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

Can anyone cite a specific date or event? Someone in another thread mentioned the Scopes trial, but that didnt meet with much approval.

It was never disproven.

The phone is still ringing.

It can't be disproven. It's more of a what you believe situation.

Ironic.

How so?

Religion can't be disproven because it deals with the idea of an immaterial existence; science can only prove or disprove material concepts. Whether or not there's an invisible, omnipotent being who judges our also invisible souls after death is not a subject that can be physically put to the test, therefore it cannot be 100% disproven. Ever, really. Unless Zeus comes down from Mt. Olympus and proves that he's the real deity to be worshiped, or something of that nature.

Originally posted by socool8520
How so?
Because you have to have faith to not have faith.

No, that's a misconception. By lacking faith (in a religious context), one simply believes in what can be observed and tested. To lack faith, one simply has to not have faith in what cannot be proven.

By having faith (in a religious context), one arbitrarily believes in an extraordinary existence that can neither observed nor tested. To have faith, one must always have faith that their beliefs are correct despite the fact that they cannot be proven to be.

Do you see the difference? Between the positive action which is the belief in the extraordinary, and the negative lack of action which is the nonbelief in the extraordinary?

Though IMO the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus if I'm saying "There is this all powerful entity that exists" I feel the burden of proof would be on me and I'd feel more than "well you can't disprove it" would be needed.

You can't disprove an anal bead didn't somehow gain sentience in the future, travel back in time, and create the universe.

So...the existence of God hasnt been 100% disproven then. Good to know.

Considering how reasonable you seem to act ordinarily, I have no idea who or why you're trying to troll here.

Not trolling, just wondering.

I get the whole burden of proof/proving a negative thing, but thats been discussed to death in various threads here.
Thats not a dead horse i'm looking to beat.

I was wondering, actually wondering, if any atheist here could point to a specific event they credited with disproving God's existence.

I've seen the opposite asked and seen answers like "a baby being born", "the glory of a sunrise", and even "ears are in the perfect place to hold up our glasses, thats not random".
Yeah, those are kinda lame, sorry.
Figured i'd get something more concrete going in the opposite direction.

And, just so we get off on the right foot, my basic rule of thumb is:
don't like my threads dont post to them.

I do the same, in this forum and all the others here.

Originally posted by riv6672
Not trolling, just wondering.

I get the whole burden of proof/proving a negative thing, but thats been discussed to death in various threads here. Thats not a dead horse i'm looking to beat.

While that idea can be connected to what I said, it wasn't the point. My second post was addressing your comment about how one needed to have faith not to have faith--and how that is indeed self contradictory.



Well, as I addressed in my first post, that's impossible.

Originally posted by riv6672
So...the existence of God hasnt been 100% disproven then. Good to know.

Correct, just like our anal bead overlord hasn't been 100% disproven either. Whether or not that is also good to know is, I suppose, up to you.

@last 2 posts

Yeah its a funny ol' world.

Originally posted by riv6672
I was wondering, actually wondering, if any atheist here could point to a specific event they credited with disproving God's existence.

No, of course not, "100%" proof either way is a bit nonsensical. But that's not what atheism is. Though imo, certain posters on this forum come close to disproving God by their very existence.

Your inquiry is somewhat common though. I've encountered it irl more than once. The "you can't prove a negative, so how are you an atheist?" challenge. If that's one's view of atheism, it's no wonder many see it as in defiance of reason. But it misconstrues the argument quite crucially.

Much like people, even something as seemingly singular as atheism can mean subtly different things. For some, they frame it in terms of belief, as you mentioned earlier. So they might say "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God." The other primary option is a lack of belief, which is indeed different. Do you have a belief on the omniscient space gnome behind your couch? Of course not. You simply lack any belief whatsoever on it, and indeed you lack a belief for an infinite number of hypotheticals. For many atheists, and I count myself among them, it's simply a lack of belief in a God or gods.

Both of those have been stated elsewhere in this thread. But I thought I'd rephrase it in my own way. As for burden of proof, the default philosophical position for any of us on any matter is a lack of belief...we're not born with a positive or negative belief for or against anything. So the burden is on the claimant, not the one who maintains the lack of belief.

Any other theist is welcome to answer.

If you think it might be worth your time, here's an excellent video that extrapolates on what I said:

sNDZb0KtJDk

Love that video. A classic of the genre.

Originally posted by Digi
If you think it might be worth your time, here's an excellent video that extrapolates on what I said:

sNDZb0KtJDk

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Love that video. A classic of the genre.

Yeah, I've posted it like half a dozen times in this forum throughout the years. It's amazingly thorough and cogent.

Not an answer, but interesting.

Originally posted by riv6672
I was wondering, actually wondering, if any atheist here could point to a specific event they credited with disproving God's existence.Conditions aboard a slave ship? The Holocaust? Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burnt to death in a cage? Any young child that's been kidnapped, raped and tortured?

I ask because the question, IMHO, asks for the proving of a negative which, in this instance, seems pre-set to show "it can't be done, so you atheists lose."

I am not an atheist, btw. And while I believe the points I've raised in past discussion have some merit (and some have been raised as well by others in this thread, eg, requiring material proof of an immaterial entity not being fair), I also readily admit that in any debate between an atheist and theist, the lack of *evidence* weighs heavily in the atheist's favor, and that for the theist it is an uphill fight every inch of the way.

In any event, if I may: simply for purposes of illustration, what (fictional) event might you conjure up as an example?

^ Agreed. But I wasn't aware that the OP was referring specifically or exclusively to the Christian God. My bad if I missed that. Generally, in these threads (unless specifically mentioned), I interpret *God* more generically.

Interesting: when I tried to quote your post, that function didn't work.

Just saying..is it a coincidence rosaries have BEADS too?! Anal bead Jesus ftw.

Originally posted by Mindship
Conditions aboard a slave ship? The Holocaust? Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burnt to death in a cage? Any young child that's been kidnapped, raped and tortured?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"



This never made any sense. If there is such a thing as free will, then there is no such thing as an all-powerful god, and vice versa.

If someone knows what you are going to do before you do it..if they know what everyone everywhere is going to do before they do it..then free will doesn't exist.

A person would have to choose the path God has already seen, because if they don't he is wrong and thus not a God at all.

Also in the bible the evil is also brought into the world because God wanted to keep us naive as f*ck. But you see it's never quite framed that way. It's framed in a way that us being ignorant was a GOOD thing because only God should have knowledge while we should run around naked frolicking in the fields all day being impressed by the shape of the clouds.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It was never disproven.

But what about the anal bead man? What about the anal bead?!

Originally posted by Surtur
If someone knows what you are going to do before you do it..if they know what everyone everywhere is going to do before they do it..then free will doesn't exist.
Only if you believe that there is only one path, but we know, for example from scientific extrapolation, that each decision has at least two possible outcomes (yes vs no situation), and from thee then it branches out to other outcomes and then to other outcomes etc. Even the smalles decision creates alternate possibilities, but only one solidifies into the real world.(I said yes, rather than saying no etc.)

God per definition knows ALL possible outcomes simultaneously, and thus whatever you choose, he already knows the outcome Thus he knows what bring you good in the long run, and what does not.

Originally posted by Surtur
But what about the anal bead man? What about the anal bead?!
Why are you so anal about it?

Originally posted by Stigma
Only if you believe that there is only one path, but we know, for example from scientific extrapolation, that each decision has at least two possible outcomes (yes vs no situation), and from thee then it branches out to other outcomes and then to other outcomes etc. Even the smalles decision creates alternate possibilities, but only one solidifies into the real world.(I said yes, rather than saying no etc.)

God per definition knows ALL possible outcomes simultaneously, and thus whatever you choose, he already knows the outcome

Why is this only if you believe there is a single path? Why does the number of paths matter if God knows every single one of them?

Also someone truly all knowing would always know which of the two possible outcomes would happen.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why is this only if you believe there is a single path? Why does the number of paths matter if God knows every single one of them?

Also someone truly all knowing would always know which of the two possible outcomes would happen.
Um... that is pretty much what I said in my previous post.


Yes, God knows all possibilites and that does not negate free will.

You choose whatever you want. God knows if your choice is for better or worse, but he does not infringe on your free will.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"



This never made any sense. If there is such a thing as free will, then there is no such thing as an all-powerful god, and vice versa.

Lmao at applying human notions of morality to an all powerful all seeing deity.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Lmao at applying human notions of morality to an all powerful all seeing deity.

But in the bible at least did all our notions of morality not supposedly come from God? Who did the 10 commandments come from?

Originally posted by Mindship
^ Agreed. But I wasn't aware that the OP was referring specifically or exclusively to the Christian God. My bad if I missed that. Generally, in these threads (unless specifically mentioned), I interpret *God* more generically.

Interesting: when I tried to quote your post, that function didn't work.
You should read things more carefully before you dismount your high horse and step onto your soapbox.

Originally posted by Mindship
I ask because the question, IMHO, asks for the proving of a negative which, in this instance, seems pre-set to show "it can't be done, so you atheists lose."
Just to chime in, but negatives can be proven. It's a common misconception it is somehow impossible.

For example, logical negative: married bachelors do not exist. We can prove that.

Or empirical negative: ther are no dinosaurs living in Europe in this day and age. We can prove that.

Originally posted by Mindship
I also readily admit that in any debate between an atheist and theist, the lack of *evidence* weighs heavily in the atheist's favor, and that for the theist it is an uphill fight every inch of the way.

Which is not the case at all. It leaves us with agnosticism at best.

Also, philosophical and logical claims constitute proof too. And there is a number of premises that show belief in God is supported.

Moreover, one could say that the existence of reality itself is a proof enough that a Superior Being exists (not necessarily Christian God) aka an argument from the origins of the universe.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Lmao at applying human notions of morality to an all powerful all seeing deity.

I too find the idea ridiculous. However, the God described in the Christian bible undoubtedly does act on love, anger, so on, and frequently so. He also supposedly wrote an objective sense of morality (his law) into the depths of our hearts, besides. I don't think it's any more inconsistent to call him malevolent because of the misfortunate than it is to call him benevolent because of the fortunate.

^^^Agreed; i dont give any thought to the random ants i step on during the day.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Agreed; i dont give any thought to the random ants i step on during the day.

You also probably don't give any thought to if the ants commit murder or adultery and you don't try to hand down rules to them or make them worship you either.

You certainly don't care what an ant thinks or feels, correct? Did you know some ants practice slavery?

Originally posted by Surtur
... Did you know some ants practice slavery?
Do they?

I'll have to use a laser and write down how wrong that is on a grain of rice and hand it down to the least busy ant i see so he can spread the word they need to cut that shit out, stat.

Some types of ants do. They literally send their minions on raids to other ant colonies to get them. To keep them in line the slaves aren't allowed to reproduce.

^^^I could make SUCH a good Civil War/Lincoln joke with that set up.

Originally posted by Stigma
Just to chime in, but negatives can be proven. It's a common misconception it is somehow impossible.

For example, logical negative: married bachelors do not exist. We can prove that.

Or empirical negative: ther are no dinosaurs living in Europe in this day and age. We can prove that.Agreed.


Originally posted by Stigma
Which is not the case at all. It leaves us with agnosticism at best.

Also, philosophical and logical claims constitute proof too. And there is a number of premises that show belief in God is supported.

Moreover, one could say that the existence of reality itself is a proof enough that a Superior Being exists (not necessarily Christian God) aka an argument from the origins of the universe. I was simplifying. Personally, I think agnosticism is the most honest standpoint.

Regarding ontological arguments (if that's what you mean), here I disagree. For me, proof means a direct experience of a phenomenon, and an ontological argument grants only a direct experience of the ontological argument. Its conclusion infers a transcendent reality, but it is not the direct experience of one. Same reason I wouldn't consider the sudden appearance of a flying mountain orbited by golden humanoids proof of *God*. But it certainly would be empirical proof of a flying mountain with golden humanoids.

If we are defining *God* as a spiritual/transcendent being, then sensory information or logical reasoning can hint of such being, but no more than that.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This never made any sense. If there is such a thing as free will, then there is no such thing as an all-powerful god, and vice versa.
That depends on how you define free will and all-powerful. You can certainly define them to be contradictory but you can also define them to be contingent.

Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.

Originally posted by Astner
That depends on how you define free will and all-powerful. You can certainly define them to be contradictory but you can also define them to be contingent.

Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.

Originally posted by Astner

Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.

So long as that God created that man, those choices are still predefined. It's not as if an omniscient being can un-know the consequences of his actions by covering his eyes; if he creates _____ to be a certain way, those personality traits will lead _____ to make choice _____ at time _____. It's not a simple matter of intervention, it's a matter of the nature of boundless power. If God knows every choice you will make before you make it, then what does free will even mean? In the end, you are still exactly what you were created to be, because God cannot ever be mistaken.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
So long as that God created that man, those choices are still predefined. It's not as if an omniscient being can un-know the consequences of his actions by covering his eyes; if he creates _____ to be a certain way, those personality traits will lead _____ to make choice _____ at time _____. It's not a simple matter of intervention, it's a matter of the nature of boundless power. If God knows every choice you will make before you make it, then what does free will even mean? In the end, you are still exactly what you were created to be, because God cannot ever be mistaken. What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?

Originally posted by Scribble
What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/14/146053/3264905-0.jpg

Originally posted by Scribble
What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?
I think this is very close to Christian notion of God's omniscience and human free will.

Originally posted by Scribble
What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?
Then God would only know everything except the choices you'd make.

God's slacking.

Then we're back where we started. If conditioning doesn't negate free will, then why were we not made inherently good natured creatures to prevent sin, if that is what God abhors? If God is omni-benevolent, then why create souls who are predestined to fail and suffer for eternity? Because it would be boring if everyone were aligned?

What you're proposing is a model where God is neither all powerful nor all knowing. Which is fine, but not what I'm addressing.

As a human, you're overstating what all-powerful and all-knowing really means. Earth is meaningless in comparison to the eternity of Heaven, so when you get to the entrance of Heaven, God makes the decision to let you in or cast you down, therefore he is all-powerful (all-powerful doesn't necessarily imply an interventionist God), and likewise, when you get to the entrance, he will base this on every single detail of your life, thus he is all-knowing.

But you see that isn't what most Christians believe. They don't believe God is all powerful just because he gets to ultimately decide your fate. They literally think he has limitless super powers. You've relegated him to a guy whose entire existence boils down to merely deciding: up or down. Most Christians would be against that outlook.

You say atheists get the wrong impression from the confused Christians, but it's what the majority of Christians believe so wouldn't the majority say to you that you are the confused one? That you are the one misinterpreting it?

On that note if it's the majority of Christians behaving a certain way then is it really a *wrong* impression of them?

It doesn't matter, really, what they say. A lot of Christians are hateful people and will use whatever scraps they can in the Bible to justify their blindness. Whether God will forgive them for this is not my place to say.


But like I say, it's in the title: Christianity. Be like Christ. It really is not that hard to grasp.


In response to your edit: I said "wrong impression of Christianity", not Christians.

Okay but the same still applies..who is to say their take on Christianity is the wrong one and yours is right? You'd need more than the "be like Christ" thing.

Why would you need more than the idea of being as Christ-like as you can be? You can interpret it in many ways, but the core beliefs of forgiveness, kindness, sacrifice, etc. are pretty much the core of the New Testament, i.e. the primary piece of scripture that separates Christianity from Judaism. If you don't want to be like Christ, why follow his religion? If you want to follow what is often seen as the same God but instead of being kind and spreading love, you'd rather be allowed to judge people and stick to extreme dogma, why not just embrace Islam?

Because things aren't that simple. You need more than "be like Christ..it's CHRISTianity after all".

There are multiple interpretations and so far I haven't seen one that rises above the others, and surely not for the reasons given. You ask why follow the religion if they don't want to be like Christ..but since when has religion ever been about logic? Religion is more or less the opposite of logic.

The thing is that religion and logic should be more closely tied, because they were, actually, quite logical at the time. A lot of the rules were set in place logically, e.g. the whole clean/dirty foods thing in Judaism was more or less an early application of health and safety based on the quality of food at the time, same with certain parts of the Quran that lay out specific washing rituals. The reasons behind "only man and woman should wed" was because humans had to procreate, and anything else was hindering that. But over the centuries, the reasons behind a lot of it disappeared due to changing times, so the rules became easier to misinterpret.

Other than that, I don't see why you think you need more than "Christianity = be like the Christ". If you play football (soccer to you), except you're punching a cube, regardless of 'interpretation', it's not football, is it? If you support the Labour party (the main left-wing party in England), except you don't care about the labourers and instead support big business owners and bankers, you're not really a Labour supporter.

The problem again is it's not that simple. Religion is far more complicated than any sport. So you do need more than "Christianity means be like Christ" in this context if you want to say your interpretation is right above others. Or that it's not an interpretation at all, but fact..and plenty of religious scholars would agree. It doesn't make them automatically right or wrong, that is the thing..there is no right and wrong.

The fact of the matter is no this isn't like playing soccer, but calling it another name. Also if you're punching something then you aren't playing soccer. Sports usually aren't up to interpretation. You have strict sets of rules.

At the end of the day the best you can do is tell us exactly what the word Christianity means, but that has no bearing on interpretation of texts and God, etc. I mean, why would it?

My belief is that religion should enhance people's quality of life and help them become better people, since generally that is what they were set up to do, so all of this squabbling about interpretations of faith only hinders that. Toyohiko Kagawa, a Japanese Christian comparable to Francis of Assisi but active in the early 20th Century to the postwar era, decried denominations because of the way that they broke apart the message of God, and so was often seen by the Church as a bad Christian. But he acted like a Christian should: he worked in the slums for a decade, improving quality of life there, he set up the first workers' unions in Japan, he started the first proper earthquake relief projects, etc.

So why does it matter who is seen as "right and wrong", when one party has spent their life dedicated through personal sacrifice to the cause of good, whilst the other, more "official" side has done little but refurbish its temples through donations from the poor and casted judgement on those who don't follow their strict interpretation of their faith?

Huh!

Originally posted by Surtur
Because things aren't that simple. You need more than "be like Christ..it's CHRISTianity after all"
I agree with Scribble on that.

Many theological and philosophical complexities that religion has aside, the fact is that Christianity in its very core is really that simple.

Originally posted by Scribble
My belief is that religion should enhance people's quality of life and help them become better people, since generally that is what they were set up to do, so all of this squabbling about interpretations of faith only hinders that. Toyohiko Kagawa, a Japanese Christian comparable to Francis of Assisi but active in the early 20th Century to the postwar era, decried denominations because of the way that they broke apart the message of God, and so was often seen by the Church as a bad Christian. But he acted like a Christian should: he worked in the slums for a decade, improving quality of life there, he set up the first workers' unions in Japan, he started the first proper earthquake relief projects, etc.

So why does it matter who is seen as "right and wrong", when one party has spent their life dedicated through personal sacrifice to the cause of good, whilst the other, more "official" side has done little but refurbish its temples through donations from the poor and casted judgement on those who don't follow their strict interpretation of their faith?

I never actually said it matters who is right or wrong. What I've always said is that there isn't really a sure fire way to know that information.

The only thing we know for sure is the definition of Christianity.

Originally posted by Stigma
I agree with Scribble on that.

Many theological and philosophical complexities that religion has aside, the fact is that Christianity in its very core is really that simple.

I actually agree because I wasn't saying the core beliefs weren't simple. What I was saying is deciding how to interpret the various religious texts is not simple at all. I was just talking about how people interpret the bible.

Originally posted by Scribble
It doesn't matter, really, what they say. A lot of Christians are hateful people and will use whatever scraps they can in the Bible to justify their blindness. Whether God will forgive them for this is not my place to say.


But like I say, it's in the title: Christianity. Be like Christ. It really is not that hard to grasp.


In response to your edit: I said "wrong impression of Christianity", not Christians.

The number of hateful Christians are a ridiculously small minority and those are the ones that misinterpret the Bible. The Jewish God (the one that predates all the others ones) is however, all knowing and all powerful, so I'm not sure what part you're saying Christians misinterpret.


But that's a secondary function of religion, not the primary one. The primary function of religion are to follow the tenets (613 commands, or 10 commands). You have laws for God=>Man and then separate laws from Man=>Man. The idea is that neither one of these can be ignored but if there is a priority, it's the former.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
The number of hateful Christians are a ridiculously small minority and those are the ones that misinterpret the Bible. The Jewish God (the one that predates all the others ones) is however, all knowing and all powerful, so I'm not sure what part you're saying Christians misinterpret.


But that's a secondary function of religion, not the primary one. The primary function of religion are to follow the tenets (613 commands, or 10 commands). You have laws for God=>Man and then separate laws from Man=>Man. The idea is that neither one of these can be ignored but if there is a priority, it's the former. The Jewish God is as far as I can see the same as the Christian God, after all the Old Testament and a large part of the Tanach are the same ancient texts, albeit in a different order. I interpret the God of the old testament as often being quite a harsh and cruel God, but I understand why he was so, after all humans were young and were pretty much just running riot and breaking all of his rules, so he had to keep them in check. He did also however put a lot of innocent people through their paces, for example Job and Abraham, but there were reasons behind these instances.

The misinterpretation that I mostly see is that you get Christians who are incredibly and actively homophobic because of a few passages that talk about not laying with another man, whilst completely ignoring the massively important part of the new testament that says "do not judge", since it is God's job to judge, not theirs, and so instead if they take issue with a person or their lifestyle they should be kind to them and pray for them if they're really that worried. You get a lot of Christians who are very judgmental, America in particular is known for this. And as for the misinterpretation of how exactly God is all-powerful and all-knowing, I already explained how I viewed that earlier on about humans misjudging the meanings of those phrases, but I do have a question for you: if God is, in fact, all powerful in the way that the Old Testament shows, why is he no longer like this? Christianity explains this by saying that God after giving humans the Christ took a step back and allowed them to get on with their lives.

I'm afraid I can't speak much about Judaism in particular because I am not as educated in it. I mostly know about the differences between Christianity and Islam, so my apologies if any of my points are lacking due to this. Hopefully you can clear some of this up for me.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Then we're back where we started. If conditioning doesn't negate free will, then why were we not made inherently good natured creatures to prevent sin, if that is what God abhors?
With conditioning I meant external stimuli. Internal stimuli would directly compromise free will.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
If God is omni-benevolent, then why create souls who are predestined to fail and suffer for eternity? Because it would be boring if everyone were aligned?
According to classical theism God's benevolence is not granting you salvation, it's offering you salvation. I don't think any Christian would consider God forcing people to live in paradise to be an act of benevolence.

Originally posted by Scribble
The Jewish God is as far as I can see the same as the Christian God, after all the Old Testament and a large part of the Tanach are the same ancient texts, albeit in a different order. I interpret the God of the old testament as often being quite a harsh and cruel God, but I understand why he was so, after all humans were young and were pretty much just running riot and breaking all of his rules, so he had to keep them in check. He did also however put a lot of innocent people through their paces, for example Job and Abraham, but there were reasons behind these instances.

The misinterpretation that I mostly see is that you get Christians who are incredibly and actively homophobic because of a few passages that talk about not laying with another man, whilst completely ignoring the massively important part of the new testament that says "do not judge", since it is God's job to judge, not theirs, and so instead if they take issue with a person or their lifestyle they should be kind to them and pray for them if they're really that worried. You get a lot of Christians who are very judgmental, America in particular is known for this. And as for the misinterpretation of how exactly God is all-powerful and all-knowing, I already explained how I viewed that earlier on about humans misjudging the meanings of those phrases, but I do have a question for you: if God is, in fact, all powerful in the way that the Old Testament shows, why is he no longer like this? Christianity explains this by saying that God after giving humans the Christ took a step back and allowed them to get on with their lives.

I'm afraid I can't speak much about Judaism in particular because I am not as educated in it. I mostly know about the differences between Christianity and Islam, so my apologies if any of my points are lacking due to this. Hopefully you can clear some of this up for me. We live by a simple creed. Judge a person's choices as opposed to the person. I find it difficult to separate the two but that's how religious jews live, that's why they're the opposite of judgmental (you get a few here or there). We aren't like Christians. We don't try to convince people of God and how to live. We have our own lives and are cool with others living theirs (7 laws of Noah).

^^^i'm
Totally down with that philosophy.

My experience with religion wasn't exactly good. It's very strange though because some of them could be hateful and yet very nice and likeable. My spanish teacher who I had for 3 out of 4 years of high school was pretty cool for a Brother. Since I was in the advanced class there weren't many students in the class so it changed the dynamic of things. He had been stationed in Hawaii and would always talk about how much he got laid(which is what they call it when they put that necklace around you when they greet you). Keep in mind this Brother was in his late 50's so it was amusing to see.

But then one day he just made some alarming comments about homosexuals. hateful comments. It was just rough because he was like a friend. He taught Spanish like I said and when we were seniors we had a project where we had to make a pinata. He helped me make one, it was a ninja turtle(raphael of course) and I still have that pinata in my home. It just can leave a person feeling very disillusioned.

Yeah that would suck.

Originally posted by Surtur
But then one day he just made some alarming comments about homosexuals. hateful comments. It was just rough because he was like a friend. I had a similar experience recently, with a friend I've known for 30+ years. He basically said homosexuality was an aberration. The suddenness of the statement shocked me, but then, my surprise didn't last, given he is a staunch conservative. I proceeded to explain why I disagreed with him, but I'm sure it didn't change his thinking.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
We live by a simple creed. Judge a person's choices as opposed to the person. I find it difficult to separate the two but that's how religious jews live, that's why they're the opposite of judgmental (you get a few here or there). We aren't like Christians. We don't try to convince people of God and how to live. We have our own lives and are cool with others living theirs (7 laws of Noah). Originally posted by riv6672
^^^i'm
Totally down with that philosophy. For sure.

Its a good philosophy.

Fudge that. I aint gonna try to convince any oh you buttholes of God's Existence but I am Sure as HELL gonna JUDGEMENTAL EACH AND EVERY ONE OH YOU LOSERS!!!!!!

Also a philosophy.

Oh Phil aint getting off the hook either!

Originally posted by Surtur
My experience with religion wasn't exactly good. It's very strange though because some of them could be hateful and yet very nice and likeable. My spanish teacher who I had for 3 out of 4 years of high school was pretty cool for a Brother. Since I was in the advanced class there weren't many students in the class so it changed the dynamic of things. He had been stationed in Hawaii and would always talk about how much he got laid(which is what they call it when they put that necklace around you when they greet you). Keep in mind this Brother was in his late 50's so it was amusing to see.

But then one day he just made some alarming comments about homosexuals. hateful comments. It was just rough because he was like a friend. He taught Spanish like I said and when we were seniors we had a project where we had to make a pinata. He helped me make one, it was a ninja turtle(raphael of course) and I still have that pinata in my home. It just can leave a person feeling very disillusioned.

I'd be interested in knowing what these alarming and hateful comments were. For the Bible is fairly uncompromising on the subject, and if your Brother didn't know you consider yourself gay, the ONLY thing he would need to do is quote Scripture to you in answer to a question and you'd probably find yourself feeling very hurt indeed, not understanding no one can truthfully answer what the Bible has to say about homosexuality if they want to portray homosexuality in an even remotely positive light.

Hmm.

Interesting video:

eii4yJYAC9I

The very best line: Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.

F*cking owned.

Another good point was the guy for #8.

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting video:

eii4yJYAC9I

The very best line: Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.

F*cking owned.

Another good point was the guy for #8.

Good vid! Thanks!

Just in case anyone is curious there is a part 2 to that video:

dzFCuQWFZ9o

Also interesting:

yqaHXKLRKzg

Thanks for those.

Anyone have any thoughts on the arguments in those videos?

I generally find Sam Harris to be pretty thorough and he states his points well. He's not as aggressive as Dawkins is or Hitchens was.

However, I can't really get behind statements such as:
Originally posted by Surtur
Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today. because of how arrogant they come across. Like yes, the universe is amazing, infinitely so, but as a human, I personally find humans to be more relatable than unconscious celestial bodies, and as such, can see why somebody would be more likely to relate to Christ than a mass of matter millions of light years away.

I don't see why hardline atheists need to be so aggressive with their opinions, personally. I find people who are so sure of the lack of a higher power just as obnoxious and arrogant as someone 100% sure of a specific one. Just because the religions on Earth are massively reductive, why do people feel the need to take the binary opposite stance?

Have these people read up about quantum physics? Some of that stuff is just as unbelievable as the idea of a big guy in the sky with magic powers. Or ghosts, for that matter. We've discovered a lot about science that has changed the way we perceive existence. Who is to say we won't discover even more unfathomable things that will change the way we understand life? In the same way that we laugh at people of yore for thinking the Earth was flat, maybe people in the future will laugh at us for not thinking ghosts/spirits or whatever weren't real. Who knows. I like to leave things open, personally.

It's almost like humans are assholes no matter what they believe in.

Yes and yes.
I have dealt with both over the years, and in the Army they tend to use their rank to try and make you listen to their rhetoric.
I obviously find a lot of humor in these folks, always have.

I think you're on point with replacing faith with cynicism.
Both in the extreme are equally bad.

As i had some rank back in the day, i got to tell both types i thought they were being stupid, though honestly i avoided talking religion and politics at work unless i had no choice.

There is no true way as of right now to prove or disprove the existence of a divine being.

Huh.

Originally posted by Scribble
I generally find Sam Harris to be pretty thorough and he states his points well. He's not as aggressive as Dawkins is or Hitchens was.

However, I can't really get behind statements such as:
because of how arrogant they come across. Like yes, the universe is amazing, infinitely so, but as a human, I personally find humans to be more relatable than unconscious celestial bodies, and as such, can see why somebody would be more likely to relate to Christ than a mass of matter millions of light years away.

I don't see why hardline atheists need to be so aggressive with their opinions, personally. I find people who are so sure of the lack of a higher power just as obnoxious and arrogant as someone 100% sure of a specific one. Just because the religions on Earth are massively reductive, why do people feel the need to take the binary opposite stance?

Have these people read up about quantum physics? Some of that stuff is just as unbelievable as the idea of a big guy in the sky with magic powers. Or ghosts, for that matter. We've discovered a lot about science that has changed the way we perceive existence. Who is to say we won't discover even more unfathomable things that will change the way we understand life? In the same way that we laugh at people of yore for thinking the Earth was flat, maybe people in the future will laugh at us for not thinking ghosts/spirits or whatever weren't real. Who knows. I like to leave things open, personally.

Okay so he might kind of act like an arrogant dick, but it doesn't mean he's wrong about the science he is talking about.

You're saying you like to stay open to things and that is cool, but the guy is a scientist and he goes by the data, by the studies, by what we know of the universe. Yes, science is also changing and we learn new things. It doesn't mean there aren't things we can be sure about.

I also don't think the fact we "come from the stars" so to speak..means spirits can't exist. I personally believe there is an afterlife. Not a specific heaven/hell afterlife, but a place where consciousness exists nonetheless.

Why?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Why?

Why what?

You never did get an answer; I was wondering, too.

Questions not getting answered?
Lot of that going around.

Surtur never did reply with what he heard that he considered so hateful on the previous page, for instance. I strongly suspect there was no more than the quoting or paraphrasing of a Bible passage that made him type that. Frank talk is not always pleasant to hear.

Another good video:

8LjJe09eO3E

So no answers, YouTube videos to substitute for independent thought, business as usual.

Originally posted by riv6672
So no answers, YouTube videos to substitute for independent thought, business as usual. My thoughts are rich and deep, and perfectly expressed here:



IlDjEd8gAkI

In my opinion, God is merely anything science cant explain. A world beyond reality that we will never understand as our conscience will never comprehend such an absolute supernatural deity. Its the embodiment of what cannot be explained with a purpose that cannot be understood. Its farcical and unscientific. Therefore, i absolutely do believe there is a god, but he is getting smaller every day.

Much like your game.

^^^Haha

|| I came to the conclusion that my comment may spark up flames, so I've edited it. ||

Screencap FTW!

It was disproven at the very first instance of "a voice from the lord" being rejected as a valid defence.

They make you put your hand on a bible.

You do.

Swear to Goddenbury.

You do.

Testify under God that God Commanded you to commit 'X' act.

These fellow God fearers don't have the faith enough to release you there and then.

It hasn't been disproven yet and it's not possible really, but it's not necessary tbh.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Questions not getting answered?
Lot of that going around.

Surtur never did reply with what he heard that he considered so hateful on the previous page, for instance. I strongly suspect there was no more than the quoting or paraphrasing of a Bible passage that made him type that. Frank talk is not always pleasant to hear.

This is an old thread and I wasn't quite sure what you meant, but then I found this:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'd be interested in knowing what these alarming and hateful comments were. For the Bible is fairly uncompromising on the subject, and if your Brother didn't know you consider yourself gay, the ONLY thing he would need to do is quote Scripture to you in answer to a question and you'd probably find yourself feeling very hurt indeed, not understanding no one can truthfully answer what the Bible has to say about homosexuality if they want to portray homosexuality in an even remotely positive light.

Hmm, you are acting like I'm some closeted gay student who was offended by something a Brother said. No, I'm not gay myself nor do I tend to give a shit if someone is. But if you must know the comments he made, it was about castrating suspected homosexuals.

These comments were made to the entire class, which at that point consisted only of like 13 students.

Go find aliens

They have found us bro. Watch some Ancient Aliens.

Nah , fuk that bring that real shit

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7007913.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Independence-Day-2-Trailer.jpghttps://ggwash.org/images/posts/201512-141244.jpghttp://quick.bugyal.com/imgEP/Landing-gear-of-alien-ship-independence-day-2.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sKhhTzCXJ_Q/V62tCwIFn2I/AAAAAAAAALQ/RscASjRCi-YCmKv96eYLEIjMvMTRFDspACLcB/s1600/Independence%2BDay%2B2%2B-%2BFootage%2Bb.jpg

There has been an increase in UFO sightings lately..

Originally posted by Juk3n
It was disproven at the very first instance of "a voice from the lord" being rejected as a valid defence.

They make you put your hand on a bible.

You do.

Swear to Goddenbury.

You do.

Testify under God that God Commanded you to commit 'X' act.

These fellow God fearers don't have the faith enough to release you there and then.
Thanks for the Bump and the bullshit.