How Many T-Men Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
282

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
pat36 wrote:

I used miricles as an example not as the primary evidence that God exists but as one of many. It’s not a bad place to start, because you have to logically refute each case based on each cases’ merits.

Now miracles are an interesting thing. Quick question before I begin. Is the burden of proof in relation to miracles the same one applicable to matters of theism, or those applicable to the rest of the world?

What I mean is, do we start from a premise that there was no miracle and then someone has to prove there WAS one, or is the standard thinking on miracles the ‘miracles happen all the time, it’s down to you to prove they WEREN’T miracles’? Just asking.
[/quote]

‘Burden of proof’ spoken in philosophical terms means ttat when somebody challeges a an argument the burden lies on the challeger to present the argument of challenge first.

Ok, I am game. Here’s a couple. This one is good because you can actually travel to Italy and see it for yourself:

This one was good because it was witnessed by 100,000 people:

Well, they are wrong. We can get into Islam at some other time, really. It is a faith desperately in need of reformation. I am not arguing agaist the tenants of islam per sae, but many of the interpretations and perversions has caused many of it’s practitioners to practice and premote evil.

You cannot do evil to achieve good and that has fallen short on many of them. They have replaced the heart of the law with the precise letter of the law; which is always a mistake. Not all muslims, mind you, but many have fallen into that trap. There are many Christian sects who do this crap too. That they are right and everybody else is going to hell. They are wrong.

You misread, in parenthesees I stated that in Islam there is a large faction embracing a hate philosphy, not buddism.

I didn’t say it would be easy but they are in fact tracable all the way to the apostles. More recent ordinations are archived in the diocese’s. Then you’d have to go to the Vatican to continue tracing where the diocese’s left off. Never the less it is tracable. If the church did one thing write in it’s history, it documented well almost always. Greek and Russian orthodox also have the apostolic tradition.

[quote]
pat36 wrote:
I really like the apostolic tradition, it gives the religion nice deep roots. Also, the basic message is to love your neighbor and love God. All things brach off those basic tenants.Not hurt, kill, power,selfishness, superiority over others, or any of that crap. Just nice basic stuff that works.

Could I be wrong about this stuff? You bet. It’s a gamble I am willing to take. I am a happy, happy person, so if I am wrong, fuck it. If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right.

I think this last is a very worthy and admirable stance, and I truly respect your feelings and desires on the matter.

However, your last sentence sums everything up in a nutshell to the common garden variety atheist.

‘If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right’.

The thing that simply messes my head up is how people of faith CANNOT FATHOM how people who are not, can come to respect the same ideals and principles as you wrote (I chopped out the God bit) love your neighbor. Not hurt, kill, power,selfishness, superiority over others, or any of that crap.’

That’s me too. That’s how I live my life 100%. Always trying to do right by others and by myself. Always treat people in the way I would like to be treated and so on and so forth. I just reached the conclusions that these were the traits I wished to embody through a different route from you, and free of the God association. But coming back to the ‘If I am wrong, I don’t want to be right’ thing. If you were wrong, why would you not want to know the truth of it and accept it? Do you truly believe that you cannot respect life, people and love unless you believe in a supernatural creator?

Why would you ever prefer live a lie, if it WAS shown that you were wrong?

This is not an attack. Just honest questions. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. [/quote]

I wouldn’t want to live a lie. I know it’s not possible to prove God doesn’t exist so I am not really worried about that.

To address the first part, in the end a lot of supposedly religious people are going to be really surprised at who gets into heaven before them. It is my belief that if you gave theism thoughtful consideration and just was not convinced, AND you led a good and honest life, I don’t think God would hold that agaist anybody. That’s my thinking.

283

[quote]orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:

  1. Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =

Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.

This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.

There is also the “Theory of gravity” and gravity is a fact.

So is evolution.

It might not happen exactly the way the “Theory of Evolution” describes it, though it more or less does, but so what?[/quote]

Um, no that’s called the “Law of Gravity”. Evolution is a strong thoery, but it has holes.

284

[quote]pookie wrote:

The only problem is that Newton’s “law” is wrong.
[/quote]

And it was so right for so many years. Go figure.

285

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Um, no that’s called the “Law of Gravity”. Evolution is a strong thoery, but it has holes.
[/quote]

um, sometimes gravity doesn’t work the way the “Law” says it should.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250213,00.html

The truth is only the truth as we know it today anyways. It was the truth that years ago the world was flat, or at least the truth as far as anyone surmised.

This question can only be answered by individuals for themselves.

286

[quote]kroby wrote:

The atheist doesn’t tell me my only chance for salvation is through their beliefs.[/quote]

That could be because there is no salvation in their beliefs.

So you don’t mind being insulted as long as it’s not centered around damnation.

I know, I did. And I’m going to continue to when the occasion arises.

[quote]
Hostility? I do have a penchant for hostility towards authority figures. [/quote]

Naw, you? Get out of here, come on.

Who said they were better than you?

Yea, empathy, good.

Don’t agree. But, then you knew that going in right?

If someone is driving off of a cliff it’s at least my duty to tell them.

Okay, I don’t have to put up with that!

How dare you tell me that I’m going to turn to dust.

I’m highly insulted-I can’t believe this.

And telling me that “nothing matters”. How judgemental of you.

I’m aghast!

(shaking head)

lol

Point taken? No probably not.

Ha ha, no you’re just forcing your beliefs onto others.

Didn’t you know that your beliefs have nothing to do with mine, or an atheists?

Do none of us believing take away from your beliefs?

You forgot huh?

287

[quote]ZEB wrote:

So true, as science seems to change on key issues regularly.

I do however feel that with every day that passes, it has more of them than it did the previous day. I don’t get the impression that theism holds the same currency.

Actually, I think it will take some time for science to catch up to the Bible.

[/quote]

Those are excellent points!

People often accuse those who believe in a higher power as closed minded and not open to all possibilities. However, science is exactly the same way. They disregard and do not attempt to explain whatever does not fit in their current paradigm.

For example, they have developed extensive theories and hypotheses regarding macroevolution, but fail to explain how a system that would allow evolution to take place originated and how it maintained for billions of years the very fine parameters required to allow life to continue to exist. And when you look at all the variables involved that concept is staggering. Perhaps that’s why they ignore it?

In any case, my point is that science is not as open-minded as some would like to believe.

288

[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:

  1. Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =

Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.

This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.

There is also the “Theory of gravity” and gravity is a fact.

So is evolution.

It might not happen exactly the way the “Theory of Evolution” describes it, though it more or less does, but so what?

Um, no that’s called the “Law of Gravity”. Evolution is a strong thoery, but it has holes.
[/quote]

Pookie, above.

289

Very interesting response, Pat, with some very valid points. and I shall do it the honour of replying when sober :slight_smile:

290

[quote]ZEB wrote:

FAITH:

Noun,

“The act of assenting intellectually to something which is proposed as true.”

Yes, I think that fits your brand of atheism nicely.

You have faith that there is no God.

[/quote]

Nope. I start from the ground zero premise of believing all I can see touch and hear. When something is brought into that situation which I cannot judge by my own senses, I weigh up the evidence to support an assertion that has been put to me - say for example the existence of God, or even something like the question of whether we have really gone into outer space (another thing I can’t categorically prove to myself has happened until such a time as I go into space myself - and I make a judgement call based on said evidence or lack thereof.

I don’t ‘have faith’ that God doesn’t exist. I have simply seen no evidence to make me believe something which does not conform to any of the currently accepted laws of physics in such a way as an omnipotent creator must do, actually exists. Until such a time as I do, I stand by my judgement call.

Oh by the way, maybe we should agree on which dictionary to take our quotes from -
Faith

noun

  1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
  2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
  3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
  4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
  5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
  6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
  7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
  8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Number 2 is SCREAMING out there as a fairly unambiguous argument as to why my judgement call cannot be considered 'faith.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Having faith in someone or something, or the lack thereof is not religion.
[/quote]

Ah, but having faith in a supernatural creator is kinda, almost, MAYBE religion, no? Or at the very least, is the foundation of ALL religion. Agreed?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
All kidding aside, you cannot get further apart than you and I are in so many ways, culturally, socially, etc. The fact that we can have a discussion without name calling is positive testimony to both of us.

[/quote]

Yep, I love these little eyes of the ‘flame war’ storm where people briefly get to have a polite conversations about topics that interest them, before it subsequently degenerates back into the usual.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

…So true, as science seems to change on key issues regularly.

[/quote]

Yeah, but science recognises the mistakes it made, making new discoveries on the back of the research that has gone before, and seeks to rectify them, taking advantage of every new development to further our understanding of whichever subject is in question.

The overwhelming majority of religions are far more rigid and less yielding with regards taking modern scientific discoveries into their equation if they do not tally completely with ideals that were set out millennia ago.

I cannot speak for other atheists, for as I said we do not have a common voice, but for me, this is a practical issue that I come across far too often, and however much I respect the right for any individual to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, it’s sometimes as equally hard for me to get my head round how people come to these conclusions.

I guess it is exactly the same for you people of faith who just can’t get how an atheist can have a set of morals, which on paper would be indistinguishable from what I imagine any decent Christian’s would be, but which is not derived from one’s religion.

But tolerance comes with understanding, and so I ask the questions I do.

It would just be nice if people would afford MY beliefs the same respect. And for atheists to be voted the ‘least trusted social group in the US’… Well, that’s just scary to me.

Let’s hope the calm lasts a little longer. This is really quite interesting.

291

[quote]pookie wrote:
Stuff that refutes my knowledge on scientific laws and theories
[/quote]

Dammit, pookie!

292

[quote] ZEB wrote:
Point taken? No probably not.[/quote]

Point taken and understood.

I still reserve the option to debate. It has been fun so far, no?

293

[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:

  1. Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =

Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.

This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.

There is also the “Theory of gravity” and gravity is a fact.

So is evolution.

It might not happen exactly the way the “Theory of Evolution” describes it, though it more or less does, but so what?

Um, no that’s called the “Law of Gravity”. Evolution is a strong thoery, but it has holes.
[/quote]

No, evolution IS a fact. There is no doubt that evolution is happening. It is happening all around us today, it has happened for thousands and thousands of year and it will keep happening. There is no doubt about this.

The internal mechanichs and the details of the hows/whys/whens… THAT is the theories which are in question. Just as we know that gravity IS pulling us down to earth (or any other object with a mass for that matter), without knowing all details of the how/why etc.

You are very mistaken if you think that evolution in it self is a “theory” that there is grounds to doubt.

(and the holes, well… care to point them out?).

I’ll end this post with a few friendly and peacefull words from the bible:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,”… you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage… If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
----DEUTERONOMY 13:6, 8-15

294

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

Nope. I start from the ground zero premise of believing all I can see touch and hear. When something is brought into that situation which I cannot judge by my own senses, I weigh up the evidence to support an assertion that has been put to me - say for example the existence of God, or even something like the question of whether we have really gone into outer space (another thing I can’t categorically prove to myself has happened until such a time as I go into space myself - and I make a judgement call based on said evidence or lack thereof.[/quote]

Are we quibbling over definitions?

You have weighed up the evidence and you came to the conclusion that there is no God, true?

And if so that looks to me like you have “faith” that there is no God. Now if that word “faith” bothers you because of certain religious connotations then we can use another word.

How about “Certainty”, or “assurance”?

The point is still the same. You are convinced (hey there’s another word “convinced”) that there is no God. And I am convinced that there IS a God.

How does all that sound to you?

And at times you sound agnostic. No?

[quote]
Ah, but having faith in a supernatural creator is kinda, almost, MAYBE religion, no? Or at the very least, is the foundation of ALL religion. Agreed?[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]
Yep, I love these little eyes of the ‘flame war’ storm where people briefly get to have a polite conversations about topics that interest them, before it subsequently degenerates back into the usual.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not in our case.

[quote]
Yeah, but science recognises the mistakes it made,[/quote]

That does not negate the fact that millions of people “live” by certain scientific theories as absolutely truths. And then so many years later they discover that they (scientists) were incorrect in their theory and it goes out the window.

If you want to “worship” (don’t get hung up on definitions) science go ahead.

The word of God has never been prove to be false.

I’m with you on that.

295

[quote]kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Point taken? No probably not.

Point taken and understood.

I still reserve the option to debate. It has been fun so far, no?[/quote]

Well, good then let’s continue shall we?

There are four sides represented on this thread.

They are:

  1. Christians

  2. Those who believe in God but not Christ as the son of God, etc.

  3. Atheists who reject the notion of God but acknowledge that Christ was an historical figure.

  4. Atheists that reject the notion of God and also reject that Christ ever lived.

The most confusing to me, believe it or not, is number two.

You have said that Christ indeed performed miracles. Yet, you deny his deity.

That does not make sense to me.

Do crazy people or liars turn water into wine, heal the sick and raise the dead?

I think not.

So, what you’re saying is he was incredibly great in these areas, but a dirty liar when it came to the main reason why he came to earth and that is to save humanity from its sin.

And if the writers of the Bible, or later Church leaders were going to lie why didn’t they lie about him healing others? This you seem to accept as truth.

You just can’t get your arms around the whole deity thing huh?

Square this with me will you?

296

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:

I’ll end this post with a few friendly and peacefull words from the bible:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,”… you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage… If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
----DEUTERONOMY 13:6, 8-15
[/quote]

Those words are just hard to take huh?

Hollywood and some other liberal knuckle heads would have you believe that God is a giant old man with a beard that sits you on his lap like santa clause, pats you on the head and tells you to love everything and everyone.

Well, that’s NOT the God of the Old Testament.

There are things we are to hate.

Did you know we are to “hate” sin?

Anyway, when Jesus came to earth much of the OT, such as the law, was washed away.

[b]“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”-Romans 10:4.

297

stop arguing with him please…!!

298

Your faith in the Bible does not make it inviolate and the only authority in all matters metaphysical. Until you make room for the right that another human can have legitimate opinions that are contrary to yours, this discussion can’t continue. But you can’t do that. To do so would make them legitimate, and your beliefs questionable, as you contend that you follow the only truth.

That would be just as good as the sky falling - everything you believe in would crumble. No wonder you are so adamant. You are driven by fear.

Your beliefs bind you and only you. Your beliefs make them true for you and only you. Others’ beliefs make them true to them.

And I never called Jesus a dirty liar. Quit putting words in my mouth. It’s an underhanded tactic that goes against the spirit of a gentleman’s debate. I’ve always spoken with the greatest respect for the man.

Your sudden vitriol is disappointing.

299

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:

So true, as science seems to change on key issues regularly.

I do however feel that with every day that passes, it has more of them than it did the previous day. I don’t get the impression that theism holds the same currency.

Actually, I think it will take some time for science to catch up to the Bible.

Those are excellent points!

People often accuse those who believe in a higher power as closed minded and not open to all possibilities. However, science is exactly the same way. They disregard and do not attempt to explain whatever does not fit in their current paradigm.

For example, they have developed extensive theories and hypotheses regarding macroevolution, but fail to explain how a system that would allow evolution to take place originated and how it maintained for billions of years the very fine parameters required to allow life to continue to exist. And when you look at all the variables involved that concept is staggering. Perhaps that’s why they ignore it?

In any case, my point is that science is not as open-minded as some would like to believe.

[/quote]

Sometimes science doesn’t know the answers yet. There isn’t a problem with not having the answer yet if you are still looking.

300

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are we quibbling over definitions?

[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You have weighed up the evidence and you came to the conclusion that there is no God, true?

And if so that looks to me like you have “faith” that there is no God. Now if that word “faith” bothers you because of certain religious connotations then we can use another word.

How about “Certainty”, or “assurance”?

The point is still the same. You are convinced (hey there’s another word “convinced”) that there is no God. And I am convinced that there IS a God.

How does all that sound to you?
[/quote]

Well yes, we ARE arguing semantics, but on a serious point because in the context of our conversation the connotations of what we are referring to as ‘faith’ are completely unrelated to my beliefs.

My atheism (all atheism for all I know) is a more passive activity, in the sense that I am not so much ‘convinced’ that God does not exist. It is that I am aware of the premise suggested by many people that there might be such a thing as a God, have weighed it up as objectively as I can, and decided there is no evidence to support this assertion and so dismiss it.

Like if a friend phoned up drunk, telling me there was a naked woman hula-hooping outside his house while simultaneously shooting flames out of her backside. It seems so incredibly implausible that I would have to see fairly incontrovertible evidence of such an event to decide it has occurred and is not just my friend being an idiot.

But at that point, people like yourself would say 'ah, but like George Michael (as long as he doesn’t want to get married) said, you gotta have ‘faith’… And THAT is exactly why I objected to you using my thought processes and eventual conclusions as ‘faith’, and certainly why I objected to the misuse of the word religion to describe them too.

My thoughts and beliefs about God are no more religious than my thoughts on whether the hula hooping nekkid arse-fire girl exists.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have simply seen no evidence to make me believe something which does not conform to any of the currently accepted laws of physics in such a way as an omnipotent creator must do, actually exists. Until such a time as I do, I stand by my judgement call.

And at times you sound agnostic. No?
[/quote]

Why do I sound agnostic? Because I have not said I don’t WANT there there to be a God? Wants have nothing to do with it. I just want the truth. If there was enough evidence to prove it, or even make it seem plausible, have no doubts that my opinions would be very different. I just want the truth. The knowledge. The understanding. Whatever that may be.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yeah, but science recognises the mistakes it made,

That does not negate the fact that millions of people “live” by certain scientific theories as absolutely truths. And then so many years later they discover that they (scientists) were incorrect in their theory and it goes out the window.

If you want to “worship” (don’t get hung up on definitions) science go ahead.

The word of God has never been prove to be false.

Why would Christianity take into account the latest “theory” only to have it proven wrong so many years later?

As I said and stand by, science has not caught up to the Bible in everything, only in some things.

[/quote]

Science is ever-evolving. That is the nature of it. Religion is static. That is the nature of it. To be fair I don’t really think any scientific ‘absolute truths’ that were later debunked, have caused so big a rethinking by the public on how to live their lives that it ever undermined the scientific community.

Not like, for example… Thoughts on whether the world was round and the colossal uproar by the church at this heretic suggestion.

Christianity instead has taken a stance which would be easy to prove or impossible to disprove. It has thrown in all sorts of caveats like ‘faith’ (as in the definition I shared earlier which is belief without proof) being such a part of it.

I have a 15 inch penis. I could show you and prove it quite easily, but instead of doing that, and in one hit removing all doubt as to the length of my penis, and bringing the knowledge that belief in my 15 inch penis would heal the world, I will instead say that if you don’t believe I have a 15 inch penis purely on my say so, then you will go to hell. **

Can you see why this is such a specious argument?

Oh, and you can’t say ‘don’t get caught up in definitions’ and then use ‘faith’, ‘religion’ and now ‘worship’ to describe my beliefs, despite my asking you not to, despite my explaining why they are not appropriate descriptions and despite me showing in post after post that I don’t not approach my beliefs in this way.

You are either being incredibly obtuse in not getting what I felt I had explained in sufficient detail on more than one occasion OR being ever so slightly petty and trying to score a little playground point.

C’mon big man, move past the wordplay and let’s stuck to the big topics. Otherwise from now on in I will call your God Allah, because according to everything I read about Him, Allah is the ONE, TRUE GOD - so it must be the same guy, right? So you have faith, are religious about and worship Allah… Cooool :wink:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You want to(or actually have)Christian morals without God involved. It seems quite simple, but ultimately not very easy.

It also makes no sense to me. You have a set of moral values that just suddenly appeared.

POOF, murder is bad, marriage is between one man and one woman (oh no not the gay debate again). ZAP, it’s wrong to steal. Abracadabra you should not have sex with someone else’s wife.

Okay, if you think those things just came to man suddenly one day, I’d have to disagree.

In fact, it seems man wants to do the opposite in many instances.

It’s good that you believe in those things. It’s bad that you’ve not given the creator credit.

I’ll leave it at that.
[/quote]

Yes I do believe that all animals have instinct, some conscious and some not. For the most part as social animals we operate on a ‘what’s best for the pack is best for me’ mentality, and on occasion our personal interests are capable of overriding that in varying degrees, depending on the person and the action.

This can be very good or very bad - of course taking into account that both are subjective terms. If someone treats you badly it is instinctual to want to treat them badly back. So if you treat them nicely, it is instinctual to try and be nice back. As noted, there are varying degree and ‘niceness’ is subjective. But hang on, isn’t that the same as ‘loving my neighbour’. Wow…

I believe that you cannot prove that this is not the case, and at the same time I can prove that many of the ideals set out in the 10 commandments were set out in previous texts long before Moses was around. That tells me that the ideals were about long before the religion, and various authorities have subsequently tried to make them canon or law, simply because they work well for society as a whole - Either by threat of punishment or damnation.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ha…actually, I’ve never read the survey that you’ve mentioned. Could you point me to that, I’d like to read it.

[/quote]

The survey was carried out by the University of Minnesota and was featured in the April, 2006 edition of American Sociological Review. Don’t have a direct link to study but google it. They polled behind Muslims, recent immigrants and homosexuals. Whilst it’s good for those social groups, it’s a shame us Atheists finished last.

[/quote]

If religion help people and brings them comfort then that’s great. Honestly. But it doesn’t make it any truer.

** May not actually be 15 inches. :slight_smile:

301

[quote]pat36 wrote:

‘Burden of proof’ spoken in philosophical terms means ttat when somebody challeges a an argument the burden lies on the challeger to present the argument of challenge first.

[/quote]

You mean, as an example, that if I challenge your assertion that God exists, I must first outline exactly what your assertion is before I challenge it? Is that right? Ok, if it is, I thought I did that.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Ok, I am game. Here’s a couple. This one is good because you can actually travel to Italy and see it for yourself:

[quote]pat36 wrote:

This one was good because it was witnessed by 100,000 people:

[/quote]

So, the Miracle of the Sun. Ok it appears to have happened. The light of the sun apparently dimming, changing colour somewhat, and then appearing to do a dance. To be honest, this seems like a fascinating anomaly but I see absolutely no connection with this happening it being related to proof of God’s existence.

If Halley’s Comet comes by Earth only once every 70 years, it is equally feasible that it could have been something like that which caused these thing and equally possible that it had never been recorded as having been witnessed, because perhaps it comes only once every 500, or 10,000 years.

I’m not saying that is the case, but it seems more plausible given what we now know of such anomalies. Even more likely is a big solar flare or something? I don’t see how it has anything remotely to do with suggesting a higher power was at work.

And to be honest, if he wanted to leave others in no doubt, he could do it in much simpler and less ambiguous ways. This is often a source of contention because surely he could show us all instantly and we would know.

We would still have free will to choose whether to worship him but we would KNOW. This seems such a bizarre way of announcing yourself. But I have also been told he moves mysteriously. Which doesn’t help me either lol…

On to the Eucharist miracle. Wow. Very interesting. And straight away this is obviously far more relevant with regards the existence of God than the other example.

All I can say is that how hard can it be for a man to drop some blood and flesh from a sleeve into the cup during the consecration? It would be a simple way to halt the doubts of the Basilian monk (and any others) with regards the nature of the eucharist.

SO it comes down to ‘Do I believe a man of God could do such a thing?’ Well, I believe the Inquisition shows that men of God are not immune from lying, cheating or perpetrating evil any more than atheists and so it comes down to the nature of the individual, which unfortunately neither of us can comment on seeing as how we weren’t there.

However, if you ask me if it could have been easily faked, then I would have to say yes it most certainly could.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Well, they are wrong. We can get into Islam at some other time, really. It is a faith desperately in need of reformation. I am not arguing agaist the tenants of islam per sae, but many of the interpretations and perversions has caused many of it’s practitioners to practice and premote evil.

You cannot do evil to achieve good and that has fallen short on many of them. They have replaced the heart of the law with the precise letter of the law; which is always a mistake. Not all muslims, mind you, but many have fallen into that trap. There are many Christian sects who do this crap too. That they are right and everybody else is going to hell. They are wrong.

[/quote]

Was just about to level this criticism at essentially EVERY single religion except hinduism and Buddhism and then you beat me to it. It’s refreshing to hear someone speak critically of the thing they love as for many others, they feel that to criticise an aspect of it is to belittle its whole.

I have the same issue with the dreaded ‘patriot’ who cannot accept that anything his or her government has ever done was wrong. Whereas a I feel that it can be purely BECAUSE you love something that you might criticise it.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
You misread, in parenthesees I stated that in Islam there is a large faction embracing a hate philosphy, not buddism.
[/quote]

Apologies.

[quote]pat36 wrote:

pat36 wrote:
There are many reasons I choose for being Catholic but behind it all are these basis facts. Jesus ordained the Apostles and the apostles made the church. Every ordination since then can be traced back directely to an apostle, there are no breaks in the line.

1-Pack wrote:
Facts that can be substantiated how? I think we have different interpretations of what constitutes a fact. Sorry, carry on…

pat36 wrote:
I didn’t say it would be easy but they are in fact tracable all the way to the apostles. More recent ordinations are archived in the diocese’s. Then you’d have to go to the Vatican to continue tracing where the diocese’s left off. Never the less it is tracable. If the church did one thing write in it’s history, it documented well almost always. Greek and Russian orthodox also have the apostolic tradition.
[/quote]

If that IS the case, and I would have to read up on it to find out, it still does not give any credence to the writings of said apostles. I know I am moving onto hallowed ground here but even if the apostles existed, and wrote their respective parts of the New Testament word for word as we read it now, with no interference or manipulation down the millennia - it STILL does not in any show that their thoughts, beliefs and suppositions were correct, and that Jesus was the son of God.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I wouldn’t want to live a lie. I know it’s not possible to prove God doesn’t exist so I am not really worried about that.

To address the first part, in the end a lot of supposedly religious people are going to be really surprised at who gets into heaven before them. It is my belief that if you gave theism thoughtful consideration and just was not convinced, AND you led a good and honest life, I don’t think God would hold that agaist anybody. That’s my thinking.[/quote]

I think this is one of the nicest, most rational and balanced viewpoints from the Christian perspective I have ever read on this forum. Fair play, mate :slight_smile:

EDITED BECAUSE QUOTES WEREN’T SHOWING UP PROPERLY