How Many T-Men Believe in God?

[quote]orion wrote:
But many beliefs do not include a higher power!

There are trees that remember what is spoken beneath them, ancestors that walk among us but are not especially powerful, or much more powerful in everyday live than their version of “God”.

From the point of view of cultural group selection a meme complex like Islam, or Judaim makes sense:

Be nice and co-operate with everyone holding your faith and finish off/enslave/steal from the rest.

Kill everyone that doubts or dissents. Indoctrinate your children as early as possible.

Spread the message, with fire and sword if necessary.

Is it really so astonishing that religions that have that set of instructions outcompete other sets of superstition?

It is like a mind virus with specific instructions:

Go out and spread, kill those who cannot be infected.

It is like a summer hit you cannot get out of your ear, only more complex. [/quote]

I’m talking about an inborn spiritual need that has to be filled. You are talking about how some people try and fill that need.

I suspect that those who try and fill that need though the “virus” method continue to be dissatisfied. In that I don’t believe you can truly fill a spiritual need by killing others.

So I think many who use this kind of man-made religion never actually find what they are seeking. That is probably what makes them continue to try and covert or kill; because they are not satisfied with the spiritual fulfillment they have received to that point.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

[/quote]

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

  2. The bible is incoherent, self-contradictory and filled with weird translations and ofcourse: FILLED with gruesome hate and a god that seems like a jealous, vindictive and petty god… does that make him more realistic? no.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

[quote]kroby wrote:

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.
[/quote]

How do you know ZEB exists? Have you seen him? You see the evidence of ZEB, but not the actual ZEB. And yet you are talking to him?

Maybe you just haven’t being paying attention to the actual evidence of the existence of God?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
kroby wrote:

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

How do you know ZEB exists? Have you seen him? You see the evidence of ZEB, but not the actual ZEB. And yet you are talking to him?

Maybe you just haven’t being paying attention to the actual evidence of the existence of God?

[/quote]

What is this evidence? You have found the hammer of thor? Kali’s swords?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t think that is the point - the point is the question remains open, and the fact that you can’t prove the existence of a god is precisely as relevant as the fact that you can’t prove there isn’t a god, as a matter of a logic problem.
[/quote]
It will always remain open because god is not an observable–it is neither provable nor disprovable and will always fall into the realm of metaphysics. This does not mean we can assume that stuff can or cannot be created out of thin air or not.

People who try to reason the existence of god because “stuff” had to come from somewhere are also stuck in a logical trap because this assumption may or may not be true. There is no logical explanation for the existence or nonexistence of god. It is metaphysical.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kroby wrote:

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

How do you know ZEB exists? Have you seen him? You see the evidence of ZEB, but not the actual ZEB. And yet you are talking to him?

Maybe you just haven’t being paying attention to the actual evidence of the existence of God?

What is this evidence? You have found the hammer of thor? Kali’s swords?

[/quote]

Tell me how you think man originated and I will show you the evidence!

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kroby wrote:

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

How do you know ZEB exists? Have you seen him? You see the evidence of ZEB, but not the actual ZEB. And yet you are talking to him?

Maybe you just haven’t being paying attention to the actual evidence of the existence of God?

What is this evidence? You have found the hammer of thor? Kali’s swords?

Tell me how you think man originated and I will show you the evidence!

[/quote]

You made a statement, are you unable or not willing to back it up?

If you want to know (no, not how i THINK, but the factual version) how man originated? Read the blind watchmaker, read the selfish gene, read any popular scientific book on evolution.

Simple as that. Evolution is a fact, some people seem to be confusing this somehow with how different details are disputed, the theory complex of evolution is a fact, and is undisputed by all serious and credible sources. (No, christian conservative organisations in US are not credible sources).

[quote]ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

[/quote]

If that is your necessity, yes. It is not mine. Subjectively, I’ve ruled out this possibility.

I do not believe that the Bible is the complete, unabridged word of God because it was written by man. God is more than paper, ink and words. More than feelings, actions or interpretations. More than can be captured in a book. The book falls short and is flawed.

I may be wrong in my logic, but if a source is flawed, so then is the conclusions made from the work. The God of the Bible pales in comparison to the real thing.

“I am that I am” is probably the smartest thing and should have been the last thing written. Then it would be a fair estimation. Everything else is fiction.

I enjoy my fiction, and by all means, enjoy yours.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Thinking that their way is the right way and everyone else is damned.

But there usually is a “right way” and a wrong way to perform most tasks. And certainly an optimum way to live.
[/quote]

That depends how far you want to go. Everyone is different in their definition of “the good life”.

You and I may look at things a bit similar because we both train and are in decent shape- we look at this as “optimum”.

Of course, I’m also a drinker, and I think that if I couldn’t get hammered once in a while… well, that’s not “optimum” to me.

We both think that there is a good way to live, but it involves different things, although the very basic cause is the same. Same thing with religion. The end goal is to be a good shit- whatever book you read to get you there, well, that’s fine.

[quote]
I don’t believe in really any one organized religion- I’m Catholic, but have so many problems with that church that I don’t know that it’s even fair to assume I am one anymore.

What drove you away from the Catholic church, specifically?[/quote]

The hypocrisy, the absolute power they held for so many years over certain countries, the deaths caused over their beliefs, the fact that they crucified scientists that didn’t agree, the fact that they refuse to move forward into this century…

The Pope, all the popes, need to know that the world is not seventeenth century Ireland anymore, and their influence is limited. I know they would love to keep everyone in the dark about everything, and pretend like science is some flagrant abomination meant to tear down the walls of human morality, but it just ain’t so. When they learn that, I’ll give a fuck what they say again.

Agreed. But we don’t go bomb McDonald’s because we think it’s a crime to not be in shape, and Louie Simmons does not fly planes into Matt Furey’s house in order to prove, once and for all, that Westside rules. get my drift? I understand the analogy, but the stakes in this are far larger than any system of lifting barbells.

Louie Simmons gets results. It’s on his board- his guys are some of the strongest in the country, and everyone else is amazed.

There are no competitions in religion, nowhere to place stats and numbers and prove that once in for all, “THIS SHIT WORKS.”

No, it’s a crap shoot, one that we don’t know how to answer until we’re dead.

I’m not saying you can’t adhere to it- but it’s no excuse to not question every word out of their mouth, because those bastards are no closer to God then I.

Right. But every ancient civilization, from the Egyptians to the Mayans, have a myth of a great flood. All of them have creation myths which could be linked to form stories, etc. I’m not saying the whole thing is untrue, maybe that came out wrong. What I am saying is that it is not infallible, and many things in it are either unprovable or extreemely exagerrated.

I mean, not for nuthin, but if God blew up Soddom and Gomorrah, wouldn’t he have a field day with Vegas? I’m still waiting for motherfuckers to turn into salt in front of me, or my rhodedrens in the front yard to catch on fire and start talking to me. (That could happen, but it involves an eigth of shrooms or a couple sheets of acid).

I agree. But you know why i don’t trust the Church? Cause they knew, and shuffled these doucebags around. Because the pope sat idly by while Jews were slaughtered like cattle in the Holocaust. There is a laundry list to go through, and I’m sure you know them all.

But you know what man, a picture is worth a thousand words…

Wait a tick. I just had an epiphany.

The God of the Bible does exist. It’s just not the totality of God. An incomplete God, if you will. God with a small g.

What a relief. No sarcasm intended.

Damn, but you’re on FIRE Irish!

Sadly, I just remembered this thread was about believing in God, not which religion was the best.

I apologize, everyone.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kroby wrote:

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

How do you know ZEB exists? Have you seen him? You see the evidence of ZEB, but not the actual ZEB. And yet you are talking to him?

Maybe you just haven’t being paying attention to the actual evidence of the existence of God?

What is this evidence? You have found the hammer of thor? Kali’s swords?

Tell me how you think man originated and I will show you the evidence!

You made a statement, are you unable or not willing to back it up?

If you want to know (no, not how i THINK, but the factual version) how man originated? Read the blind watchmaker, read the selfish gene, read any popular scientific book on evolution.

Simple as that. Evolution is a fact, some people seem to be confusing this somehow with how different details are disputed, the theory complex of evolution is a fact, and is undisputed by all serious and credible sources. (No, christian conservative organisations in US are not credible sources).[/quote]

Your blind devotion to a system you don’t really understand is encouraging. At least it demonstrates that you can and do live by faith, even if that faith is in the intellect of others.

There is a number of ways to look at the evidence, but since you mentioned evolution, I will start there.

Evolution is a process that is part of a system that current cannot be explained. In other terms, evolution is a theory (not actually proven, but has not be disproved, so that is good enough for modern science) developed to explain the origins of man inside of an ecosystem that cannot be explained. Meaning that evolution tells us how the pieces might have gone together, but not where the puzzle board and pieces came from and how they stayed orderly for billions of years.

I personally think evolution is a good theory, but the fact that it totally ignores the orderly system in place that allows it to be feasible is its downfall.

So the biggest evidence for a higher power is in fact evolution.

There is currently no rational explanation for such an orderly and systematic system to exist that would allow evolution to occur. As such, any explanation outside of what we can validate must be given equal validity. Which means, the possibility that a higher power set this system in place that allows evolution is just as feasible as two big pieces of matter (never mind where it came from as asking that question will get you kicked out of science class) banging together and landing in the exact spot required for human life �?? and staying that way for billions for years. Both cannot be disproved and both take a large leap of faith.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Because the pope sat idly by while Jews were slaughtered like cattle in the Holocaust. There is a laundry list to go through, and I’m sure you know them all.

But you know what man, a picture is worth a thousand words…[/quote]

Don’t just make things up.

The Myth of Hitler�??s Pope
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Myth of Hitler�??s Pope:
How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis
by Rabbi David G. Dalin

Hard as it may be to fathom today, Pope Pius XII was deeply admired in his day and in the years following his pontificate. This admiration came from all kinds of quarters. Graham Greene, the liberal Catholic writer, described him as “a pope who many of us believe will rank among the greatest.” Moving testimonies on the part of prominent European Jews (see afterword below) likewise indicate the esteem and love that so much of the world had for him.

That began to change in 1963 with the Berlin premiere of the left-wing German writer Rolf Hochhuth�??s fictional play The Deputy, which portrayed Pius XII as callous and indifferent in the face of Jewish suffering under the Nazis. Within three years of that event books critical of Pius began to appear, along with defenses by Jewish authors. Those defenses, all but forgotten in the present environment, were substantial. The Anti-Defamation League�??s representative in Rome, Joseph L. Lichten, wrote A Question of Judgment, a 1963 monograph in defense of Pius XII against the fictional depiction of the Pope in The Deputy. Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, cited to this day by those who defend the Pope, wrote in his Three Popes and the Jews (1967) that Pius “was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” The Hungarian Jewish historian Jeno Levai, outraged by the unjust attacks on Pius XII, wrote Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII Did Not Remain Silent (English translation, 1968). Levai, who steeped himself in archival materials of both Church and state, showed that the papal nuncio and the bishops “intervened again and again on the instructions of the pope,” and that as a result of these labors “in the autumn and winter of 1944 there was practically no Catholic Church institution in Budapest where persecuted Jews did not find refuge.”

In recent years the anti-Pius hysteria has reached a pitch that Jews and non-Jews alike could scarcely have imagined in 1958, the year of the Pope�??s death. The most celebrated example, of course, has been ex-seminarian John Cornwell�??s 1999 book Hitler�??s Pope, which makes Pius XII out to be a supporter of National Socialism who did little or nothing to stop Adolf Hitler�??s terrible campaign against the Jews.

Enter Rabbi David Dalin. Rabbi Dalin, who vigorously dissents from the anti-Pius orthodoxy, suggests in his new book The Myth of Hitler�??s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis that the great pontiff in fact deserves to be recognized as a “righteous Gentile” for his efforts to rescue Jews from the fate that awaited them at Nazi hands. “As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Pius XII, it would be both historically just and morally appropriate for Yad Vashem to posthumously recognize and honor Pius XII as one of the �??righteous among the nations.�??”

As Rabbi Dalin shows, the Catholic Church, under direct orders from Pius XII, went to great lengths to shelter and protect Jews throughout Europe. The Myth of Hitler�??s Pope is filled with examples of heroism throughout the European continent, and case after case of rescuers and rescued alike honoring Pope Pius XII for his defiance of the Nazis. Particularly moving is the book�??s discussion of Pius�?? efforts on behalf of Slovakian Jews; Rabbi Dalin contends that 20,000 Jews escaped deportation as a direct result of the Pope�??s intervention.

Rabbi Dalin devotes considerable attention to the Nazi roundup of Jews in Rome, which has been the source of much controversy in the Pius XII debate. Michael Tagliacozzo, the leading authority on that terrible event (and himself a survivor of the roundup), says Pius XII “was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us.” Archival evidence, he says, proves that it was the protests and actions of Pius XII that were responsible for rescuing 80 percent of Rome�??s Jews. At the Pope�??s behest, Jews were hidden all over the city, in churches, monasteries, and wherever room for them could be found.

Rabbi Dalin points out that neither Cornwell nor Susan Zuccotti, another Pius XII critic, mentions the sheltering of three thousand Jews at Castel Gandolfo, the Pope�??s own summer residence. “Yet at no other site in Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews saved and sheltered for as long a period as at Castel Gandolfo during the Nazi occupation of Rome.” Kosher food was served to the Jews sheltered there. Jewish children were even born in the Pope�??s private apartments.

When in the summer of 1944 a group of Roman Jews came to thank the Pope for the protection he had extended to them, Pius replied: “For centuries, Jews have been unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. Saint Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. They should also be welcomed as our friends.”

Rabbi Dalin also notes that prominent Catholics who were honored for their efforts on behalf of the Jews have pointed to Pope Pius XII as the inspiration behind their actions. The future Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, while still Cardinals Roncalli and Montini, respectively, received high praise for their efforts to shelter and rescue Jews. In both cases, the future pontiffs shrugged that they were just following the orders of Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Pietro Palazzini, who hid many Italian Jews for several months in 1943 and 1944, was honored by Yad Vashem in 1985 as a “righteous Gentile.” Cardinal Palazzini emphasized that “the merit is entirely Pius XII�??s, who ordered us to do whatever we could to save the Jews from persecution.”

It was partly because of his sympathy for the Jews and his opposition to National Socialism that Pius was in fact strongly disliked by the Nazis; Hitler�??s regime actually lobbied against the election of Pacelli to replace Pius XI as pope. Pacelli was referred to as Pius XI�??s “Jew-loving” cardinal. Rabbi Dalin points out that “of the forty-four speeches Pacelli gave in Germany as papal nuncio between 1917 and 1929, forty denounced some aspect of the emerging Nazi ideology.”

As Cardinal Pacelli he had played a central role in the drafting of Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI�??s 1937 encyclical condemning Nazism. His inaugural encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (1939), made clear the incompatibility of National Socialism with the Catholic faith. The New York Times headline read, “Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism.” Allied aircraft even dropped some 88,000 copies of the Pope�??s document over Germany in order to undermine the Nazi government. The abortive Nazi plan to kidnap Pius XII is also rather difficult to square with the “Hitler�??s Pope” myth.

Now if what Rabbi Dalin says in this book is true and Pope Pius XII was in fact a great friend of the Jews, how do we account for the ceaseless attacks on the wartime pontiff? Let Rabbi Dalin answer that one:

Very few of the many recent books about Pius XII and the Holocaust are actually about Pius XII and the Holocaust. The liberal bestselling attacks on the pope and the Catholic Church are really an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today. The Holocaust is simply the biggest club available for liberal Catholics to use against traditional Catholics in their attempt to bash the papacy and thereby to smash traditional Catholic teaching�?�.

Dalin concludes: “The anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler�??s Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today.”

Rabbi Dalin has performed an extraordinary service on behalf of Pope Pius XII and for the Catholic Church in general. The severity of the attacks that await him can only be imagined. He deserves Catholics�?? support, and their gratitude.

Imagine if this book, in which a rabbi defends Pope Pius XII, became a national bestseller. The mainstream media, which has gone out of its way to showcase condemnations of this great pope while ignoring cogent and persuasive defenses, would be left gasping in shock, scarcely knowing how to react. What a glorious sight that would be. If you�??re like me, you�??re already out the door to buy a copy and help make it happen.

Afterword

A sample of the Jewish testimonies included in The Myth of Hitler�??s Pope:

We share in the grief of humanity [at the death of Pius XII]�?�. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.

~ Golda Meir

No keener rebuke has come to Nazism than from Pope Pius XI and his successor, Pope Pius XII.

~ Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, chancellor, Jewish Theological Seminary of America

In the most difficult hours of which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See�?�was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews�?�. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.

~ Rabbi Alexander Safran, chief rabbi of Romania

The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.

~ Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel

I told [Pope Pius XII] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews�?�. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church.

~ Moshe Sharett (who later became Israel�??s first foreign minister and second prime minister)

July 25, 2005

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

So… “many people have believed in god, so god must be real” is your ace…? WRONG![/quote]

Well, of course that wasn’t my argument, and conveniently you skipped over the pertinent part. And, of course, I didn’t say that as such.

My point was that you have reduced a very complicated issue that smarter people have wrestled with for a long time to an unsubstantiated soundbyte - I am not appealing to authority so much as I am attacking your credibility to accomplish what you think you have.

In short, I think you are wrong on the merits, regardless of authority, and I am amused at your reductionism only as an aside.

If you are going to call “logical fallacy”, make sure you understand the claim.

And, there is no rational or scientific evidence that they don’t. We keep ending up at the same place, me and you.

If you start with a hypothesis and say “a god exists” and try to prove it, you will come up with the exact same answer if you start with the hypothesis “a god doesn’t exist” and try to prove it.

You are as blind to “logic” as the believers in god that you assail for being illogical.

Whether or not God exists is beyond deductive provability at this point. It is a different question.

See above. And you make a common error - the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” applies if that is the primary support for my argument. Assuming you can read, you would know that I made specific arguments to rebut yours - I didn’t respond to your arguments with “oh yeah? That’s not Thomas Aquinas says”.

I am not relying on “smarter people” as my source of why I think you are wrong - I merely use them to question your credibility. That is separate to my argument - to point out your conceit.

P.P.S. - I got it just fine. It’s not my fault it failed for you.

i believe in God.
i just do not want to turn my life around and follow Him.
…yet

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
No, ofcourse not. Believing in god is irrational.

Secondly:

“Tell what proof do you have that the Bible is a “novel”? Is this just a feeling? Has there been proof offered up that clearly demonstrates that certain things written in the Bible are absolutely false?”

“Tell what proof do you have that the dragon in my garage is an object of my imagination? Is this just a feeling? Has there been proof offered up that clearly demonstrates that I don’t have a dragon in my garage?”

Logic at its best.[/quote]

I was asking if there were certain instances which when brought to his attention proved to him that the Bible was a novel. Very simple huh?

Other than that there have been many archeological digs which have shown that certain stories in the Bible are in fact true.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES![/quote]

But it seems to me that there is quite a difference between the two examples above. There has been nothing written regarding the teapot example.

Please give an example of how this is so. I’ve read the Bible many times and cannot agree with you on this.

I’ve had others state this. But, when asked all they could do was post something off of a wacky web site that I easily shot down.

[quote]3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER… [/quote]

It depends on what you call an indication. I’d say that’s a pretty broad term.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I’ve been told I’m going to hell for being Jewish/Atheist by numerous real Christians.

Btw, what is a Jewish/Atheist? Is that like a Christian/Atheist, which is a contradiction in terms?[/quote]

Jewish racially (my name sounds quite Jewish so people figure that out quick).

Atheist religiously, or non-religiously. Whichever is grammatically correct.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
kroby wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therefore, if a thing (whatever it might be) cannot be explained you do not believe in its existence?

I didn’t say that at all. I said the God of the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur’an) does not exist.

Yes, I understand your position. But, my question remains: how can you be certain?

The Bible It is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

But, how do you know? You are guessing it’s incomplete? What do you base this “reality” on?

A thing can exist without explanation.

Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.

Thank you again, ZEB, for this opportunity.

You’re welcome. Thank you.

  1. Can one be 100% certain that god, zeus, thor, odin, appollon… doesen’t exist? No… Can i be 100% certain that a silver teapot isn’t circling around a sun 2234 lightyears away, controlling the universe? No… Are any of the above plausible in any way? No… am i 99.9% certain that neither of them exist? YES!

But it seems to me that there is quite a difference between the two examples above. There has been nothing written regarding the teapot example.

  1. The bible is incoherent,

Please give an example of how this is so. I’ve read the Bible many times and cannot agree with you on this.

self-contradictory

I’ve had others state this. But, when asked all they could do was post something off of a wacky web site that I easily shot down.

3)“Then God can exist (as in the Bible) without you or I being able to explain it.”

you miss “possible” with “plausible”

is it possible? well… yeah, theoretically… is it plausible? No, there is no indication, WHAT SO EVER…

It depends on what you call an indication. I’d say that’s a pretty broad term.

[/quote]

1)He just wrote about a teapot. Are you insinuating that you can prove God (or a non-human) wrote the bible? Majority thought as an argument is a fallacy.

  1. God loves us. God threw us out of paradise because we did something we didn’t know was wrong. Is Jesus God’s son, God, or God’s son whose also God? I’ve never really gotten this and I’ve read the new testament through. Monotheism + Saints + Trinity = WTF?

  2. Based on everything we know, we cannot say whether God exists or not, and if he does, what he/she/it/everything is like. Therefore, everything in an argument about God is about faith.

To have faith, one must have doubt. There is no logical argument for or against God. God is not logical. Atheism is not logical. None of it is based in logical thought. It’s all faith, and therefore, damn near impossible to argue.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
No, ofcourse not. Believing in god is irrational.

Secondly:

“Tell what proof do you have that the Bible is a “novel”? Is this just a feeling? Has there been proof offered up that clearly demonstrates that certain things written in the Bible are absolutely false?”

“Tell what proof do you have that the dragon in my garage is an object of my imagination? Is this just a feeling? Has there been proof offered up that clearly demonstrates that I don’t have a dragon in my garage?”

Logic at its best.

I was asking if there were certain instances which when brought to his attention proved to him that the Bible was a novel. Very simple huh?

Other than that there have been many archeological digs which have shown that certain stories in the Bible are in fact true.

[/quote]

And there is much more historical evidence showing that many bible stories were ripped off from ancient religious tales.

If you want to believe in the Bible, you must take it on faith. That’s really the only way to take it (entirely, certain parts have evidence, as you suggested).