Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?

I believe that this thread should be moved to the "Circular Reasoning" thread.

The Bible explain's everything. The Bible itself is the truth. The bible is a mass biblyography of Jesus's life. There is no other book in History that can explain event for even the bible does. How it has happen. The Bible is a Book about how jesus was viewed through the eye's of thousand's and the miracles that he performed. God is the way.

history.

and God.

Yeah. Ok. (to previous 3)

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?

I was raised to believe that I should always think for myself, that I should discern fantasy from reality, that violence is not something that should be glorified, and that God is greater than our ability to describe in words or to limit with ideas. For these reasons, I do not accept the Bible as a unique authority on God or any other subject. That does not mean that I dismiss it entirely, however.

To begin with, I will not accept anything just because it is written in the Bible. As far as I am concerned the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament from the Christian point of view) is a collection of the tribal legends, historical records, and religious writings of the ancient Hebrews. I am a modern man - not an ancient Hebrew. Therefore, my entire worldview is informed by scientific data and cultural assumptions that are extremely far removed from those of the ancient Hebrews. Unlike them, just to name a few examples, I am convinced that this universe is billions of years old; that life as it now appears on Earth is part of an ongoing process of evolution; that different languages and dialects developed over time; that it is not an abomination to eat pork, shrimp, or lobster, or to mix beef and dairy products; that slavery is immoral; that it is immoral to execute disrespectful children; and that one is never justified in committing genocide or ethnic cleansing. The ancient Hebrews, however, were ignorant of modern astrophysics, ignorant of geology, ignorant of the fossil record and carbon dating, they believed that all of the existing language groups originated from God's curse at the tower of Babel, they believed that it is an abomination to eat certain kinds of foods or to prepare foods in certain ways, they believed that disrespect to God or one's parent's is a capital offense, they practiced slavery, and they believed that God had commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child in certain towns during the conquest of the promised land (in other cases the men and boys were killed and the woman and girls enslaved). So, for scientific and moral reasons I do not view the Bible as an authority.

The Bible is not a revelation from God, rather it is a compilation, a fairly untidy compilation, written by many different people, over many centuries, changed and edited from time to time, and containing legends, stories, genealogies, fables, sacred and secular writings. It is no more a revelation from God than are the Iliad or the Odyssey, the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, books which the Bible resembles quite closely.

Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
The Bible explain's everything.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't explain the existance of the dinosaurs, it doesn't explain science or mathematics, it doesn't explain the creation of the entire Universe, it doesn't explain WHY God is male and not female if he is the true creator, it doesn't explain how Angels can mate with humans, it doesn't explain what exactly angels are, etc.etc.



Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
The Bible itself is the truth. The bible is a mass biblyography of Jesus's life.


WRONG

Only the Gospels are depictions of Jesus' life. The rest of the Bible doesn't cover Jesus Christ, and the ENTIRE Old Testament doesn't even MENTION Jesus Christ.

You don't know what the f*ck you're talkn about, do you ?

Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
There is no other book in History that can explain event for even the bible does.

What exactly are you trying to say here? This sentence makes no grammatical sense.


Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
How it has happen. The Bible is a Book about how jesus was viewed through the eye's of thousand's and the miracles that he performed. God is the way.

Prove it...there is no proof. The Bible is just as valid as the Quran, the Book of the Dead, and other mythological texts.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
No it doesn't.

It doesn't explain the existance of the dinosaurs, it doesn't explain science or mathematics, it doesn't explain the creation of the entire Universe, it doesn't explain WHY God is male and not female if he is the true creator, it doesn't explain how Angels can mate with humans, it doesn't explain what exactly angels are, etc.etc.

Nor does it explain what religion is.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
WRONG

Only the Gospels are depictions of Jesus' life. The rest of the Bible doesn't cover Jesus Christ, and the ENTIRE Old Testament doesn't even MENTION Jesus Christ.

You don't know what the f*ck you're talkn about, do you ? I don't think that's what you meant.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What exactly are you trying to say here? This sentence makes no grammatical sense. I think he's trying to say the Bible is the only recourse to prove the existance of Jesus and God.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Prove it...there is no proof. The Bible is just as valid as the Quran, the Book of the Dead, and other mythological texts. That's what I've always said.

Hmm, I still haven't got ana answer to my question.

People like you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact? The Bible is true because it says so..........

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Bible is true because it says so..........

In that case "true" is a variable.

Or simply a flase claim.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?

Isn't that the whole point of Religion? To believe in something that's important to yourself? The Bible isn't necessarily fact but it's also not necessarily fiction; no one knows, if people want to take it as fact I have no problem with that.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Bible is true because it says so..........

Just like The Da Vinci Code.

i belive that bible from god ,but there were cassocks who slant it to serve theire goods .

Originally posted by lord xyz
But why believe in something that's outside the laws of Science?

That's just being ignorant. The Bible and Science can go hand in hand.

Originally posted by lord xyz
God making it rain, and the rain, somehow flooded the Earth, then the water disappeared? That's scientific?

The floods only happened if you take The Bible very literally.

Yes, which was xyz and my point. Science is superior to the bible, but they don't eliminate eachother.

A loose interpretation (the real core fo Christianity) and Science work fine.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But why believe in something that's outside the laws of Science? Yet there could be something that science hasn't discovered yet. At one time all these older beliefs were the science, crude, but this was how things were explained. Then the Roman church came in a made the bible the truth, and all science antichrist if not within the bounds of it...Then science started to grow again with people such as Copernicus, Newton, Galileo....Einstein...etc.. One thought built on the other. Science is still growing and it could be that there is a blending of spirituality or something much much bigger. Science just has not found out everything yet. To place the bible as the authority on all things is just not looking at all the possibilities.

Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
The Bible explain's everything. The Bible itself is the truth. The bible is a mass biblyography of Jesus's life. There is no other book in History that can explain event for even the bible does. How it has happen. The Bible is a Book about how jesus was viewed through the eye's of thousand's and the miracles that he performed. God is the way.

No it isn't. OT doesn't talk about Jesus' life.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yet there could be something that science hasn't discovered yet. At one time all these older beliefs were the science, crude, but this was how things were explained. Then the Roman church came in a made the bible the truth, and all science antichrist if not within the bounds of it...Then science started to grow again with people such as Copernicus, Newton, Galileo....Einstein...etc.. One thought built on the other. Science is still growing and it could be that there is a blending of spirituality or something much much bigger. Science just has not found out everything yet. To place the bible as the authority on all things is just not looking at all the possibilities. Okay, so rather than help Science, and learn ourselves, we'll just believe in a fairy-tale book until someone else proves other-wise?

Originally posted by S.C.U.D DF
The Bible explain's everything. The Bible itself is the truth. The bible is a mass biblyography of Jesus's life. There is no other book in History that can explain event for even the bible does. How it has happen. The Bible is a Book about how jesus was viewed through the eye's of thousand's and the miracles that he performed. God is the way.

You have never read the bible, have you?

NOTHING in the bible makes it true. although a disturbingly large number of things make it UNTRUE.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
NOTHING in the bible makes it true. although a disturbingly large number of things make it UNTRUE.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Give me some examples...

There are certainly areas where science does not cover and there are certainly areas that religion does not cover.

Science used to be considered the way to discover gods plan. Science and god are reconcilable.

Originally posted by Alliance
There are certainly areas where science does not cover and there are certainly areas that religion does not cover.

Science used to be considered the way to discover gods plan. Science and god are reconcilable.

I'll pass on the supernatural theories...
The bible is useful for being studied as literature, that's about it.

Mm. I love our forum. *Munches on popcorn. Kicks back and watches the ensuing chaos.*

Originally posted by Lord Urizen


WRONG

Only the Gospels are depictions of Jesus' life. The rest of the Bible doesn't cover Jesus Christ, and the ENTIRE Old Testament doesn't even MENTION Jesus Christ.

You don't know what the f*ck you're talkn about, do you ?



Sorry to upset your huge ego but it is you do not know what ....... you are talking about. The Old Testament is filled with parallels and writings about Jesus and His Kingdom, His birth, crucifixion, resurrection etc. Get to know the Bible before you speak about it again. You only embarrass yourself.

An alternative way of looking at the truthfulness of the Bible is that the authority of the Bible rests upon the fact that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages.

Originally posted by Storm
An alternative way of looking at the truthfulness of the Bible is that the authority of the Bible rests upon the fact that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages. A major basis for it's sustenance is imposed familial tradition. If parents taught their children Santa was real; a proportion of people would continue to believe so despite the lack of evidence, (and a proportion of people would come to independent conclusions) and those who continued to believe would likely teach their children.

Very true...though my Godfather is atheist and did not teach his children religion, they still complain about not being home for Christmas.

Originally posted by sonnet
Sorry to upset your huge ego but it is you do not know what ....... you are talking about. The Old Testament is filled with parallels and writings about Jesus and His Kingdom, His birth, crucifixion, resurrection etc. Get to know the Bible before you speak about it again. You only embarrass yourself.

I am aware that the Old Testament mentions a future "savior"...that is who the Jews expected.

But it's "parallels" and "hints" are NOT valid references to Jesus Christ, and certainly are NOT a biography of Jesus' life !

A lot of those parallels can be alluded to figures such as Buddha, while others can be attributed to figures such as Hitler.

The Old Testament does not mention Jesus. It mentions a predicted redeemer, but it makes no clear mention of Jesus. You don't even know your own Bible

Originally posted by Alliance
Very true...though my Godfather is atheist and did not teach his children religion, they still complain about not being home for Christmas. Yeah, what's up with that?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am aware that the Old Testament mentions a future "savior"...that is who the Jews expected.

But it's "parallels" and "hints" are NOT valid references to Jesus Christ, and certainly are NOT a biography of Jesus' life !

A lot of those parallels can be alluded to figures such as Buddha, while others can be attributed to figures such as Hitler.

The Old Testament does not mention Jesus. It mentions a predicted redeemer, but it makes no clear mention of Jesus. You don't even know your own Bible
Well you have just showed us again, that you do not know or understand the scriptures. You read with your sinful mind and therefor cannot understand. You will not be able to see the parallels either,for you do not have the knowledge of God's word. To you the Bible is a story book because you have allowed Satan to corrupt your mind and spirit and you do not even know it and neither will you want to believe it. You do not have God's spirit in you and therefor are incapable of reading His Word with understanding.

Because one has the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the allegorical and the literal, they "read with a sinful mind."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Because one has the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the allegorical and the literal, they "read with a sinful mind."
You are mistaking intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies.

Originally posted by sonnet
You are mistaking intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies. No I'm quite certain I got it right the first time. Hold on I'll check. Yip. Statement stands.

Originally posted by sonnet
You are mistaking intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies.

.................................

Silly Samura, don't you know everytime you formulate an independent thought it's the result of Satan possessing your body and altering your mind? And on occasion playing with a lady friend's dirty pillows.

Originally posted by sonnet
You are mistaking intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies.

Then how can we distinguish between the two?

Originally posted by sonnet
You are mistaking intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies.

Satan is just a myth and not real. You are the one trapped in fantasyland.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Satan is just a myth and not real.
Yes, in your fantasy land.

Fantasyland.
"A place conjured up by the imagination, often populated by bizarre inhabitants."

A place conjured up. Hell. Check.
By the imagination. I.e. fiction. Bible. Check.
Often populated by bizarre inhabitants. Satan. Check.

Pretty aptly describes it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
NOTHING in the bible makes it true. although a disturbingly large number of things make it UNTRUE.
This is one of the greatist quotes I have ever heard.

Sonnet,

How do you think we can distinguish between intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies?

Originally posted by sonnet
Yes, in your fantasy land.

A comeback inspired by God himself.

Originally posted by sonnet
Yes, in your fantasy land.

I would rather be in HIS Fantasy land than yours.

His is free and fun, while yours is uptight, painful, and BORING !

Originally posted by sonnet
Well you have just showed us again, that you do not know or understand the scriptures. You read with your sinful mind and therefor cannot understand. You will not be able to see the parallels either,for you do not have the knowledge of God's word. To you the Bible is a story book because you have allowed Satan to corrupt your mind and spirit and you do not even know it and neither will you want to believe it. You do not have God's spirit in you and therefor are incapable of reading His Word with understanding.














Okay..wait...I am not done laughing.....











Okay...now back to the debate. Can you prove that Satan has corrupted my mind? Can you prove that the Bible is Truth?

If not, then shut up .

Originally posted by Alliance
Sonnet,

How do you think we can distinguish between intellectual capacity with being misled by Satan's lies?

God said that we would be able to discern between Satan's lies and the truth if we know His word and listen to the Holy Spirit. But God said that he will not work through unclean (sinners) vessels (people). So if you want to be able to hear God's spirit / Holy Spirit then be saved and admit that you are a sinner and unclean before God and be washed by the blood of Jesus that was shed when He died for our sins. Accept His gift of salvation through Jesus Christ or be misled by Satan like the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen












Okay..wait...I am not done laughing.....











Okay...now back to the debate. Can you prove that Satan has corrupted my mind?
If not, then shut up .
You have just proven it yourself!!!

Originally posted by sonnet
God said that we would be able to discern between Satan's lies and the truth if we know His word and listen to the Holy Spirit. But God said that he will not work through unclean (sinners) vessels (people). So if you want to be able to hear God's spirit / Holy Spirit then be saved and admit that you are a sinner and unclean before God and be washed by the blood of Jesus that was shed when He died for our sins. Accept His gift of salvation through Jesus Christ or be misled by Satan like the rest of the world. So basically you're saying everything that disagrees with god and subsequently you is just following Satan's lies and is wrong. The earth is 6000 years old. People were made from dirt. A worldwide flood killed everyone. Etc.

You're basing this on your personal interpretation of the Bible. And you're basing this on your personal presumption that the Bible was written through divine inspiration. So everything is based purely on your opinion.

In essence all you're saying is that people who don't agree with you are automatically wrong. Fascistic.

I concur.

Besides something being inspired by the divine, does not make it written by the divine.

As far as I recall, Bible is somewhat constructed from stories written by Jon, Paul, Mark and whoever else. This means that it is their interpretation you are interpreting. Initially you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what Jesus / God did/said.

Having that in mind, the interpretation which one will come out with eventually, will gretly differ to what it was initially meant to be said, no?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I believe that this thread should be moved to the "Circular Reasoning" thread.
So you can use circular logic on it?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So basically you're saying everything that disagrees with god and subsequently you is just following Satan's lies and is wrong. The earth is 6000 years old. People were made from dirt. A worldwide flood killed everyone. Etc.

You're basing this on your personal interpretation of the Bible. And you're basing this on your personal presumption that the Bible was written through divine inspiration. So everything is based purely on your opinion.

In essence all you're saying is that people who don't agree with you are automatically wrong. Fascistic.
No, it is based upon the fact that God is true and His Word is Truth, and His spirit in me confirms it. You do not have the spirit of God within you, so to you it is foolish.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I concur.

Besides something being inspired by the divine, does not make it written by the divine.

As far as I recall, Bible is somewhat constructed from stories written by Jon, Paul, Mark and whoever else. This means that it is their interpretation you are interpreting. Initially you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what Jesus / God did/said.

Having that in mind, the interpretation which one will come out with eventually, will gretly differ to what it was initially meant to be said, no?
So if I give you a note telling you that you need to go to school on Saturday because the principle told me so then you are not going to show up and will give the principle the argument that you did not believe me because I gave you my opinion of what he suposedly told me. Yeah right!! This "opinion" argument is getting a bit boring!!!!

Personally, I' d want to see an official written note with the principle' s signature.

Originally posted by Storm
Personally, I' d want to see an official written note with the principle' s signature.
And some time in detention for disobeying the principle!!

Originally posted by sonnet
No, it is based upon the fact that God is true and His Word is Truth, and His spirit in me confirms it. You do not have the spirit of God within you, so to you it is foolish. Prattle. "You're not Christian so you just don't understand my fascistic views of my hypocritical dictator deity." Originally posted by sonnet
So if I give you a note telling you that you need to go to school on Saturday because the principle told me so then you are not going to show up and will give the principle the argument that you did not believe me because I gave you my opinion of what he suposedly told me. Yeah right!! This "opinion" argument is getting a bit boring!!!! Your analogy is flawed. The Principal didn't tell you anything. You found something written years ago by someone who claims the Principal told him to write it with nothing to substantiate that 1) he was writing under the sanction of the Principal, 2) the person he believed to be the Principal actually was, 3) he correctly ascertained the Principal's instructions and 4) that the Principal even exists. To top off all that speculation, the only thing that leads you to believe the note even says to go to school on Saturday is your own personal interpretation of this supposedly already second hand highly outdated instruction.

So no I'd probably tell you to piss off and don't come back unless you can bring me some substantial and verifiable reason to waste my Saturday; and then go see a movie. The schoolyard scenario does however exemplify a simplistic childish view of the world though so bravo.

..When did the Earth all of a sudden become 6000 years old?

Originally posted by office jesus
..When did the Earth all of a sudden become 6000 years old? About the same time evolution was taught in America.

Originally posted by sonnet
You have just proven it yourself!!!






Oh sh*t ! That's hilarious ! I didnt know an uptight Conservative Fundamentalist can be funny !


You sure know how to throw good insults Sonnet ! Congrats !


But seriously now....you don't know a thing about me. And you are making quite an accusation, "Your mind is corrupted by Satan"


If my mind was truly corrupted by your mythical devil, wouldn't I go around killing and torturing people ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

But seriously now....you don't know a thing about me. And you are making quite an accusation, "Your mind is corrupted by Satan" You call everyone who disagrees with you sad.

Hypocrite. tongue_ss


Not only that but you call everyone else a hypocrite even when they aren't showing signs of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You call everyone who disagrees with you sad.

Hypocrite. tongue_ss


Not only that but you call everyone else a hypocrite even when they aren't showing signs of hypocrisy.

I didn't call him sad. WTF are you talking about ?

I call people hypocrits when hypocrisy is there. If you cannot see that, then that is your problem not mine.

Change your SIG ! It's stupid !

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Prattle. "You're not Christian so you just don't understand my fascistic views of my hypocritical dictator deity." Your analogy is flawed. The Principal didn't tell you anything. You found something written years ago by someone who claims the Principal told him to write it with nothing to substantiate that 1) he was writing under the sanction of the Principal, 2) the person he believed to be the Principal actually was, 3) he correctly ascertained the Principal's instructions and 4) that the Principal even exists. To top off all that speculation, the only thing that leads you to believe the note even says to go to school on Saturday is your own personal interpretation of this supposedly already second hand highly outdated instruction.

So no I'd probably tell you to piss off and don't come back unless you can bring me some substantial and verifiable reason to waste my Saturday; and then go see a movie. The schoolyard scenario does however exemplify a simplistic childish view of the world though so bravo.
Spoken like a true fool. You are without God and His spirit. You are a part of Satan's plan to TRY and discredit God, but Jesus already got the victory on the cross. But you are not part of that victory because you decided that He is only a myth. You have convinced yourself that you have a more to live for than serving God and that there must be more to our life here on earth. You are so conceited that you even think that you have the right to judge God and His Word! "Intellectual" debates and philosophies won't get you closer to finding God or being part of His Kingdom.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen



Oh sh*t ! That's hilarious ! I didnt know an uptight Conservative Fundamentalist can be funny !


You sure know how to throw good insults Sonnet ! Congrats !


But seriously now....you don't know a thing about me. And you are making quite an accusation, "Your mind is corrupted by Satan"


If my mind was truly corrupted by your mythical devil, wouldn't I go around killing and torturing people ?
And you think that evil will only cause you to commit crimes? No it causes you to disobey God, to blaspheme against God, to curse God, to reject God (and Jesus and the Holy Spirit ). Satan's greatest accomplishment and purpose is to get us to reject God and Jesus all while he torments the people with sickness, loss, death, destruction, etc. and most of the time he uses us to work his evil plans and people so willingly play along for they feel so intellectually advanced today..... they even blame God for their problems. And I do not intend to insult...I only return the "favour".

Originally posted by sonnet
Spoken like a true fool. Spoken like a true religious fundamentalist zealot. You have absolutely no counter argument and instead rely on spouting meaningless rhetoric about gods, spirits, fire, brimstone, heathens and so on.Originally posted by sonnet
You are without God and His spirit. You're blinded by your faith and fascistically seek to impose the tenets of that faith on others. If that's god and his spirit I'm quite glad he's not in me.Originally posted by sonnet
You are a part of Satan's plan to TRY and discredit God, but Jesus already got the victory on the cross.One mythological figure cannot plan to discredit another, but satan need not discredit anything, credibility and religion are not friends.Originally posted by sonnet
But you are not part of that victory because you decided that He is only a myth. Yeah, that might bother me iff it wasn't only a myth.Originally posted by sonnet
You have convinced yourself that you have a more to live for than serving God and that there must be more to our life here on earth.You've convinced yourself that the only thing that gives life meaning are your personal religious views, and the only thing that anyone should live by is your religion. Originally posted by sonnet
You are so conceited that you even think that you have the right to judge God and His Word! You're mindless enough to be credulous to anything related to Christianity, the Bible or your fictional god. You lack the ability to question critically your own views.Originally posted by sonnet
"Intellectual" debates and philosophies won't get you closer to finding God or being part of His Kingdom. I have no desire to find god. Intellectual debate doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so you really serve no purpose here. No amount of condemning others is going to make your fictional god a reality.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're mindless enough to be credulous to anything related to Christianity, the Bible or your fictional god. You lack the ability to question critically your own views.
I have no desire to find god. Intellectual debate doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so you really serve no purpose here. No amount of condemning others is going to make your fictional god a reality.
I have no desire or intention to question my views as God is truth and His Word is truth. As long as I obey God and His Word there is nothing that this world can offer me that would change my life for the better.
And yes you surely have no desire to find God as you have already found your god, Satan. Your life and reasoning give credit to him whether you believe in him or not.

Originally posted by sonnet
I have no desire or intention to question my views as God is truth and His Word is truth. As long as I obey God and His Word there is nothing that this world can offer me that would change my life for the better.
And yes you surely have no desire to find God as you have already found your god, Satan. Your life and reasoning give credit to him whether you believe in him or not. Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Spoken like a true religious fundamentalist zealot. You have absolutely no counter argument and instead rely on spouting meaningless rhetoric about gods, spirits, fire, brimstone, heathens and so on.

Intellectual debate doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so you really serve no purpose here. No amount of condemning others is going to make your fictional god a reality.

Originally posted by sonnet
And you think that evil will only cause you to commit crimes?


Not always...but at the least, hurt people.

Originally posted by sonnet
No it causes you to disobey God, to blaspheme against God, to curse God, to reject God (and Jesus and the Holy Spirit ).


yawn

Why is it evil to disregard a fictional character ? When you were young, I'm sure you stopped beleiving in Santa Clause...by your own logic, you are evil for that.


Originally posted by sonnet
Satan's greatest accomplishment and purpose is to get us to reject God and Jesus all while he torments the people with sickness, loss, death, destruction, etc.



Really ? That's horrible !

However, according to the Bible God has had his fair share of sending people sickness (the plagues), loss (see death) death (he sent the angel of death to kill all the first born sons of Egypt), and destruction (the cities of sodom and gomorrha)


Originally posted by sonnet
....and most of the time he uses us to work his evil plans and people so willingly play along for they feel so intellectually advanced today.....


Oh yes, it is so evil to teach tolerance of our differences, love and unity.


Originally posted by sonnet
they even blame God for their problems.


I don't blame your God for anything Until it is proven that he exists, I will blame him for nothing.


Originally posted by sonnet
And I do not intend to insult...I only return the "favour".

Because of your closed minded zealotry and poorly disguised bigotry, I think you are an insult to your own God.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didn't call him sad. WTF are you talking about ?

I call people hypocrits when hypocrisy is there. If you cannot see that, then that is your problem not mine.

Change your SIG ! It's stupid ! Oh My... How dumb... I'm not even gonna ask, you'll probably just quote this and post the droolio smilie like you always do.

Sometimes people on the same side should get along better.

Originally posted by Alliance
Sometimes people on the same side should get along better. Not when their bringing your side of the arument down. I mean, great that Urizen's an atheist and all, but his debating tactics...I mean, calling people sad, his philosophy that religious people are sad and don't even know their own religion, the fact that he wants to have sex with Jesus.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?

What makes the bible true:

1. The earth is spherical(the bible says before science was thought of)

2. Man is made from the same type of stuff as earth. (God made man out of earth)

3. Earth is hung in nothing (The bible says before science even was though of)

4. Water has Oxygen particles in it. (God seperated the sky from the sea)

there's more, i just need to remember them.

Originally posted by Emo?
The earth is spherical(the bible says before science was thought of)
Where does the bible say this?
Originally posted by Emo?
Man is made from the same type of stuff as earth. (God made man out of earth)
How is god's clay scientific?

Originally posted by Emo?
Earth is hung in nothing (The bible says before science even was though of)
No, the Earth rests on four pillars.
Originally posted by Emo?
Water has Oxygen particles in it. (God seperated the sky from the sea)
Air is 70% Nitrogen. Water does not have "oxygen particles in it" Oxygen is contained in a great many substances. Oxygen atoms are NOT Oxygen gas. Not to mention there is water in the atmosphere so your god did a crappy job on his separations.

Besides this was an Aristotelian idea, nothing special about it besides its wrong.

Originally posted by lord xyz
About the same time evolution was taught in America.

Ah. That explains it. Silly Christians.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not when their bringing your side of the arument down. I mean, great that Urizen's an atheist and all, but his debating tactics...I mean, calling people sad, his philosophy that religious people are sad and don't even know their own religion, the fact that he wants to have sex with Jesus.

I will agree that I definitely do not agree with his debating tactics but then again I think LU has made it clear that he has a huge problem with Christianity.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Because of your closed minded zealotry and poorly disguised bigotry, I think you are an insult to your own God.
Well what you think I am is of no relevance to God for I am His child and part of His Kingdom and that is all that realy matters to me. I would be an insult to God if i went about questioning His authority and laws and His existance but I do not.

Originally posted by Alliance
Air is 70% Nitrogen. Water does not have "oxygen particles in it" Oxygen is contained in a great many substances. Oxygen atoms are NOT Oxygen gas. Not to mention there is water in the atmosphere so your god did a crappy job on his separations.

Besides this was an Aristotelian idea, nothing special about it besides its wrong.
My dear, Water = H2O meaning there is 2 hydrogen atoms bonded with 1 oxygen atom. Oxygen gas is oxygen atoms in a specific energy and physical state. I am sure you must have learned about this in school.
God new exactly what He did as he separated the water mass and the atmosphere so that there could be a sky and a water mass. The fact that there is still oxygen in both means that it was possible for the fish and other water creatures to breath under water. Nothing strange about it.
And as God was here first and created everything, I guess Aristotle used God's idea and had everybody think he was so brilliant.

Oxygen gas is O2; two oxygen atoms covalently bound, however it is not by any means free oxygen atoms. There's a large amount of water in the atmosphere. Fish do not breathe the oxygen covalently bound to hydrogen as water.

You, and your Luddite views of ichthyology and the water cycle, fail.

AND fish can still drown in water( ie not be able to get any oxygen to breathe)
Water only has a limited amount of oxygen( breathable oxygen) in it. If a fish is caught in a net and is not able to move, then it depletes the oxygen in the water around it. Fish have to move in water all the time, in order to get oxygen into their gills. If a fish gets below 1.0-2.0 mg/L oxygen in water it will Die.

The oxygen in the air on this planet is decreasing. That shouldn't be IF ACCORDING to your logic, since there is oxygen in water. In fact oxygen is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. But that oxygen is bonded, and thus NOT ABLE to escape its bonds and become Oxygen in the gaseous form. WE DO not get oxygen from water itself, the oxygen in the atmosphere is the oxygen( that we breathe) that is not bonded to anything else, oxygen that is dissolved in water, and those produced from plants.

Dissolved is not a bonded. You can dissolve sugar in water and still get back the sugar after the water has been evaporated. You add water to clay to get pottery. After firing, there is no way ( easy way, that does not involve massive chemical infusions) to get that clay back, the way it was. What happens there is that the clay loses its chemically bonded water, and once the chemical bond is gone, its gone.

Have you any idea how much energy is required to break the bonds of a single Water molecule???? Last time I checked, you need temperatures of over 850 celcius and catalysts. The last time the earth was that temperature on average was several billion yrs ago.That type of energy does not exist on the earth's surface naturally anymore. The only way it can be done is by chemical means.



OF course it was there first. Aristotle did not come up with it, he just identified it. Just like Newton and gravity, it always was there, its just that they identified it and went on to find out more about it. NOW that is God's work at one of it's best. God gave us advanced brains to think and BY GOD those men sure did use it.

Let me reitterate.

Originally posted by sonnet
My dear, Water = H2O meaning there is 2 hydrogen atoms bonded with 1 oxygen atom. Yes, however and an oxygen atom is not oxygen gas and they have entirely different properties. There is Oxygen in practially every organic compound from sugar to testosterone. YOu have pointed out that one of the most common atoms in nature is used in two different compounds. Congratulations. i bet you feel smart.


Originally posted by sonnet
God new exactly what He did as he separated the water mass and the atmosphere so that there could be a sky and a water mass. Oh really. Clouds are water. God needs to work on his separation skills. Is rain and snow god still separating the masses?

Originally posted by sonnet
The fact that there is still oxygen in both means that it was possible for the fish and other water creatures to breath under water. Nothing strange about it.
Yes, except there is oxygen gas in water and THAT is what fish use to breathe, not the bound ogyxen atom. I'm sure you didn't learn that in school. One again we have copious amounts of water in the air and copious amounts of oxygen in the water (oxygen atoms in water non wisthstanding). If you'd like to simply tally the oxygen atoms in water, then water is about 95% oxygen atoms by mass. Thats a pretty crappy seperation by your god.

Originally posted by sonnet
And as God was here first and created everything, I guess Aristotle used God's idea and had everybody think he was so brilliant. Yeah, thats why Aristotle lived comfortably before the earliest versions of the earliest versions Genesis, not to mention he was much more widely published. Funny coincidence huh?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?


To better answer your predisposed inquiry - you must first answer the causation of the post-disposed inquiry derived from it, i.e. What makes your opinion of the bible and those who believe in it fact?

Ponder over the latter of the two questions for awhile. When you are able to come up with a logical answer to it, then you will have the answer to the proceeding one.

You are a sock. Welcome to KMC. Answer his question and you'll have our answer.

I hate when religous people try to argue science and fail.

Because they couldn't even recognize science if it smacked them in the face.

Poor religion, always playing catch-up to science.

yeah 600 year catch-up

Originally posted by Alliance
yeah 600 year catch-up

The church is great at improvising, i'll give them that.

Not really: Why is this bad? The bible says so (not really, because the Bible says and doesn't say EVERYTHING)

200 years later, people have accepted that old thing that they used to kill people for and they move on to a new thing.

Example: Interracial marriages to gay marriages

Originally posted by Alliance

Oh really. Clouds are water. God needs to work on his separation skills. Is rain and snow god still separating the masses?
Yes, except there is oxygen gas in water and THAT is what fish use to breathe, not the bound ogyxen atom. I'm sure you didn't learn that in school. One again we have copious amounts of water in the air and copious amounts of oxygen in the water (oxygen atoms in water non wisthstanding). If you'd like to simply tally the oxygen atoms in water, then water is about 95% oxygen atoms by mass. Thats a pretty crappy seperation by your god.

Yeah, thats why Aristotle lived comfortably before the earliest versions of the earliest versions Genesis, not to mention he was much more widely published. Funny coincidence huh?
Thank you for showing how crappy your understanding is of Creation. Any first year in junior high understands the different properties of oxygen in water, air etc. It still stays oxygen, so don't try and split hairs on the subject. Oh and actually I have a Honours degree in Science.

As Jesus used the Torah which is the Old Testament in the Bible, the first version of Genesis and the Creation by God was written before Aristotle lived. So what is the funny coincidence about being more widely published? It really does not mean anything accept that it was popular reading for people. It does not change the truth about God and the BIble.

"Fish breathe water." What crappy Christian fundamentalist community college gave you a science degree.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Fish breathe water." What crappy Christian fundamentalist community college gave you a science degree.


That was funny to me!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Fish breathe water." What crappy Christian fundamentalist community college gave you a science degree.

The same Christian Fundamentalist Community College that told her AIDS is a homosexual disease.

the bible and its fantasys are mostly symbolic and coded for initiates to
understand and the masses to take literally

It just wouldn't be a Tuesday without your lovely brand of fringe lunacy to mix in with the fundamentalist, emphasis on the mental, "science" now would it?

still banging on about science are we?

isnt it monday today?

Not all of us live in merry old England, Deano, old chap.

excuses excuses

Originally posted by Deano
the bible and its fantasys are mostly symbolic and coded for initiates to
understand and the masses to take literally

Deano, serious question... Do you actually believe that an intelligent lizard humanoid race are and have been controlling human destiny for countless eons?

i believe anything is possible.

next

Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.

next

Really?

Give me the numbers for next weeks lottery and I will split it with you.

Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.

next

Then you're willing to entertain the idea that David Icke is either a paranoid lunatic or a conman who writes books to make a pound off people who are willing to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Point being, which of the three scenarios would most likely be true?

1) David Icke is correct, Lizard Men are controlling the world
2) David Icke is a paranoid lunatic with serious mental disorders
3) Daivd Icke is just a conman writing fiction and passing it as fact too line his own pockets.

?

Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.

next
You are incorrect. There are many things that are, in fact, impossible.

I choose option c.

Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.

next

Of course "possible" doesn't really cut it when measured in terms of "probable" - I guess it is possible my brain will wake up in a jar in Sweden tomorrow. But I doubt it.

In fact I dare say I can say "it isn't going to happen" because there is no rational, logical or probable reason to give it any likihood of occuring.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Of course "possible" doesn't really cut it when measures in terms of "probable" - I guess it is possible my brain will wake up in a jar in Sweden tomorrow. But I doubt it.
Good point. There's a slight but non-zero probability of almost anything happening.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Fish breathe water." What crappy Christian fundamentalist community college gave you a science degree.
You are so funny!!!!. I guess this is all you are capable of.... twisting words so that you can feel good about yourself. HA HA hA HA.
Do you actually know how the oxygen ends up in the fish? I surely hope so. Otherwise I'll have to ask what crappy school you are attending.

Originally posted by sonnet
You are so funny!!!!.Indeed.Originally posted by sonnet
I guess this is all you are capable of.... twisting words so that you can feel good about yourself. HA HA hA HA. You haven't even begun to gauge the limits of my hedonism.
Originally posted by sonnet
Do you actually know how the oxygen ends up in the fish? I surely hope so. Otherwise I'll have to ask what crappy school you are attending. Electrolysis, duh.

Your fascistic rigid opinion that your opinion is fact belie any scientific aptitude. One easily assumes your post worded in a manner to suggest you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly suggested you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly, rather than diffusion of dissolved oxygen through gills.

"God" did not leave oxygen in water so that fish don't die, oxygen dissolves in water because it's soluble in water.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you're willing to entertain the idea that David Icke is either a paranoid lunatic or a conman who writes books to make a pound off people who are willing to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Point being, which of the three scenarios would most likely be true?

1) David Icke is correct, Lizard Men are controlling the world
2) David Icke is a paranoid lunatic with serious mental disorders
3) Daivd Icke is just a conman writing fiction and passing it as fact too line his own pockets.

?

if you read his books you will find that it is neither 2 or 3.

i think you should check out some of michael tsarions work to understand things better.

Originally posted by Deano
if you read his books you will find that it is neither 2 or 3.

i think you should check out some of michael tsarions work to understand things better.


And I can read that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish" for several days, thought technically it is not mathematically impossible, but it is highly improbable it could ever happen.

As Imperial Samurai mentioned, possible and probable do matter.

So, logically thinking, which of the three would seem the most "probable"?

I watched a special on Atlantis, it had Michael Tsarion in it. He seemed to be a bit of the 'mystic forces' and 'alien influence' nut. Well actually, more than just a bit.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Your fascistic rigid opinion that your opinion is fact belie any scientific aptitude. One easily assumes your post worded in a manner to suggest you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly suggested you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly, rather than diffusion of dissolved oxygen through gills.

"God" did not leave oxygen in water so that fish don't die, oxygen dissolves in water because it's soluble in water.
WOW!!!! I did not mention the exact process of how fish breath but asked if the person knew. How did you come to the conclusion in your post. Oh yes, it is your opinion of what I did not say but what you assumed I said.

Blah, blah, gibberish. Fascist.

Oxides. Carbonates. Silicates. Phosphates.

God is inept at separating things.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Blah, blah, gibberish. Fascist.

Oxides. Carbonates. Silicates. Phosphates.

God is inept at separating things. He's also a shit creator. If he created us, why are we given "rules" to make sure we're good, wouldn't it make more sense if he mad us all "good"? In fact, the Bible itself says we are all born with sin. As in we are all "evil". If I was creating something, I would create it how I want it to be, not sneeze everything into existence.

Originally posted by sonnet
Thank you for showing how crappy your understanding is of Creation. Any first year in junior high understands the different properties of oxygen in water, air etc. It still stays oxygen, so don't try and split hairs on the subject. Oh and actually I have a Honours degree in Science.

Yeah, in Christian science?

I've read genesis dozens of times. Franky, you knwo shit about "science" considering if you don't know that the primary component of air is Nitrogen or that ther is a differnce between an oxygen atom and O2 you know shit about the natural world.

..... There shouldn't be any discussion mixing science with religion. It is an impossible topic to settle on.

And just as an observation, Sonnet, you aren't discussing but rather disregarding all opinions/thoughts coming your way. You have to be open-minded.

I just can not believe in the idea that if you aren't Christian you are Satanist ... or something of that sort. That is .. not very encouraging. I'm going to hell. Awww heck.

There is a difference between oxygen and an oxide.

I hope sonnet could read that...

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact? If one believes in God, and one believes God spoke to the Hebrews, then the Bible is fact. If one believes that God spoke to man period, and you believe that such men would keep a record of such events, then the Bible is the most conforming to such a belief. Other records that would fit are the LDS scriptures and the Quran, both sets of scripture claim descent from the Bible. The question then runs which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did belief come and the Bible fit the scope of that belief, or did knowledge of the Bible come and belief conform to it? With myself, I have my beliefs as to the logic of deity, a deity must exist within some logical frame. If I deem a religion to hold irrational or illogical beliefs concerning deity, such a religion is probably false. Thus, beliefs concerning creation being "poof there it is" or other creation theories that do not conform to existing scientific fact are illogical. The Bible, as interpreted by the LDS church and expounded upon by its prophets is for me the most conforming with a logical assessment of the possibility of God, thus, since I believe there to be a God, the Bible is the most logical choice of texts to hold as true. In summary, the Bible is true, insofar as it is translated and interpreted correctly, because I believe in a logical God.

Lol @ electrolysis.

Originally posted by Regret
If one believes in God, and one believes God spoke to the Hebrews, then the Bible is fact. If one believes that God spoke to man period, and you believe that such men would keep a record of such events, then the Bible is the most conforming to such a belief. Other records that would fit are the LDS scriptures and the Quran, both sets of scripture claim descent from the Bible. The question then runs which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did belief come and the Bible fit the scope of that belief, or did knowledge of the Bible come and belief conform to it? With myself, I have my beliefs as to the logic of deity, a deity must exist within some logical frame. If I deem a religion to hold irrational or illogical beliefs concerning deity, such a religion is probably false. Thus, beliefs concerning creation being "poof there it is" or other creation theories that do not conform to existing scientific fact are illogical. The Bible, as interpreted by the LDS church and expounded upon by its prophets is for me the most conforming with a logical assessment of the possibility of God, thus, since I believe there to be a God, the Bible is the most logical choice of texts to hold as true. In summary, the Bible is true, insofar as it is translated and interpreted correctly, because I believe in a logical God. The Bible is true because you believe in God?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bible is true because you believe in God? Basically, yes. Although, key to this is the idea that God is a logical entity. If God is not such, there is no reason to believe the Bible to be true. Now. if you do not believe in God, then there is little reason to believe the Bible to be true. But then, such is an irrational and illogical choice of belief, imo. And an atheist will state the same about a belief in God, so an atheist and myself are at an impass with regard to the subject of belief in God.

Originally posted by Regret
If God is not such, there is no reason to believe the Bible to be true. Straight from the christian's mouth...

Originally posted by Regret
Basically, yes. Although, key to this is the idea that God is a logical entity. If God is not such, there is no reason to believe the Bible to be true. Now. if you do not believe in God, then there is little reason to believe the Bible to be true. But then, such is an irrational and illogical choice of belief, imo. And an atheist will state the same about a belief in God, so an atheist and myself are at an impass with regard to the subject of belief in God.
See, this seems totally wrong. If you take your approach, there are two questions to answer. First, you have to believe in a god, which is very easy to do. Secondly, you have to believe that your god in fact had divine oversight of a very undocumented book, speaking of his existence.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
See, this seems totally wrong. If you take your approach, there are two questions to answer. First, you have to believe in a god, which is very easy to do. Secondly, you have to believe that your god in fact had divine oversight of a very undocumented book, speaking of his existence.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself. A logical God would, imo, communicate with man. The Biblical God, particularly as the LDS believe, has communicated with man more so than any other religion claims.

I believe a logical belief in God must hold that God communicates with man regularly. Thus text describing such should be present.

The question is not as to whether God exists or not, it is why the Bible is held as true. My belief in God's existence requires regular communication from God to Man. Such is present in the Bible and LDS scripture. Alone, the Bible lacks current validity due to lack of continued communications that follow the pattern described therein.

As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.

Finally, I have never claimed God oversaw the writing of the Bible. The Bible is only the record kept of the communication between God and man. Valid only as far as man is capable of recording events accurately. My stance is not to the accuracy of the Bible, my stance is to the truth of its claim to communication with God. Because there is not another text claiming communication on the same scale, it is the definitive text for a belief in a God, imo.

Originally posted by Alliance
See, this seems totally wrong. If you take your approach, there are two questions to answer. First, you have to believe in a god, which is very easy to do. Secondly, you have to believe that your god in fact had divine oversight of a very undocumented book, speaking of his existence.

That path is not as logical. In assuming the bible is true, it "proves" the existence of god. There is only one illogical step instead of two. And I have a sneaking suspicion that illogicality compounds itself. Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

Electrolysis.

Originally posted by Regret
Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Regret. There is indeed much *proof* of God's existence. To state that there is none is an insult to God, and is a very contridictory stance if one claims themself to be a Christian. With such a statement, one is also dismissing the notion of God creating this world and everything in it.

Just looking around at the world around us - is where one can find most(if not all) of this evidence. Many disregard this type of *proof*, perhaps because it seems too obvious to them, or perhaps because they've been indoctrinated by worldly philosophies(which I believe is the case with many). Still others I believe - are control freaks, and instead of except to truth - they'd rather lie to themselves, in a vain effort to maintain control(However illusionary this "control" may be).

Regardless, there really is no valid reason for one to disregard such glaring evidence. For as it is repeated many times in the bible - even the "fool" knows there is a God.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Well I guess I was using the term "proof" loosely. I guess to better phrase it - the absolute truth exists, but there is no absolute "proof" to prove its existence (I know it sounds a bit confusing, but bear with me).

This is actually in accordance with the bible - seeing as how God rightfully so admits - that there is no reason for him to prove himself to man. Still - much evidence of his existence is present before us - and that is mainly where I am in disagreement with Regret. Although God does not seem to give us complete knowledge of his presence most of the time - he provides nearly conclusive evidence of it - which is why he himself states in the bible, even a "fool" can testify to his obvious existence.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Of course there are the wonders of God all around us, but they are no longer proof.

Possibly because things like science, nature, human ingenuity and the rest can explain them just as well as "this is truly a wonder of God."



And whose stance do you believe is the most unreasonable -

Atheist: "I see no proof of God, in fact I see many rational and logical problems with the concept. Lack of proof and things that point away from a divinity make it nigh impossible I believe. However I do believe in the things I have proof for, and if there was proof in God then I would undoubtedly believe."

Theist: "I believe in God, a belief based upon faith. Granted I may have no empirical evidence to support my claims, but the nature of God makes empirical evidence irrelevant in relation to him, that is - a person who can't accept a deity on blind faith will never find God until they can -because proof will never be a basis for faith and thus belief."

And, depending on that - do you believe God's approach to his creations is sensible? A legal system, a medical system etc. has endeavour to be broad enough to meet the competing needs and mindsets of a varied population. Is the Faith of God capable of meeting the needs of the varied population? It seems it certainly does for those capable of believing based upon subjective, personal things, but does it meet the needs of those who are hardwired to seek proof? Or those whose minds and "hearts" are spoken to by other faiths?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Is the Faith of God capable of meeting the needs of the varied population?
Yes.

Those who are "hardwired to seek proof" would not believe anyway.

Snaaap, JIA edit.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I have to respectfully disagree with you Regret. There is indeed much *proof* of God's existence. To state that there is none is an insult to God, and is a very contridictory stance if one claims themself to be a Christian. With such a statement, one is also dismissing the notion of God creating this world and everything in it.

Just looking around at the world around us - is where one can find most(if not all) of this evidence. Many disregard this type of *proof*, perhaps because it seems too obvious to them, or perhaps because they've been indoctrinated by worldly philosophies(which I believe is the case with many). Still others I believe - are control freaks, and instead of except to truth - they'd rather lie to themselves, in a vain effort to maintain control(However illusionary this "control" may be).

Regardless, there really is no valid reason for one to disregard such glaring evidence. For as it is repeated many times in the bible - even the "fool" knows there is a God. Which is not proof to someone who does not believe in God, regardless of my beliefs to the contrary.

A lot of people think the Bible is a good read, but some take it way too seriously. I never gave it much of a chance.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes.

Not needs as in "I need air and water to live" - needs as in "this fulfills the minimum requirements for me to follow it." This isn't about which religion offers the best free gift on signing up, or which religion has the best sales pitch, this is about religion being able to connect with the varied population that God apparently wants to follow him.

Does the way it approaches humanity meet the needs, the standards of proof, that people ask for? Not really, since there is a large, and growing, population sample who say "I need some proof before I submit to that." And just as many who say "well, Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/etc. doesn't feel right to me, where as Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/etc does." That would seem to imply God's/whoever's message clearly isn't some sort of bright light in the darkness, like some blazing beacon of truth that a person can look at and instantly know this is true, correct, the right path.



Oh? Despite the fact there are plenty of things such people do believe in? Political movements and people and scientific theories and the like? What makes belief in God somehow special? Other then the fact one is meant to do it without proof?

It is one of those arguments Theists have made for a long time - the implication Atheists are somehow pigheaded in their non-belief.

When asked for proof they go "Oh, it wouldn't matter how much proof you were given you wouldn't believe in God."

Which is nothing more then a smokescreen. In such cases one feels like saying "way to try and make out it unreasonable for the Atheist to ask for proof so as to avoid facing the fact ones religion is incapable of meeting their levels of scrutiny." The reality is an Atheist will believe when there is sufficient evidence to do so. The idea that an Atheist would continue not to believe if God made an effort to prove his existence is, from the Atheists I know, incorrect.

Atheist is not "There is a God and we Atheists choose not to follow him" Atheist is "We see no reason to believe there is a God, no evidence for him, and until their is we wont be capable of belief in his existence."



Very nice. Shame he isn't here to see it.

Originally posted by Regret
Late addition, I do not believe "proof" exists to the existence of God, nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God. God is evidence of the Bible's truth, not vice versa. There are no tangible evidences, or proof, of the Bible's truth for someone that does not believe in it.

It seems wrong from an atheist stance, yes. The atheist stance seems wrong from my theist stance.

So basically, you are stating that God continually interacts with society, but we don't just see it or understand it because we're ignorant.

First off, this is exactly the context for a self-sustaining delusion, simply on a mass scale.

Secondly, fact is universal. If the ability to understand your god is not universal, then it is not supported by fact. "Nothing exists that will prove the existence of God to someone who does not believe in God" is not a real answer, as that simply implies that non-mormons (or some broader terminology) just cant understand. People convert back and forth, so this is clearly not the case.

If god is just a manner of thinking, thats perfectly logical, understandable, and acceptable. However, if there is no fact supporting god (tangible, logical, or otherwise) there is no factual god.

Originally posted by Regret
A logical God would, imo, communicate with man.


Not in riddles, contradictions, and subjective intepretations.


Originally posted by Regret
The Biblical God, particularly as the LDS believe, has communicated with man more so than any other religion claims.

Simply your beleif. Every religion has claimed communication with thier diety. So far, there is no Concrete validity behind those claims.


Originally posted by Regret
I believe a logical belief in God must hold that God communicates with man regularly. Thus text describing such should be present.

Why can't God speak with his voice ? Why can't he speak to all of us, instead of just a few of us ?

Sounds illogical to me.....

Originally posted by Regret
The question is not as to whether God exists or not, it is why the Bible is held as true.

So......why is the Bible held as true ?



Originally posted by Regret
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.


Why is Athiesm illogical ?

There are many many many logical reasons as to why your God would not exist, and even fewer logical reasons to support his existance.

Originally posted by Regret
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.

Why? If Atheist Jim gets an email telling him some Nigerian prince needs Jim to help his money escape the Russian mafia by giving the prince his bank details and sending him his passport - which will see Jim rewarded financially - what does Jim do -

A. Believe it entirely because he am capable of taking leaps of faith

Or:

B. Use his head and realise there is no proof behind these claims, and use his knowledge to know this it's likely a scam and thus dismiss it completely.

The sensible answer is B, to commit to A would see Jim accused of the most terrible naivety and foolishness, and see his bank account emptied.

Now religion isn't an email scam, but the fact remains that for, say Atheist Jim, he is being given a story and asked to believe based on faith alone. He has no proof what is being presented to him is fact, as there is no proof. It doesn't make him feel like it is right. And some of his knowledge indicates there are other, more evidence things that go against the claims made in the holy books of those religions.

What happens? He isn't going to believe. How is his Atheism in the case of a religious claim illogical, where as in the case of the Nigerian prince his dismissal of the claim praised?

Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner, unless one ignores fact in favor of blind faith/belief. If religious practices conform to scientifically supported behavior prescriptions, one should have no issue with such a system. It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence unless doing so compromises sound judgment. Believing in God is merely hoping for something. Hope is not illogical unless it leads to lapse in rational or logical behavior.

Perceived facts are not always universal, and not always fact in the manner they are commonly understood. Man cannot fly was a universal fact, which meant that man would never fly. Man cannot fly, but man can make machines that do. Facts do not always lead to the proper conclusion, especially if not all facts are known. Science changes constantly in the absence of fact. Absence of fact does not bring scientific hypothesis and theory to a halt, it is the impetus for exploration and creativity. Why should lack of facts in religion and theism bring a logical individual to a close-minded absence of theory and hypothesis? Such is illogical for a scientific individual when areas in science do not accept such.

Uri, you entirely missed the point I have stated concerning the Bible. The validity of the Bible solely rests on the fact that God does speak with his voice to man, the text is merely record of such occurrences. If God ever spoke to man, record of such events should exist, if God continues to speak to man in the present, God would have to have spoken to man in the past.

Method of communication can take any form: poetry, riddle, parable, direct language, etc. All forms have been used in most forms of communication, including teaching. In fact, teachers and philosophers contemporary to Biblical time frame used the same methods present within the Bible, and are often praised for the methods.

There are logical objections to the existence of God. There are logical arguments for the existence of God. There is no logical argument for the need to disregard belief if belief does not negatively impact any aspect of life or decision making. Belief in God does not require any negative impact on life or decision making.

Originally posted by Regret
Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner, unless one ignores fact in favor of blind faith/belief. If religious practices conform to scientifically supported behavior prescriptions, one should have no issue with such a system. It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence unless doing so compromises sound judgment. Believing in God is merely hoping for something. Hope is not illogical unless it leads to lapse in rational or logical behavior.

It seems like a case of inherent belief vs. conscious belief.

Humans have some "beliefs" they don't even have to think about, so ingrained are they - and when asked specifically they can think and go "why, yes, I do believe in that, I just never thought about it." Or alternatively they can go "now that I think about it, I never believed that."

First - do you believe it is a conscious thing, believing in God? If so then you must recognise that it is useless to maintain a belief "just in case" - how many times have I heard a Christian say "but why not simply pray and go to Church in case there is a God? That way you're insured" - which is absurd. Why dedicate time and effort pretending to believe in something you don't? You say it isn't harmful just to believe - but why do it? Without the required motivation - proof as it were - why try?

And that is there thing - you make it sound as if the natural state of a person is believing in a God and Atheists are working to suppress the natural, inherent belief. Which isn't the case. Religious belief is, from all history and psychology I have seen, an acquired trait. There is no God gene, no divine belief instinct. There is behaviour that inspires people to seek out answers - and for a long time a religion provided them in the absence of science.

Atheism is in no way illogical simply because of its nature. It seems very logical to me. "I don't believe in a God" - what is illogical about that? A good many of them have heard the religious claims and have decided, on the balance of evidence that there is no God. Not believing in a God is not hindering them, nor is in anyway detrimental. It seems far more a case of doublethink to try to believe in something you don't believe in simply because that belief wouldn't cause "any harm" - hell, an Atheist could say the same thing - "Lack of proof doesn't support your God, were is the harm in you not believing?" - except that isn't the case because there is apparently a God who can't understand the nature of doubt, or why some people don't believe in him. "It is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence" - that makes me laugh. I can't help it. And your claim that as long as a religion conforms to scientific practices - most religions have profound difficulty reconciling themselves with scientific fact. And ultimately - in the event of conflict between an evidence claim and a claim with some evidence - I will believe the evidenced claim over the unevidenced one. It would be illogical to do otherwise.



What are the logical arguments for God? And, if critically analysed, tallied with evidence and the like which is the most probable - the logical argument for, or the logical argument against?

There are people who don't believe in God because there is no evidence for him. Just like people don't believe in fairies or dragons. They are not going to perform some mental gymnastics in order to continue to maintain belief in something they don't think exists. And I don't know how you can expert them to do so.

Especially when there is no real benefit religious belief would have in their lives. Does an Atheist need religion to be complete/happy/functional/successful/motivated/creative/etc? No. What valid, logical reason do you have, other then "it wouldn't disrupt their lives" for them to attempt the illogical feat of believing in something they do not believe exists, and without evidence will be unable to believe exists?

Once again - there are no Atheists who say "I believe there is a God but I will disregard that belief and be a nonbeliever" - however there are many Atheists who will say "I have never seen any evidence to convince me there is a God, and in the face of a multitude of competing, yet unevidenced claims, I face the conclusion there is no God, and as such will not be able to consciously believe in one, unless one of the groups provides some proof to justify that belief."

Originally posted by Regret
Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner

Yeah, you lost me at hello. It does so little to hinder the expansion of the mind that the religious have sought holy wars and inquisitions to prevent said expansion...why? Because those persecuted didn't think the same way the self-proclaimed religious authorities did at the time. That's why it takes 500 years to admit that the sun is the middle of the solar system

Originally posted by Regret
Which is not proof to someone who does not believe in God, regardless of my beliefs to the contrary.


But the truth behind the *proof* that you have - is absolute in its nature none the less. Regardless of whether or not an individual agrees with you. If one gives you a rock - and you don't accept it as being one, does that make what they've given you any less of a rock? Of course not. There is no real gray area. An individual can either choose to - or choose not to agree with the truth they've been presented with.

Originally posted by Regret
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree. Just because we don't believe in a made up wizard in the sky doesn't mean there is inadequate rationale in us. I don't understand how people like you can say you believe in fiction, then debate it as fact as if people should know this myth and preach it to everyone they can.

It boils down to those of you opposing my stance saying, "We are right, you are wrong."

Fact, from my stance you are irrational in the belief that atheism is logical and rational.

Fact, neither side can be considered wholly logical and rational due to lack of tangible and objective evidence for or against deity existing.

Fact, atheists believe they hold the upper hand because theists believe in science oftentimes, and science is silent on the subject of deity. Science does not state there is no God. Get off your high horses and quit acting like somewhere science does, arrogant individuals may make such claims, but science itself, the facts, are silent on the subject.

I do not expect atheists to do anything as far as believing or not. Decisions on belief are personal matters that do not require me to expect anything. I merely expect respect in turn, which does not seem to exist in the posts made. Atheists do not hold the upper hand in any manner as to their position being logical and rational, it only seems so to themselves. It is only a matter of disbelief or belief, there is no absolute found in science on the subject.

usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.

Now, I am an educated individual. My best friends that are highly educated, include a number of atheists in fields spanning computer science and physics to the arts. Our discussions and study has led us to agreement that there is nothing in science to unequivocally deny the existence of God. We have decided that currently there is nothing in science that necessitates or suggests a need for a stance on the subject. I doubt that on this forum I will find nearly as large a number of highly trained and studied individuals on the subject, regardless, your opinion is valid, it merely holds no merit to me when you state something as science, if a friend of mine has already stated the scientific fact on the matter to me. Alliance holds validity for me because he has presented enough information in agreement with scientists I know that he is probably credible. The rest of you seem to be either adolescents or at the greatest working towards a bachelors degree with general course information supporting your claims. Now, I state this only so you can end the attempts at proving to me "scientifically" that such and such is the logical stance.

Now, given that there is no objective scientific stance, such is the only logical and scientific basis for belief or disbelief. Thus, belief or disbelief is wholly subjective and unscientific in nature with logic existing from the perspective of the subject that is illogical from the position of an opposing perspective. Atheism and Theism are logical relative to the stance, not in some objective universal manner, given current information.

Originally posted by Regret
....usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.


I understand what you are saying Regret, but when one gets into stating an individual's subjectivity - and how truth is dependant upon such subjectivity, they are preaching a non-Christian doctrine. The bible teaches us that Christ's truth is self evident - and it isn't justified(or proven) by the subjective opinions of the individual. Either you accept what he(Christ) tells you as truth, or you don't accept it. It's that simple.

I have no desire to argue with you, as my original intention was to present you with correct interpretation of scripture, and what truth(and/or proof) really means from a Christian perspective. If you took offense to the way in which this information was presented to you, then I do indeed apologize. But remember - the minor pain receiving such truth may cause one now, pales in comparison to the pain caused upon one not ever receiving it.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I understand what you are saying Regret, but when one gets into stating an individual's subjectivity - and how truth is dependant upon such subjectivity, they are preaching a non-Christian doctrine. The bible teaches us that Christ's truth is self evident - and it isn't justified(or proven) by the subjective opinions of the individual. Either you accept what he(Christ) tells you as truth, or you don't accept it. It's that simple.

I have no desire to argue with you, as my original intention was to present you with correct interpretation of scripture, and what truth(and/or proof) really means from a Christian perspective. If you took offense to the way in which this information was presented to you, then I do indeed apologize. But remember - the minor pain receiving such truth may cause one now, pales in comparison to the pain caused upon one not ever receiving it. I believe that the entirety of existence proclaims God's existence. Regardless, If one is speaking to someone that does not believe as oneself does, one must discuss the subject with respect for their position. Paul evidenced the Biblical truth of this when speaking of the Unknown God with the Athenians in Acts. Christ himself limited his own teaching directly from scripture outside the discussions with those who had obvious knowledge of the text, including the Pharisees, Sadducees and his appointed disciples.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe that the entirety of existence proclaims God's existence.


A foolish beleif. The entirely of Existance includes Athiests. Athiests do not proclaim God's existance

Originally posted by Regret
It boils down to those of you opposing my stance saying, "We are right, you are wrong."

Ummm... no it's not. But it is you saying "well, everybody should be on my side because there is no harm in being on my side, so it is illogical not to be" - which frankly seems somewhat absurd.



Police Officer - Sir, we caught the bag snatcher. He admitted to it and has been charged.
Police Chief - What about the ring leader?
Police Officer - Ring leader?
Police Chief - Yes. I mean obviously there is someone behind all this.
Police Officer - *Sigh* Not this again sir. There is no proof there is some ring leader behind every petty theft.
Police Chief - Ahhh! But it is illogical to believe believe there is no ring leader simply because there is no evidence one exists. Even now he could be out there planning another petty crime...

What could be more rational or logical? An Atheist is presented with the claim there is a God "who done it" - there is no evidence of this, and there is more evidenced theories that in no way require a God. Science, philosophy etc. It would be, for them, illogical to attempt to maintain a belief that they don't believe in. Unless you can tell us how one believes in something they don't believe in.



Hmmm. A lot of scientists would disagree. And there seems to be far more evidence against (that is the history and science that does not support the Bible) then for (which is essentially none, other then personal faith, which is not proof.)



Ah, but there are plenty of scientists who believe what they work on seems to indicate there is no God. I suggest you read Richard Dawkin's new book - "The God Delusion" in order to see a collection of the theories and arguments against a deity put together by a highly recognised scientist. He is unashamedly Atheist and many reviewers have noted he is breaking new ground - that is the last walls of "political correctness" between science and religion. Up till now science has avoided open confrontation between religious claims and scientific ones. Certain in the community claim science has reached the point where it is sufficiently strong, established and evidenced enough to express opinion on religious claims (especially with increasing pushing from ID theorists wanting creationism taught in shcools.

This would be the point were you claim "consensus doesn't equal proof though."



Odd - a few posts ago your were saying: "Atheism is illogical because believing does not hinder..." - you seemed to be strongly implying that the source of Atheist illogic-ism was due to the fact they didn't believe regardless because their is nothing wrong with believing. Now you are saying it has to do with the scientific attitude. Does the Bible conform to scientific and historical standards? No. Not without be twisted through hoops of allegory, metaphor and the like. And even then...



Good for you.



Funny - various fields can coincide. Science doesn't actually have to come out and say "there is no God" because various theories work against the claims of one. Where does God derive? The Bible. That is the doorway to the Christian faith. Just as the Koran is the doorway to Islam. Now, both holy books make some big claims - tell me, in an unbiased fashion - how many of these claims are supported by historical and scientific findings? Removing the element of faith how convincing is the Bible or Koran?



Despite your rather illogical view my experience with Atheists tends to be they have been presented with religious claims (or come from religious families) and during their studies found massive holes in religious theory and claim. Now holes alone aren't disproving a theory - unless something arises that can explain it better. And there is - many Atheists are Atheists because the Bible/Koran/etc is an imperfect theory created by men and lacks evidence to support itself, where as science does no claim there is a God, claims processes and the like that require a God, other no proof their is a God, and put up evidence that conflicts with holy text claims. The logical thing is then to critically assess both claims. You can say "there is real proof for or against God" but the fact remains for many Atheists, a group that is constantly growing, there is more reason not to believe in a God then for one.

Originally posted by Regret
Fact, from my stance you are irrational in the belief that atheism is logical and rational.

Fact, neither side can be considered wholly logical and rational due to lack of tangible and objective evidence for or against deity existing.

Fact, atheists believe they hold the upper hand because theists believe in science oftentimes, and science is silent on the subject of deity. Science does not state there is no God. Get off your high horses and quit acting like somewhere science does, arrogant individuals may make such claims, but science itself, the facts, are silent on the subject.

I do not expect atheists to do anything as far as believing or not. Decisions on belief are personal matters that do not require me to expect anything. I merely expect respect in turn, which does not seem to exist in the posts made. Atheists do not hold the upper hand in any manner as to their position being logical and rational, it only seems so to themselves. It is only a matter of disbelief or belief, there is no absolute found in science on the subject.

usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.

Now, I am an educated individual. My best friends that are highly educated, include a number of atheists in fields spanning computer science and physics to the arts. Our discussions and study has led us to agreement that there is nothing in science to unequivocally deny the existence of God. We have decided that currently there is nothing in science that necessitates or suggests a need for a stance on the subject. I doubt that on this forum I will find nearly as large a number of highly trained and studied individuals on the subject, regardless, your opinion is valid, it merely holds no merit to me when you state something as science, if a friend of mine has already stated the scientific fact on the matter to me. Alliance holds validity for me because he has presented enough information in agreement with scientists I know that he is probably credible. The rest of you seem to be either adolescents or at the greatest working towards a bachelors degree with general course information supporting your claims. Now, I state this only so you can end the attempts at proving to me "scientifically" that such and such is the logical stance. I haven't seen this level of academic pretension since my posts. Bravo.

For something to be rational by definition it must be predicated by reasoning. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the reasoning for a belief in god beyond the logical fallacy of an argument of personal credulity?

Anecdotal evidence is again a logical fallacy. "My friend told me..." is not an argument.

There is scientific information that contradicts The Bible. For example surface tension cannot support the weight of the average adult male. Water cannot be transmuted into alcohol.

Additionally even allowing for a purely allegorical interpretation of The Bible there are many logical inferences one can make about any god. For example one can logically infer that an omnipotent, omniscient, precognitive, infallible deity and free will can not coincide.