying he or she was gay would be stating a fact, regardless of the fact that they've never shagged anyone. They are gay for the simple fact they are ATTRACTED to the same sex. Even if a gay person had sex with a member of the opposite sex and enjoyed it doesn't mean it would change their preference for the same sex even if they also had sex with a member of the same sex and it sucked. Because sexual orientation isn't about how enjoyable sex is with one or another gender. It's about which gender you're physically attracted to.

Exactly. I'm glad you see my point. And let's face it - the attraction cycle is not just physical. It encompasses emotion, as well, and takes into account myriad other factors that we don't yet fully understand. I will grant that my analogy was flawed, because Christians are made, not born, but personal truth - the "this is what I am, this is true for me, and it is unlikely to change" is the point I was trying clumsily to make. You can't change someone's basic core beliefs any more than you can successfully change their sexual orientation. Even if they go along for awhile, eventually they'll revert, unless a deeper truth presents itself in an extremely powerful way.

I disagree. People believe what they believe because of exposure to the belief mainly by being indoctrinated to the belief as an impressionable child. So they've had PLENTY of personal experience with it. In the cases of people who changed their beliefs from what their parents instilled in them like myself who became an atheist by choice despite being raised a Catholic is I branched out and tried experiencing something else because the Catholicism didn't seem right to me. But the point is it was a personal experience. No one chooses a religion without it.

Let me clarify. To me, personal spiritual experience is not Sunday School or being dragged to church or even observable religion. I think you're talking about religion rather than spirituality and religious indoctrination rather than spiritual enlightenment. My belief system is vastly different from that of my parents - religious indoctrination might work for stupid sheeple, but for intelligent humans, not so much. You believe largely in scientific truth. I believe in both scientific and spiritual truth, even though I haven't decided yet what it is.

Side note for fun: Many times I've cared for dying patients with bed scales. I have very often noted an immediate weight difference on the scale at the moment of death and have noted it - usually 1.8 to 2.8 pounds. Nobody knows why the body, on a bed, becomes lighter at death, but it does. Scientists are working on it. Some think it's the human soul, or consciousness, or electrical energy that has left the body. I just think it's interesting, and it's by no means universal, just a freaky little thing that makes me think there's more to us than meat and bone.

But like I said all the religions can't be right so even if one of them is that makes the rest of them wrong and therefore false. If none of them are real then they all are false. We just have no way of knowing at this point which of them if any is real so we resort to choosing one or none based on our own personal experiences or opinions.

Again, there's the rub. What if they're all wrong? What if everything everyone believes is totally fucked up and it turns out that the Mormons were right after all, and we're descended from aliens from the planet Kolob and Jesus and Satan were alien brothers who got in a big fight? Oooh, what then? ;) The idea that someone has to be "wrong" is just silly. If there is a God, S/He ought to be big enough to deal with the individual realities of the people S/He created. Or what if everyone is right, and each religion has some aspect of truth, and there are intangible dimensions and universes we can't see, and vampires and werewolves are real? That'd be cool too. I'm kinda down for either possibility.

I guess I don't really get why it matters what anyone else thinks or doesn't think, at the end of the day it's all gonna come out in the morgue one way or another.

You're right Jews, Muslims, and Christians are Abrahamic religions... that is they all believe in the God of Abraham. But most Christians will adamantly deny that their god is the same god the Muslims call "Allah". The only difference between them is Jews and Muslims simply see Jesus as a wise teacher and prophet, not a divine god or son of a god. Muslims have a different prophet that Jews and Christians don't recognize. But you're wrong about the Holy Trinity being similar to polytheism. Most Christians don't even subscribe to the Holy Trinity. It's mainly a Catholic thing. But the Trinity represents an individual god that basically takes 3 different forms, but it's all the same god to them. The closest Catholics get to polytheism is their near worship of their saints and the Virgin Mary.

You don't hang with many progressive or knowledgeable Christians, do you? Of course Allah and the Christian God are the same deity. Both the Koran and the Bible are very clear on that, so anyone who takes either book as truth should be well aware that the Jews and Muslims are, essentially, half brothers, and the war that's been raging for two thousand years could have been avoided had Abraham not fucked the maid. Your consistent use of "most" indicates that you think that the extreme, uneducated evangelical views are the norm. They aren't, at least not in my world. In fact, many Protestant churches teach the Trinity as three separate individuals. But again, you missed my point, which is that most religions are more alike than different, so a study on religious pluralism is beneficial to anyone who is seeking spiritual rather than simply religious truth.

The difference between me an actual agnostic is that while I don't claim to be certain no gods exist. I believe they don't exist. I've taken an position of belief. An agnostic hasn't done that. An agnostic sits on the fence and says they don't know what to believe. They are more willing to accept the possibility of a god... possibly even on faith. An atheist will not. An atheist requires nothing short of rational, logical empirical evidence. Not only am I an atheist, I'm an anti-theistic atheist. I despise all religions and have no respect for them. This doesn't mean I despise or disrespect religious people. I just hate the organizations. I find them to be a plague on humanity that do more harm than good.

I appreciate and respect your viewpoint and your explanation.

It sounds like you're saying that your despisal of Christianity and theism in general is based at least in part on emotion, probably stemming from your upbringing in a church you hated and exacerbated by personal relationship complications, and that's pretty big of you to admit. Any time there's an emotional component of anger or disgust, it makes it harder to look for any redeeming quality in a different system of belief. Personally, I have huge issues with the Christian church and its leadership - I'm just not ready to throw out the possibility of something bigger because some asshats got their signals crossed. :)

[impqueen]

More believable? Really? The canonized bible alone is so riddled with contradictions that I can't imagine the Apocrypha clearing it up any better. But if you want to read it again you can find it online here:

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

Personally I don't believe an historical Christ ever existed. Why? Because there are no sources outside of the bible and other religious texts that document it. The period of time Jesus Christ allegedly lived is one of the most well-documented periods in history. The time of Julius Caesar and the rise of the Roman Empire. So I find it hard to believe that a man who was as controversial and influential as Jesus allegedly was completely escaped historical record.

You're assuming I believe the canonized Bible is true and correct as it stands. That assumption would be more than a little incorrect. But yeah - as a kid, I thought it made a lot more sense with the Apocrypha included. Filled in some gaps, if you will. Thanks for the links!

And where may I ask is this historical evidence?

I believe that there is historical record of Joseph, the father. The timelines and many (although by no means all) of the places add up. I'm not gonna hit the attic and dig out the books for you, but surely you've run across studies of the Essene monks where Joseph is mentioned, right? Of course there is no reference to anyone named Jesus specifically, because his name in Aramaic was Joshua or Yeshua or Yeshiva, depending on the text and translation, and as you've already mentioned, Christos was a Greek honorific, not a name. To me "reasonable" evidence of the existence of the guy is not the same as "incontrovertible proof", but there's enough there that I'm more convinced than not that someone fitting that description did live and probably was executed - otherwise, where did the cult of personality come from, and how did it get so big?

No- there is not historical proof of "Jesus Christ". Yes - there is reasonable documentation to suggest the existence of Josh, a guy who was the son of a former Essene who wandered around a lot and got crucified. Is that clearer?

You're right it is possible to admire and want to emulate a person from a book even a fictional one. Even to build an entire religion off the fictional person. Humans have been doing just that for centuries. Once upon a time people worshiped Thor, Apollo, Mithra, Horus, etc, but today we consider all of those to be mythological. We even dismiss the gods and religions of other people that still worship them today. Mythology is simply whatever the church down the street from yours is teaching.

We who? I kind of like the idea that while the names change, the stories don't seem to alter all that much. For millennia there have been stories of a large flood, of a messiah figure, of resurrection, of a holy family (see the whole Isis as Mary thing). How do I know that Jesus and Horus aren't the same guy? I don't. Could be. I'm not ready to toss that theory out just yet. And I don't dismiss anyone's gods, because when you study all of them together, there are too many similarities - same stories, different names. That's all. Pluralism is something you might really be able to sink your teeth into just as an academic exercise.

What you said there reminded me of a Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are very unlike your Christ."

Thank you! I'd blush, but then Morbid told me a Gandhi joke and now I feel a little dirty :)

One can admire something without deciding it's divine and worshiping it and praying to it. When you get to worshiping a book that is well known to be a work of fiction then you're obviously delusional.

Obviously to whom, and well-known to whom? To you, sure. Your schizophrenic is someone else's prophet. It's kinda cool, really. I keep waiting for the homeless guy downtown to be the one who was right in the end.

[DeafAtheist]

Why does anyone need to be right? If there's no higher power/deity/alien/whatever, then you're right and the big prize is.... nothing. Yay you!

First of all my original point wasn't that anyone was wrong. My point was simply that just because a large group of people share a common belief system doesn't make that belief system a fact.

Secondly, you're paraphrasing Pascal's Wager there. But I disagree with you. If I am right and theists are wrong my prize is how I lived THIS life, the only life we know for a fact we have. If I'm right and there is no supernatural world outside of this one and when we die we simply decompose and become food for insects I will have moved on knowing I lived my life the best I could. If a theist is wrong they've wasted their lives on worshiping an imaginary being and participating in silly rituals. Time that could have been used for other things. Those who don't believe in sex before marriage for religious reasons lost out on a whole bunch of potentially great nookie. Those who don't eat pork for religious reasons lost out on the incredible taste of fried ham. Jewish boys lost the sexual function associated with having an intact foreskin. There's so much a theist loses out on by dedicating their lives to a deity that probably doesn't even exist.

I think the basic definition of truth is what we're dancing around here. My definition of truth may not be the same as yours, and that's cool. Truth for you is that there is no evidence of a deity. Truth for me is that I have too much experience with patients who report experiences after near death or clinical death to ignore that. All I can attest to is what I've experienced in my own life - not what I've been spoon-fed, but what I've learned on my own.

Truth is not subjective to faith. A belief is never more than a belief without evidence. Without evidence it's not truth. What you express with your patients is a mystery but attributing that mystery to a deity doesn't make the deity real. It isn't truth, it's simply a belief. Believing something to be true doesn't actually make it true unless you can provide evidence supporting it.

Exactly. I'm glad you see my point. And let's face it - the attraction cycle is not just physical. It encompasses emotion, as well, and takes into account myriad other factors that we don't yet fully understand. I will grant that my analogy was flawed, because Christians are made, not born, but personal truth - the "this is what I am, this is true for me, and it is unlikely to change" is the point I was trying clumsily to make. You can't change someone's basic core beliefs any more than you can successfully change their sexual orientation. Even if they go along for awhile, eventually they'll revert, unless a deeper truth presents itself in an extremely powerful way.

You're right, you can't change someone's beliefs. Best you can do is present a compelling enough argument to them that it might give them second thoughts about their own position, but ultimately it's a change they have to make for themselves if they choose to. But I don't think think it's common for converts to revert back to their original beliefs only if they are uncertain and testing the waters. But someone like me for instance. I'm about as likely to be a Christian again as I am to believe in the Tooth Fairy again. Not fucking likely.

Let me clarify. To me, personal spiritual experience is not Sunday School or being dragged to church or even observable religion. I think you're talking about religion rather than spirituality and religious indoctrination rather than spiritual enlightenment. My belief system is vastly different from that of my parents - religious indoctrination might work for stupid sheeple, but for intelligent humans, not so much. You believe largely in scientific truth. I believe in both scientific and spiritual truth, even though I haven't decided yet what it is.

First of all I'd like to say I LOVE the word "sheeple". Secondly I'm going to refer to my above argument on "truth".

Side note for fun: Many times I've cared for dying patients with bed scales. I have very often noted an immediate weight difference on the scale at the moment of death and have noted it - usually 1.8 to 2.8 pounds. Nobody knows why the body, on a bed, becomes lighter at death, but it does. Scientists are working on it. Some think it's the human soul, or consciousness, or electrical energy that has left the body. I just think it's interesting, and it's by no means universal, just a freaky little thing that makes me think there's more to us than meat and bone.

I've never heard of that before but even if that's true I'm sure there's a rational explanation for it even if the explanation isn't currently known.

Again, there's the rub. What if they're all wrong? What if everything everyone believes is totally fucked up and it turns out that the Mormons were right after all, and we're descended from aliens from the planet Kolob and Jesus and Satan were alien brothers who got in a big fight? Oooh, what then? ;) The idea that someone has to be "wrong" is just silly. If there is a God, S/He ought to be big enough to deal with the individual realities of the people S/He created. Or what if everyone is right, and each religion has some aspect of truth, and there are intangible dimensions and universes we can't see, and vampires and werewolves are real? That'd be cool too. I'm kinda down for either possibility.

If the Mormons are right I'll STILL refuse to wear the magic underwear. But then it's highly unlikely the Mormons are right. Joseph Smith was an illiterate fraud. He dictated the Book of Mormon to another man while being hidden from him behind a sheet hanging between them on the wall. The man's wife got fed up with her husband's obsession and was highly skeptical of Smith's "Revelations" that she snatched several pages her husband had dictated from Smith and demanded that if Smith was truly getting divine information he should be able to reproduce those pages... of course he couldn't. But you weren't suggesting they were right, just using them for an example. But I get your point.

I guess I don't really get why it matters what anyone else thinks or doesn't think, at the end of the day it's all gonna come out in the morgue one way or another.

It matters because it affects how people live THIS life. We've got Muslim extremists doling out death threats to those who don't agree with their worldviews. We've got assholes like Fred Phelps picketing funerals of actors and fallen soldiers carrying their "God Hates Fags" signs, We've got a large number of Christians if not most of them refusing to acknowledge marital equality for homosexuals. We've got Christians trying to bridge the gap between church and state and turn this country into a Christian theocracy. We've got Christian extremists killing doctors that perform abortions and bombing abortion clinics...etc. Religion is a poison to the world.

You don't hang with many progressive or knowledgeable Christians, do you? Of course Allah and the Christian God are the same deity. Both the Koran and the Bible are very clear on that, so anyone who takes either book as truth should be well aware that the Jews and Muslims are, essentially, half brothers, and the war that's been raging for two thousand years could have been avoided had Abraham not fucked the maid. Your consistent use of "most" indicates that you think that the extreme, uneducated evangelical views are the norm. They aren't, at least not in my world. In fact, many Protestant churches teach the Trinity as three separate individuals. But again, you missed my point, which is that most religions are more alike than different, so a study on religious pluralism is beneficial to anyone who is seeking spiritual rather than simply religious truth.

The evangelical Christians may not be in the majority but they sure as fuck are the loudest making the biggest scene. But no, I've not come across many Christians that accept that they believe in the same god as Muslims do. There is so much ant-Islam sentiment in the United States that even the slightest comparison to them is offensive so they tend to be ignorant either unintentionally or willfully.

I know most religions are similar. The reason why is because all they are is extensions of each other... each one recycles some of the old beliefs and adds new ones to create a new religious ideology. Jesus Christ isn't the first alleged man-god to be born of a virgin whose birthday is celebrated on Dec 25th, died and was resurrected 3 days later. He's simply an updated copy of Mithra, Krishna, Horus, and a barrage of others who share the same attributes. Christianity is nothing more than recycled pagan rituals with a different label on them.

I appreciate and respect your viewpoint and your explanation.

Thanks.

It sounds like you're saying that your despisal of Christianity and theism in general is based at least in part on emotion, probably stemming from your upbringing in a church you hated and exacerbated by personal relationship complications, and that's pretty big of you to admit. Any time there's an emotional component of anger or disgust, it makes it harder to look for any redeeming quality in a different system of belief. Personally, I have huge issues with the Christian church and its leadership - I'm just not ready to throw out the possibility of something bigger because some asshats got their signals crossed. :)

I admit no such thing. I didn't have any bad or negative experience with the church. But yes it is emotional... it stems from seeing bullshit like Christians who piss and moan about how abortion is murder then they kill their own fucking kids by denying them proper medical care. I see an institution that is essentially a $300 Billion industry that is tax free... money that could be so much better spent than on the overhead costs of the millions of churches littered all over the country. I see the greed, ignorance, hypocrisy, and intolerance that brews in them. Not to mention their hindrance of scientific progress.

[impqueen]

You know what? Rather than fill this up with a bazillion quotes and go all point by point, I'm thinking it's probably Imp Sex Bomb time, so I'll make this one short until I decide I'm not finished yet and go all 8th Grade Debate on your ass.

I like you, dude. And actually, I think that we agree on more than we don't. You've obviously done a fair amount of research, and I respect anyone who can come in here new and hold their own the way you have. You've made some excellent points, and I hope you hang around.

Really, though, it would have been better had you been debating someone with a more concrete, literal belief structure. Mine is way too chill for me to start shrieking that you're going to Hell - I'd have to be sure of my belief in Hell first. Actually, I've often wondered if we're all in Hell, but then I realize that Hell probably doesn't have wireless internet.

Basically, it's the same old song and dance - antitheists say there's no God, theists say yes there is, I say either or both could be correct because I am really comfortable in the proven fact that I don't know shit about anything.

I'm interested in your thoughts on humanity, on how we evolved into the awesome and hideous creatures we are, and on life, the universe, and everything. 42 is not a fair answer.

Thanks for a fun debate so far. I just wish swivel had been here for it. :)

[DeafAtheist]

You're assuming I believe the canonized Bible is true and correct as it stands. That assumption would be more than a little incorrect. But yeah - as a kid, I thought it made a lot more sense with the Apocrypha included. Filled in some gaps, if you will. Thanks for the links!

Forgive me but it appeared that way from how you put it. You're welcome for the links.

I believe that there is historical record of Joseph, the father. The timelines and many (although by no means all) of the places add up. I'm not gonna hit the attic and dig out the books for you, but surely you've run across studies of the Essene monks where Joseph is mentioned, right? Of course there is no reference to anyone named Jesus specifically, because his name in Aramaic was Joshua or Yeshua or Yeshiva, depending on the text and translation, and as you've already mentioned, Christos was a Greek honorific, not a name. To me "reasonable" evidence of the existence of the guy is not the same as "incontrovertible proof", but there's enough there that I'm more convinced than not that someone fitting that description did live and probably was executed - otherwise, where did the cult of personality come from, and how did it get so big?

I've actually not gone that route in my own studies yet, but definitely worth checking out. I really like Robert M Price's stuff and he's a New Testament scholar with a PhD in New Testament theology who is also familiar with the Apocrypha and other lost biblical texts and he does not believe in an historical Christ. He makes some compelling arguments.

But to answer your question about where the cult personality came from and how it so big can be summed up in 2 words. Paul and Crusades. To elaborate Paul the apostle, formally Saul of Tarsus, was the world's very first Christian. Prior to Paul and his vision (between 40 & 50 CE) no one knew of or heard of a savior named Jesus Christ. All mentioning and stories of Jesus Christ derive from Paul's stories. So I believe the entire New Testament came out of Paul's stories... fictional stories... pulled right out of Old Testament scriptures. What Christians believe of Jesus Christ being an Old Testament prophecy coming true is just Paul inventing stories based on the Old Testament scriptures. You can see the proof of this in the bible itself...

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Romans 16:25-26
"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him"

Romans 10:11
"For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

So Jesus was invented by Paul the apostle and Christianity itself was spread by the sword during the crusades and inquisitions.

No- there is not historical proof of "Jesus Christ". Yes - there is reasonable documentation to suggest the existence of Josh, a guy who was the son of a former Essene who wandered around a lot and got crucified. Is that clearer?

Yeah but like I said I haven't studied this area yet so I really can't comment on it at this point. You could very well be right.

We who? I kind of like the idea that while the names change, the stories don't seem to alter all that much. For millennia there have been stories of a large flood, of a messiah figure, of resurrection, of a holy family (see the whole Isis as Mary thing). How do I know that Jesus and Horus aren't the same guy? I don't. Could be. I'm not ready to toss that theory out just yet. And I don't dismiss anyone's gods, because when you study all of them together, there are too many similarities - same stories, different names. That's all. Pluralism is something you might really be able to sink your teeth into just as an academic exercise.

That just doesn't make sense to me. Horus for instance allegedly lived and died thousands of years before Jesus Christ allegedly lived and died and many other man-gods between them. The only logical way they could be the same is if God decided to send his kid to the earth in human form in order to be tortured and killed several times over the course of history. I think it's much more logical to believe that every religion is simply a recycled myth updated for modern consumption.

[DeafAtheist]

I like you, dude. And actually, I think that we agree on more than we don't. You've obviously done a fair amount of research, and I respect anyone who can come in here new and hold their own the way you have. You've made some excellent points, and I hope you hang around.

I like you too. You've made some decent points. I've never debated an agnostic before. It was a unique experience. Fully intend to hang around. :)

Really, though, it would have been better had you been debating someone with a more concrete, literal belief structure. Mine is way too chill for me to start shrieking that you're going to Hell - I'd have to be sure of my belief in Hell first. Actually, I've often wondered if we're all in Hell, but then I realize that Hell probably doesn't have wireless internet.

Perhaps but you're the one that stepped up and did it. Seems the others have sat back with their popcorn and enjoyed the show.

I'm interested in your thoughts on humanity, on how we evolved into the awesome and hideous creatures we are, and on life, the universe, and everything. 42 is not a fair answer.

I'm way too tired to get into that tonite. In fact I'm going to bed right after I post this here.

Thanks for a fun debate so far. I just wish swivel had been here for it. :)

You're welcome. I enjoyed it as well.

[swivel]

This thread needs a "thanks" button.

[Tazzzz]

This thread needs a "thanks" button.

Ohh now you show up

[DeafAtheist]

This thread needs a "thanks" button.

Is it me you wish to "thank"? :P

[shamrocker]

My belief in a "Creator" of "All Things" is based on the writings of the prophets of old who gave us knowledge of the earth, our anatomy and future events they could not possibly have known. I'm not a Christian... my Holy Book is not the Bible. I grew-up in the Christian faith and read the Bible plenty; it left me with more questions than answers. My beliefs now have enlightened me enough to realize that there is no need to worry about what everyone else believes or how they worship... mind my own business and live my faith anyway... THE END

[CPL CHUD]

Without butting in too much I'd like to point out that a lot of this arguement can be boiled down the differences between subjective and objective truth, which I guess can be the main crux of many religious debates. Atheists search for an objective truth, people with a preference for the spiritual search out subjective truth; which in my opinion is a very different thing all together.

[DeafAtheist]

Without butting in too much I'd like to point out that a lot of this arguement can be boiled down the differences between subjective and objective truth, which I guess can be the main crux of many religious debates. Atheists search for an objective truth, people with a preference for the spiritual search out subjective truth; which in my opinion is a very different thing all together.

Subjective "truth" is a personal feeling or belief and without verifiable evidence can never be more than a belief. Truth is something that can be verified as being true. The existence of a god cannot be verified and therefore cannot be considered true until it is. [See Flying Spaghetti Monster]

No matter what a person believes or how strongly they believe it or how many people believe it, without empirical, verifiable evidence support it, all it is is a belief. Nothing more.

[CPL CHUD]

Subjective "truth" is a personal feeling or belief and without verifiable evidence can never be more than a belief. Truth is something that can be verified as being true. The existence of a god cannot be verified and therefore cannot be considered true until it is. [See Flying Spaghetti Monster]

No matter what a person believes or how strongly they believe it or how many people believe it, without empirical, verifiable evidence support it, all it is is a belief. Nothing more.

I agree. The problem is that people often times have trouble understanding the difference and see their subjective truth as an objective truth when they are really oceans apart.

And I reserve the word "belief" for objectivity. Faith is a word that better describes a personal subscription to the ethos of subjectivitiy.

[DeafAtheist]

And I reserve the word "belief" for objectivity. Faith is a word that better describes a personal subscription to the ethos of subjectivitiy.

True. Good point.

[mopar]

It shouldn't be that bad.

Edit: I'm just so goddamn happy to have a Christian on the site. I converted all the ones we used to have.

I too am a christian.

[mopar]

SWEEET!

Can I pose the same questions to you? I would love to know more about your god.

The bible and the Quran both state leaving other peoples to their own gods and not leaving yours for their gods.

[theskyisfalling]

I'm rather delighted that you brought this thread back up to my attention mopar. I certainly wish that DeafAtheist was still around.
We still have a whole slew of atheists lurking about the site, you can try to use some more of your biblical garbage to catch their attention as well.

[mopar]

7. So, the Bible is not "fact", it is just men telling stories. This does not match your answer to question 6, which was not going back very far from question 7.
8. Same here, you seem to have taken a step back from saying that the Bible is true, which means that the entire book is now called into question, and we must be just as critical with every word as we would with any other book written by men with no spiritual guidance whatsoever.
9. According to one book. Other Biblical accounts have a single angel. In some accounts Jesus appears to the women first, in one he appears before the Apostle Peter. But really, this is just the third way of proving that your answer to question (6) is known to be incorrect by both of us.

So, the Bible is no longer an authority on history, and everything within it must be scrutinized. It is a major step we have taken, you and I.




Now, you touch on how life could have began. Life is just chemistry. There is nothing magical about it. Life is built up from simple chemical reactions that take place with valence electrons. The shape of each protein makes it likely to bond with other compounds in certain ways, and these connections cause the proteins to change shape due to electrical forces, which changes their properties as they react to one another. That is all that life is. And the building blocks of life are floating around everywhere. There is methane and complex hydrocarbons in interstellar clouds. They form readily and with very little impetus. Life will get started anywhere there are chemical elements gathered. It doesn't even require heat. It could be clay, or even ice that forces the chemical reactions that lead to life. There is absolutely no mystery here, and the answer to the question, "How did life get started" is turning out to be, "In every way possible".

These appeals to our ignorance have never worked. Science makes more discoveries, and the gaps in which god may reside shrink and fade. Religion is currently clinging to very few gaps indeed, and the recent trend is laughably ignorant. Now religious people don't even KNOW what we know, so they appeal to their OWN ignorance in order to give a god room to grow. Your lack of understanding does not reflect mankind's ignorance on these subjects, only your own. The answers are known and they are more electric and mesmerizing than anything ancient men set down in their dusty religions.

I'm just going through putting my two cents in so I hope no one mids.
We are supposed to seek the knowledge.It is the path that leads us to our calling be it belief or not.
When God saw what Adam and Eve had done he cast them from the garden lest "they eat of the tree of life and become like us". This is part of evolution. If Adam amd Eve lived forever in perfect health they would have evolved in technology and knowledge. God is the ultimate knowledge. He did not make us outside of the laws of chemistry and nature but within them for a reason. He formed all things as they are as the ultimate chemist in perfect knowledge.He chose clay as his medium as you stated and he knew the required elements to form life.
The statment that the would become like "us" does leave alot of room for question for me but not the thought that there was any mysticism involved in creation of man as it was done within physical laws. Those same laws do not apply to God as many of them do not apply to us now due to evolution and technology. I dare to think that there is still far greater knowledge than we have now as surely a man from say 1802 would have scoffed at the very idea of interspace travel being possible.
Sometimes love is putting something down.

[mopar]

Narrow lenses? LMAO. Honey, I was RAISED Catholic. My Atheism is not something that I was led to believe by those around me. I could understand why you might accuse me of being unfairly biased had I been raised without faith. But, in fact, I was raised WITH faith and the sheer lack of evidence tipped the balance in favor of what I can substantiate, which is why I don't even bother with the "is there a god" question. I already know why things work as they do - necessarily so. They work this way because they have to. It is an arrogant, artificial belief that, if something exists, something else must have purposely created it.

Yes, I believe we should focus on what we see and hear...and touch and smell and can calulate...until there is nothing left to determine. Why waste our time on unanswerable questions when there are so many answerable questions left without solution? Why ignore that which you CAN achieve for that which you cannot possibly? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

As to my analogy - no, it's not apples and oranges. It perfectly illustrates my sentiment. In the fireball analogy, I am consumed by a question not a single lick of evidence led me to ask.

I suppose I should ask you - Why do you believe that, if we are here, something must have consciously put us here? What leads you to question the existance of a god? Is it not the simple fact that others believe in one? If billions of people, over the course of history, believed in a unicorn, would you suggest that we should spend our time proving or disproving its existance? Please, tell me why others' belief should, in and of itself, constitute justification for honest consideration.

Now if only Louis Pasture had of thought that way .

[mopar]

I'll stop with the fireball analogy just as soon as you can suggest that you get where I'm going with it. Deal? Deal. ;)

Why do I find "why does religion exist" to be more productive than "does god exist"? Simple. Logical progression. It's the difference between going from A to Z and going from Z to A. If we attempt to tackle "does god exist", a question that we cannot possibly answer without evidence, we may never make it to "why does religion exist". When it comes to the existance of religion, there IS evidence to be mulled over. We could, quite possibly, reach a conclusion. And, if you theists get lucky, it may unlock a clue or two regarding the "does god exist" question. If I'm right, however, it'll save man from having to even bother with the "does god exist" question and free our resources up to address issues with MUCH more immediate benefit.

As for the last part...Goddman, Lieman. You STILL don't know me, do you? A wise man once said, "If there are two ways to take something, always take it the better of two ways." I was just trying to lighten the conversation. I wasn't passing judgment or insinuating anything. Unlike swivel (I think - sorry, swiv, if I've gotten the wrong impression), I don't judge people for their adherence to religion. I think there is a reasonable hypothesis as to why man tends toward religion and, generally, it absolves an individual of a great deal of responsibility. You and I have discussed it. You've heard all about my Godfather. You ought to KNOW that I'm not suggesting that religious people need therapy. Shame on you. :(

I think there is a reasonable hypothesis as to why man tends away from religion and, generally, it absolves an individual of a great deal of responsibility.

[mopar]

Wrong. Every single bit of it. But don't feel bad, if I were to ask a classroom of graduate physics students, I don't think any of them would give a proper definition of "Time". Few physics professors can. This, despite the fact that it is a well-defined concept in easy-to-find places, and is actually something that a logical person can arrive at all on their own.

All time is, is a measure of change. That's it. Nothing else.

When you talk about "eternity" you are talking about an AMOUNT of time, you haven't touched the definition. When you talk about "Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow", you are talking about points in time, but nothing about what time is. And your last sentence, quoted above, is just nonsense. It is whimsical hippie silliness. Let's really work together here to understand the universe, ourselves, and the gods, ok?

If you had a universe with nothing in it except a perfect silver sphere, you would have no time. The sphere could be spinning like mad, it could be traveling at high speeds, and you couldn't know because there would be nothing else to reference it to. In this universe, no time exists, because all time is, is a way of saying that change is happening, and to differentiate one state of a system from another.

Add a second sphere to this universe and you MIGHT have time. But, if they were both sitting perfectly still, you wouldn't. It would require one of the spheres rotating, or getting closer or farther away from the other sphere. Only with MEASURABLE CHANGE do we have time. I apologize for this not being open to debate, but it isn't. If you want to come up with a name for the concept of the things you mentioned, you need a neologism for it, because the word "Time" is already being used, and used in the exact way that I detail here.


Now, this has very large implications for the god that you believe in. It means, since your god is thinking (question 3) and he is eternal in both direction (question 1) we have a paradox. In order for god to be eternal in the direction of the past, we would have to say that he has had an infinite number of discrete thoughts. Remember that if the two spheres are not moving relative to one another, there is no time, because time is just a measure of change. If god is "sitting" perfectly still, and not having any thoughts whatsoever, and not moving any part of himself in relation to any other part, he would be occupying a single "moment" in time. Time would NOT be transpiring.

You can have a god like this, if you want. But it requires that the god is not eternal in the direction of the past. It means that you have a god who had a "first action" with no formal, preceding cause. This is no different than the ex nihilo theory that the universe "just came to be" at a single moment. In fact, it is worse than that theory because it adds an unnecessary intermediate step to a much simpler problem.


In order for you god to be eternal with respect to the past, he had to go through an infinite number of CHANGES IN STATE. It is impossible, a paradox, for something to go through an infinite numbers of changes in state BEFORE it arrives at some particular state (in this case, question 2, the creation of the universe).

It may take you a long time to fully grasp the concepts here, but I assure you, I have 100% proven that the god you believe in can not, and does not exist. There is no way around it with miracles, or appeals to wishy-washy stoner speak. It is iron-clad in the way that the "heavy-rock" joke is iron-clad. God can not be eternal AND have created the universe, and nothing you can do or say can work your way out of this paradox, it just isn't possible, and it has nothing to do with human limitations, or semantics.

The only solution is to re-define your god. Make him non-eternal. Or say that he came into being WITH the universe ex nihilo. Either solution is fine, but your current god does not exist with 100% certainty.



You also made a post about the Bible being true because it is just different versions of the same story. I agree with the end of this sentence, but don't you see that if the Bible is just men making up shit with imperfect memory and imperfect knowledge of the subject matter it is no different than any other book? Most of the Bible only has one telling of every story, we don't know if these stories are true or not! It could all be wrong, and probably is.

I don't claim to be wise or to know it all and I ask please never take me offensive for it is never inended so but half the battle is realizing that we are helpless without knowledge we do not have yet. Is a child alone helpless? It can function and tend to its needs and if it's resourseful make shelter and feed itself but what about medical needs and safety issues? We are like children we do not have the comprehension of why or what we will need the knowledge for next because it is next and we have not yet been there to forsee whatever knowledge we need to prepare for it just as most children would survive alone untill it turned to a scenario outside of their scope. That has been the most common thread I can find in all phases of time in human lifelines and evolution.

His creation of the angels may well have started time or may well not have. I can ask do you comprehend a subject you know nothing of and you would not be able to but you would possibly be able to aquire that knowledge if it has been accumalated or you may would have to research it and test it and science not only proves but disproves many things that are the current standard beliefs aka knowledge. Evolution has allowed the accumulation of much knowledge of things that we believed to be impossible. Is it really so hard to believe that there is still much unknown and wrong in our knowledge? Or that it may well be only one layer of our incomprehensions ?
I do believe that was the first step for me was realizing I may well be wrong about everything even if I knew it to be true. I witnessed many things as a child with a childs eye when I was a child. Then I re-evaluate these things with an adult eye and I see them as an adult and with an adult eye and I understand why I percieved them as I did when I was a child because even though I was sure of what I saw my knowledge was imperfect and therefore my comprehension. How will I see them as an old woman that will show me where my knowledge failed me again? How so will it be at every phase of life and evolution? Of course it will be and has always been so.
The flaw lies in our ability to comprehend God as we cannot even comprehend his works yet.
Maybe if Adam had eaten another apple or if Eve had made him a pie outta the whole tree?

[MC30]