Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Does Good Come From God?
- Thread starter javaguru
- Start date
I imagined you saying this in a southern charasmatic preacher voice...saying the final "s" all funny and drawn out
Strongbow
New member
I imagined you saying this in a southern charasmatic preacher voice...saying the final "s" all funny and drawn out
Do you have my office bugged
LOLZ you know I bes talking Southern. 
Ah, I used to do my Baptist minister imitation, so phonetically that line would be pronounced:
"ee-in the Nay-Um of Jay-SUS! His nay-um be pray-sed, let-me-hear-you-say hall-ay-loo-ya!"
Strongbow
New member
LMAO very well said MM
E
EarthRider
Guest
I find it interesting how people will bring up how it is wrong to prject your beliefs on others. They will then make a comment like it is fact "Buddhism around longer then Christianity".
Christians believe the story of Adam and Eve being the first human beings on earth. So making a statement that Buddhism is around longer then Christianity is false.
So what am I getting at. As a Christian I hear people tell me not to push my beliefs on other, which I don't unless people ask. BUt then they will go off on me about why I should vote for Obama, be for gay marriage, etc. Everbody pushes there beliefs on others. If you didn't talk about your beliefs in a way that made it sound like it is truth, then why would I believe it.
Christians believe the story of Adam and Eve being the first human beings on earth. So making a statement that Buddhism is around longer then Christianity is false.
So what am I getting at. As a Christian I hear people tell me not to push my beliefs on other, which I don't unless people ask. BUt then they will go off on me about why I should vote for Obama, be for gay marriage, etc. Everbody pushes there beliefs on others. If you didn't talk about your beliefs in a way that made it sound like it is truth, then why would I believe it.
I never said gods and the religions that surround them were the same thing, and I use the terms when I mean to. I was going to write about that just now, but it doesn't really have to do with this specific argument so I'll save it for another time.
Anyways, my point is just that you may not realize it, but you're projecting your beliefs on others here. Your god is your moral absolute, so I can agree that to you good and evil exist measured by the 'good' standard of your god. But your god, or more importantly any god at all, isn't everybody's moral absolute.
Buddhism has been around longer than Christianity and Buddhists don't believe in a god or gods. The original Buddha did not believe in a 'creator' and believed thoughts of a supreme being were a waste of time that could have been spent reaching nirvana.
Buddha also is not and never claimed to be a god, and his followers do not believe in one, but they have clear distinctions and ideas between good and evil and also clear paths to get to either extreme. A god is not their moral absolute, a plain man who lived a good life is, and that is how the measure and define good and evil.
Abstract ideas like good and evil exist with or without a god, maybe not for you, but in general definitely.
Last edited:
Adam and Eve weren't Christians and nobody claims they were. Lol What are you talking about? Just because Christians believe the world started with these people doesn't mean they were Christians or that Christianity started with them.
And I didn't say she was pushing her beliefs on anybody. I said she was projecting. She had said logically good and evil couldn't exist without God, He being a moral absolute. I was arguing that she only saw it that way because He was her moral absolute.
You're talking about people trying to make others believe what they believe. I'm talking about making an argument that's only logical if you assume someone has the same belief you do.
And I didn't say she was pushing her beliefs on anybody. I said she was projecting. She had said logically good and evil couldn't exist without God, He being a moral absolute. I was arguing that she only saw it that way because He was her moral absolute.
You're talking about people trying to make others believe what they believe. I'm talking about making an argument that's only logical if you assume someone has the same belief you do.
E
EarthRider
Guest
You are right, they were Jewish. Christ wasn't on the scene until later on. No matter what you say though, I will always believe Adam and Eve were the first Jews on the scene of History.
I think that we all are passionate about what we believe. And honestly I don't have these conversations with people that don't have the same faith because it usually doesn't pay anyway. Usually when someone is convinced something is false, there is no way you will ever show them otherwise.
So what I am saying, I believe what I believe, and I believe it is truth no matter what anybody else tells me. You believe what you believe, and it isn't going to change either. And say what you want, you know thats true, lol.
I think that we all are passionate about what we believe. And honestly I don't have these conversations with people that don't have the same faith because it usually doesn't pay anyway. Usually when someone is convinced something is false, there is no way you will ever show them otherwise.
So what I am saying, I believe what I believe, and I believe it is truth no matter what anybody else tells me. You believe what you believe, and it isn't going to change either. And say what you want, you know thats true, lol.
I forgot about that. The point I was trying to make is that if you believe in moral relatives you can't logically permit or defend the concept of evil. I don't understand why people who don't believe in evil would be upset with God for doing what they think is "evil". lol
Once you abandon the "myth" of God/s there is no basis to build absolute morality. Is killing even really wrong? If it is wrong is it always absolutely wrong? Of course not. Everything that happens is natural. Evil can't exist.
Anyway, yes Earthrider usually both the atheist and the christian walk away feeling like they've won.
BTW not all Christians think that the world literally started with a literal Adam and Eve.
I do get the point you were making Annie about the buddists. I was really directing my opinion towards an atheist like the one in the original video. Buddists accept a spiritual world and they do believe in gods in a sense. Just not in the way I do. That's fine.
Once you abandon the "myth" of God/s there is no basis to build absolute morality. Is killing even really wrong? If it is wrong is it always absolutely wrong? Of course not. Everything that happens is natural. Evil can't exist.
Anyway, yes Earthrider usually both the atheist and the christian walk away feeling like they've won.
BTW not all Christians think that the world literally started with a literal Adam and Eve.
I do get the point you were making Annie about the buddists. I was really directing my opinion towards an atheist like the one in the original video. Buddists accept a spiritual world and they do believe in gods in a sense. Just not in the way I do. That's fine.
Last edited:
DJLegacy2k1
New member
Sort of like they just added fudge to the middle of chocolate chip cookies and called them "Chewy Gooeys"?!
E
EarthRider
Guest
Strongbow
New member
What you should do is STFU and make me a fucking beer smoothie bish nigga
E
EarthRider
Guest
um, I don't think i can sell beer, and I think that would taste nasty. How about a pina colada with sum rum
E
EarthRider
Guest
we don't have quick mart, i don't live in the ghetto bro
E
EarthRider
Guest
lol
javaguru
Banned
Gotta love it when atheists decree to the rest of us what gods may or may not think, know, or do. Man didn't create gods, but neither did the gods create man.
Read some Qaballah, will you Java? Even the Chicken Qabalah by Don Milo, seriously.
That being said, Yahweh is a bit of an asshat, but so are plenty of other gods. Most of the gods of polytheistic cultures have nothing to do with "rules" ... think on the behavior of say, Zeus. He's all about marital honesty, monogamy, consensual sex
The gods are archetypes, being essential human characteristics or even universal facts made manifest (the Hindu trilogy of Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu is a good example).
Just sayin that religion has been a means of organizing the primitive cultures in which they originated and even polytheistic cultures had "rules" set forth by the priests and priestesses....they also ensured their status in society; Show me a major religious figure in the United States that lives a modest lifestyle. The priestly class has always been a major political force through their "divine revelations" about how society should be organized by the other politicians. God doesn't have a weekly broadcast about what he demands but there are plenty of people willing to be the spokes model for whatever god someone may worship. The politician and the priest are pretty much interchangeable in society, except in the United States we hold our politicians somewhat accountable.
mrplunkey
New member
most heads of congregations do live modest lifestyles.
Sure, you can creatively define "major religious figure" to target an affluent subset, but they are only a tiny sliver of the entire collection.
E
EarthRider
Guest
I really like Rob Bell, doing a lot of great stuff for community and world. I love his books too, great stuff
E
EarthRider
Guest
lol, yeah I hear you on that.
He studies from a Jewish perspective and looks at the scriptures the way the Jewish culture does. I personally think his theology is a lot closer to right then most conservative pastors.
He studies from a Jewish perspective and looks at the scriptures the way the Jewish culture does. I personally think his theology is a lot closer to right then most conservative pastors.
Do me a favor, would you. PLEASE stop trying to turn polytheistically based spirituality, particularly when you're moving into tribal territory where you have spiritual intermediaries like shamans, into RELIGION.
You don't know shit about shamanism (because you can read books until words spill out of your ears, but shamanism can only be understood experientially, period) or the spirit world, or the spiritual relationship that exists between the natural world and nature spirits and humanity. Trying to draw parallels between, say, Roman Catholics and any tribal spiritual beliefs is like trying to compare apples and a steak. The only thing they have in common is they are both nourishment, THAT'S IT.
The only thing "non organized spiritual practices" (for lack of a better catch all term) and mainstream religion is that they both hold reverence for something that is experienced outside what can be perceived by the five senses, THAT'S IT.
You're an atheist, glad you found a way to categorize you life experience. But just because you've never had any experience that has given you ANY sense that there is more to the world that just what you can see/feel/hear/taste/smell doesn't mean the world is that flat and 3-dimensional for everyone.
Frankly, Java, you proselytize worse than any Born Again Christian I've ever met. You're just as confident you're right as they are, but the truth is when you strip things down to brass tacks you're operating on just as much faith as they are, so give it a break.
is Cindy gonna come remove Java's remains or do we need to call pest control?
No, I'm not arguing or debating. I'm just sick to shit of Java's freaking supercilious attitude. Lack of evidence that something exists is NOT proof that it doesn't exist and that's the entire basis of ALL atheistic arguments. The fact is, THEY have just as much faith as a Christian, they choose to be blind or to see evidence where ever they want. One or the other, no different.
And mashing spirituality and organized religion into the same pot and claiming they all serve the same purpose, seek to achieve the same goals and were born out of the same desires and needs is just plain ignorance.
Not all spiritual movements and their leaders are good, but neither are all mainstream religions and their leadership bad.
PICK3
New member
OlololololoL
mrplunkey
New member
I really like JG, but this point is undeniable. He is the most evangelical person I know.
It's a good distraction
for who?
actually, he's not really that bad...he's just bored and posting what he knows
Nobody thinks he's bad, we've always thought he was smug, though.
And not to pick nits but Java isn't posting what he KNOWS. He's posting what he BELIEVES. Atheism is a BELIEF system (not a religion, too informal for that) but it contains certain basic premises and precepts. Not FACTS. Facts are concrete, provable, undeniable. From a factual perspective, atheism can not be proven any more than theism can be
(see points at bottom of post for WHY).Honestly, Java is no different than someone who relates 3/4s of their posts to Joseph Smith and Mormonism, the other who relates their posts to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, or if I were to manage to relate 3/4s of my posts to Wicca and the Gods and Goddesses I revere
The UNARGUABLE Fact is That Java Can No More DISPROVE the Existence of the G-O-D or (ANY God/dess) Than I Can PROVE Their Existence. Period. It's called the Argument from Ignorance (or evidence of absence, whichever suits you more). They're both based on inherently flawed, rhetorical logic arguments, mental masturbation, nothing more. Neither premise is valid empirical evidence
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
javaguru
Banned
Nobody thinks he's bad, we've always thought he was smug, though.
And not to pick nits but Java isn't posting what he KNOWS. He's posting what he BELIEVES. Atheism is a BELIEF system (not a religion, too informal for that) but it contains certain basic premises and precepts. Not FACTS. Facts are concrete, provable, undeniable. From a factual perspective, atheism can not be proven any more than theism can be
Honestly, Java is no different than someone who relates 3/4s of their posts to Joseph Smith and Mormonism, the other who relates their posts to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, or if I were to manage to relate 3/4s of my posts to Wicca and the Gods and Goddesses I revere
The UNARGUABLE Fact is That Java Can No More DISPROVE the Existence of the G-O-D or (ANY God/dess) Than I Can PROVE Their Existence. Period. It's called the Argument from Ignorance (or evidence of absence, whichever suits you more). They're both based on inherently flawed, rhetorical logic arguments, mental masturbation, nothing more. Neither premise is valid empirical evidence
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, atheism is a null value...
closet agnostic ^^^
javaguru
Banned
Atheism is a null value...it's no more a belief system than not believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy?
Greece and Rome...read some actual history instead of your indoctrination religious texts about polytheism and how wonderful the gods are.... How about Aztec polytheism...nothing wrong with human sacrifice...That is essentially the heart of christianity and other religions..they all love sacrificing innocents to their gods. I know a thing or two about wiccan beliefs and that blood magic is considered especially powerful...
I'm sure that I could do some LSD and have an "experience" but it doesn't make it real or "spiritual" (whatever that means); It's simply a drug that changes brain chemistry leading to hallucinations. Likewise, just because you had an emotional reaction to something doesn't make you enlightened...Charles Manson is "enlightened" in a psychotic way.
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
Of course, that's like lumping all corporate executives in with the Wall Street bailouts; The vast majority will never get that kind of bailout and those without the resources to pay for lobbyists end up paying the actual corporate tax rate as opposed to the lobbyist adjusted rate. At least Wall Street executives don't claim they follow the path of a homeless dude that told his followers to forsake all material possessions and their families to follow him..tax free....That's a nice scam..
Back when I worked for the prosecutor we had "pastor pants" go through our system a number of times...he exposed himself to children at a park...two women identified him in a lineup as the guy masturbating in front of them at the mall and he was arrested for solicitation of prostitution and DUI...he claimed he was witnessing to the prostitutes, at 3:00 AM, he was drunk as a skunk. His congregation, that paid for his half million dollar house, top notch defence attorney, and brand new cadillac supported him at every trial. He is a local pastor with no education in theology...without a national platform...He's just good at manipulating poor people into giving him there money and support ... that's sad.
REFUGIO, Texas — Investigators say a man has died while in the act of raping an elderly South Texas woman.
The Refugio County Sheriff's Office identifies the man as 53-year-old Isabel Chavelo Gutierrez. Sheriff's Sgt. Gary Wright says the incident happened June 2 after he rode two miles by bicycle from his home to that of his 77-year-old victim in the tiny coastal community of Tivoli.
He says the man, weighing between 230 and 250 pounds, sneaked into the woman's house and raped her at knifepoint. During the attack, he said he wasn't feeling well, rolled over and died. His body was sent to the Nueces County medical examiner in Corpus Christi for autopsy.
Gutierrez was a registered sexual offender on parole from a sentence for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
Man dies while raping elderly Texas woman - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com
The Refugio County Sheriff's Office identifies the man as 53-year-old Isabel Chavelo Gutierrez. Sheriff's Sgt. Gary Wright says the incident happened June 2 after he rode two miles by bicycle from his home to that of his 77-year-old victim in the tiny coastal community of Tivoli.
He says the man, weighing between 230 and 250 pounds, sneaked into the woman's house and raped her at knifepoint. During the attack, he said he wasn't feeling well, rolled over and died. His body was sent to the Nueces County medical examiner in Corpus Christi for autopsy.
Gutierrez was a registered sexual offender on parole from a sentence for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
Man dies while raping elderly Texas woman - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com
E
EarthRider
Guest
java you gave one example of a bad apple, and I know there are more. there are also a lot of great pastors doing great things for community and world. right now as a church we are building a house for a widow and her kids. How cool is that.
*their
Reasonable Faith: Question 115 - Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, and God
There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?—Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.
When Does Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence? (Or, when is the inference from “I see none” to “there is none” valid?)
What I have said so far raises the question, When does the absence of evidence become evidence of absence? This is a good question because sometimes (but not always) the former implies the latter. Let’s start with some examples to work with.
Example 1. Elephants in the Room (Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence)
Someone asks, “Are there any elephants in the room?” After looking about and seeing none, I say, “No, I see none. There are no elephants in the room.”
The inference from “I see none” to “There are none” in this example is justified. With respect to elephants in this room, I’m not agnostic; rather, I positively affirm: There are no elephants in the room. In this case, absence of elephants in the room is evidence of their absence. But this inference doesn’t hold for Example 2.
Example 2. The Grand Canyon Fly (Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence)
We’re standing atop the Grand Canyon and someone asks, “Is there a fly way down there?” After a quick glance I say, “No, I see none. There is no fly down there.”
As in the last example we move from “I see none” to “There is none”—but unlike the last example the conclusion is unjustified. Agnosticism regarding the fly is the appropriate response here. So in the Elephant Example we don’t have to be agnostics, but in the Grand Canyon Fly Example we do. Why? Notice that it is not the relative size of the object which creates the difference (The zookeeper might have asked you on your zoo trip, “Do you think an elephant is in the cage in the next room?” to which your reply might be agnosticism: “I have no idea. Maybe.”)
The salient difference between these two examples has entirely to do with your epistemic situation — which is, roughly, the extent and limits of your ability to know something through your primary sources of knowing (i.e. perception, memory, introspection, testimony, etc.) — and the fact that only in one situation (Elephants in the Room) do we expect to have knowledge which we lack. My epistemic situation regarding knowing whether an elephant is in the room is quite good, while my epistemic situation regarding knowing whether a fly resides at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is quite poor. Why? When are we in an epistemically good situation in order to say, “There is no X”? What conditions have to be met? At least two. In the absence of evidence of an object O you may deny that O exists only if these Criteria are met:
Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.
Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of something O only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that O exists but in fact lack it.
Some Examples: Tooth Fairies, Leprechauns, Santa Claus, Teapots, and Invisible Objects
Atheists claim they don’t need to disprove God for the same reason they don’t need to disprove the existence of Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. The problem with the comparison with the last two items is that, while our epistemic situation regarding God doesn’t always satisfy the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria, our epistemic situation regarding leprechauns and Santa Claus does — we can, and do, disprove them all the time; it’s just that there are few, if any, people arguing for their existence so we’re never called upon to give those reasons. If Santa existed we should expect to see, but don’t, lots of evidence of that fact, including warehouses at the North Pole, a large sleigh, and so forth; similarly, were there biologically tiny human beings on this planet we should expect to see, but don’t, their evidence: miniature villages, waste products, the bones of their deceased — evidence similar to what we have for mice, hamsters and other small critters. If there were more people today who made a case for leprechauns and Santa Claus then it would be entirely appropriate for us to enter into dialogue with them, giving reasons for their non-existence.
At this point an atheist might object that the Tooth Fairy is different from leprechauns and Santa Claus because she’s invisible. (Is she invisible in the story?) Suppose she is invisible. According to the tale she collects teeth left under children’s pillows leaving behind a reward (usually money). Evidence we should expect to see if she existed then would be money left behind, stolen teeth, etc. Do we find such evidence? Well, no we don’t, but we would expect to if she existed. So, even the Tooth Fairy satisfies the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria. So because we lack evidence of her, we say she doesn’t exist (sorry kids!).
Suppose the atheist agrees that the reason why we deny Tooth Fairies, leprechauns and Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He might nonetheless insist that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. A case in point is Russell’s famous teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us. Do we need to be agnostic about it? Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. So really, we have a great deal of evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist; and since our discussion is confined to cases where we infer the non-existence of something simply on the basis of absence of evidence for it, the example is irrelevant.
There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?—Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.
When Does Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence? (Or, when is the inference from “I see none” to “there is none” valid?)
What I have said so far raises the question, When does the absence of evidence become evidence of absence? This is a good question because sometimes (but not always) the former implies the latter. Let’s start with some examples to work with.
Example 1. Elephants in the Room (Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence)
Someone asks, “Are there any elephants in the room?” After looking about and seeing none, I say, “No, I see none. There are no elephants in the room.”
The inference from “I see none” to “There are none” in this example is justified. With respect to elephants in this room, I’m not agnostic; rather, I positively affirm: There are no elephants in the room. In this case, absence of elephants in the room is evidence of their absence. But this inference doesn’t hold for Example 2.
Example 2. The Grand Canyon Fly (Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence)
We’re standing atop the Grand Canyon and someone asks, “Is there a fly way down there?” After a quick glance I say, “No, I see none. There is no fly down there.”
As in the last example we move from “I see none” to “There is none”—but unlike the last example the conclusion is unjustified. Agnosticism regarding the fly is the appropriate response here. So in the Elephant Example we don’t have to be agnostics, but in the Grand Canyon Fly Example we do. Why? Notice that it is not the relative size of the object which creates the difference (The zookeeper might have asked you on your zoo trip, “Do you think an elephant is in the cage in the next room?” to which your reply might be agnosticism: “I have no idea. Maybe.”)
The salient difference between these two examples has entirely to do with your epistemic situation — which is, roughly, the extent and limits of your ability to know something through your primary sources of knowing (i.e. perception, memory, introspection, testimony, etc.) — and the fact that only in one situation (Elephants in the Room) do we expect to have knowledge which we lack. My epistemic situation regarding knowing whether an elephant is in the room is quite good, while my epistemic situation regarding knowing whether a fly resides at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is quite poor. Why? When are we in an epistemically good situation in order to say, “There is no X”? What conditions have to be met? At least two. In the absence of evidence of an object O you may deny that O exists only if these Criteria are met:
Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.
Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of something O only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that O exists but in fact lack it.
Some Examples: Tooth Fairies, Leprechauns, Santa Claus, Teapots, and Invisible Objects
Atheists claim they don’t need to disprove God for the same reason they don’t need to disprove the existence of Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. The problem with the comparison with the last two items is that, while our epistemic situation regarding God doesn’t always satisfy the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria, our epistemic situation regarding leprechauns and Santa Claus does — we can, and do, disprove them all the time; it’s just that there are few, if any, people arguing for their existence so we’re never called upon to give those reasons. If Santa existed we should expect to see, but don’t, lots of evidence of that fact, including warehouses at the North Pole, a large sleigh, and so forth; similarly, were there biologically tiny human beings on this planet we should expect to see, but don’t, their evidence: miniature villages, waste products, the bones of their deceased — evidence similar to what we have for mice, hamsters and other small critters. If there were more people today who made a case for leprechauns and Santa Claus then it would be entirely appropriate for us to enter into dialogue with them, giving reasons for their non-existence.
At this point an atheist might object that the Tooth Fairy is different from leprechauns and Santa Claus because she’s invisible. (Is she invisible in the story?) Suppose she is invisible. According to the tale she collects teeth left under children’s pillows leaving behind a reward (usually money). Evidence we should expect to see if she existed then would be money left behind, stolen teeth, etc. Do we find such evidence? Well, no we don’t, but we would expect to if she existed. So, even the Tooth Fairy satisfies the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria. So because we lack evidence of her, we say she doesn’t exist (sorry kids!).
Suppose the atheist agrees that the reason why we deny Tooth Fairies, leprechauns and Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He might nonetheless insist that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. A case in point is Russell’s famous teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us. Do we need to be agnostic about it? Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. So really, we have a great deal of evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist; and since our discussion is confined to cases where we infer the non-existence of something simply on the basis of absence of evidence for it, the example is irrelevant.
Last edited:
I think most Christians' response to that is they'd rather live like there is an afterlife and find out there isn't one, than live like there isn't one and find out there is.
....and if there is no afterlife, preachylou wouldn't be capable of being shocked.
Just sayin'
....and if there is no afterlife, preachylou wouldn't be capable of being shocked.
Just sayin'
well ive heard that response before and its not really a response to my specific question because I didn't ask how they live their life, I asked, how would she react if she died and there was no afterlife, heaven, God, etc.
But that question doesn't make sense because if after life, there is only true death, one wouldn't be feeling any emotions or capable of reacting at all. They'd just be a decaying body in the ground.
Plus, my belief in God gives me more than a promise of an afterlife. Life is better for me now, personally, believing that there is more to life than just this material world.
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
I'll reiterate the Hitchens challenge...name an act of charity/kindness that requires someone to have faith in a deity?
Hitchens actually goes further with his challenge...
javaguru
Banned
1. Thor would whoop the shit out of jesus like the redheaded stepchild he was.
2. I've been in the presence of elephants..I know they exist because there are metrics for determining the existence of elephants....they are natural creatures. I've never touched a jesus or any other of the thousands of gods mankind has created.
3. Everyone knows Santa lives in a dimensional rift at the north pole that our science is incapable of penetrating, after all, he delivers toys all across the world in a single night..he obviously uses the same supernatural powers to hide his existence as well as that of his toy factory. This anti Santa bigotry is offensive because everyone knows supernatural beings can't die, they are powered by belief, and as long as people believe they exist they will continue to exist..not a single elf has ever died. As a matter of fact, I think that's Obama's energy policy....just hope really hard and your computer will be powered by hope and unicorn tears.
holy long fucking posts. tl;dr
Here's a question. Perhaps a different thread altogether?
What if Jesus really wasn't/isn't God? You know that whole trinity thing? What if it really is just one god like the Jews believe and the bible says? So, god is real, but Jesus was just another man. A good man, a prophet, but just a man, not god.
The people who worship him as god would be guilty of breaking the first commandment. Just like the israelites who made and worshiped the golden calf. What might happen to them at this afterlife?
Here's a question. Perhaps a different thread altogether?
What if Jesus really wasn't/isn't God? You know that whole trinity thing? What if it really is just one god like the Jews believe and the bible says? So, god is real, but Jesus was just another man. A good man, a prophet, but just a man, not god.
The people who worship him as god would be guilty of breaking the first commandment. Just like the israelites who made and worshiped the golden calf. What might happen to them at this afterlife?
love me some sense experience
calveless wonder
New member
The holy trinity concept was created by Constantine.
And to be honest, my belief system is pretty much in line with your first paragraph minus the "prophet" part. As with any story, the more times it's told the more it evolves into something completely different. Given the lack of real historical recordings of Jesus, as well as the confirmed forgery of accounts by the Romans to aid their Manifest Destiny cause, there's far more doubt in what Jesus actually did than there is proof.
My belief is that he was a good man, probably to the point of true altruism, but he did not perform miracles and most definitely didn't raise from the dead yada yada yada.
I mean, think of it this way. You have a bunch of wacky cults running around this day in age led by people who claim to be prophets or God himself. They exist, and they have followers. People actually believe this. That is despite having access to real eduction, information and a far more developed and open minded society to disprove these cult leaders and their wacky rhetoric.
Now go back 2000+ years. Society is without any of that, and people especially desperate ones, can easily be led to believe anything. Now, it may not even been Jesus himself who claimed he was the son of god, it might have been the Romans later on in an attempt to create a figurehead for their cause.
Walk on water? Turn bread into wine? Give me a break.
Jesus turned bread into wine?
Constintine did not create the holy trinity concept, although they do teach that idk why they do because it is incorrect
Outside of that though, this thread isn't about Jesus, the trinity, but God. Jesus as God and the trinity is a whole different thread, and honestly I think there is a solid enough argument against the trinity to not even want to go there. lol
Constintine did not create the holy trinity concept, although they do teach that idk why they do because it is incorrect
Outside of that though, this thread isn't about Jesus, the trinity, but God. Jesus as God and the trinity is a whole different thread, and honestly I think there is a solid enough argument against the trinity to not even want to go there. lol
1. No one brought up Jesus
2. Elephants in the room
3. That hurt my eyes to read, what a bunch of shit lol. @ Obama's energy policy
calveless wonder
New member
Jesus turned bread into wine?
Constintine did not create the holy trinity concept, although they do teach that idk why they do because it is incorrect
Outside of that though, this thread isn't about Jesus, the trinity, but God. Jesus as God and the trinity is a whole different thread, and honestly I think there is a solid enough argument against the trinity to not even want to go there. lol
don't be a jerk, you know what i meant.
Did not the Nicene creed proclaim the concept of the holy spirit? if not, i'd like to hear what you have to say
lol I'm sorry
The concept is in the Byzantine manuscript/texts and they never made their way into Rome.
Last edited:
No one answers it becuase it can't be answered. Manipulative.
First, no one has said that without God we wouldn't know right from wrong, but that there wouldn't be a right from wrong.
Even so, how could you could not do something that I could do? How could I do something moral and you be unable to do it? The only way for that to happen would be for me to recognize something as moral and you not to recognize it as moral. If you don't recognize it as moral, the question can't be answered. No one could accept the challenge.
So I'll give the answer he probably expected: how about loving God with all your strength, heart, soul and mind? No atheist will do that and no atheist can do that. You might even call it immoral. Oh wait...
Jesus turned bread into wine?
Constintine did not create the holy trinity concept, although they do teach that idk why they do because it is incorrect
Outside of that though, this thread isn't about Jesus, the trinity, but God. Jesus as God and the trinity is a whole different thread, and honestly I think there is a solid enough argument against the trinity to not even want to go there. lol
Correct. Constantine did not create the trinity godhead concept. Pagan religions long before he came along were using that. He merely had it adapted into chrisitanity.
So you don't believe in the trinity? interesting...
Strongb0w
Banned
I'm sbeezy? where you been? I'm God's chosen one sent to lead his army.
No, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that I didn't believe in the trinity. It would take more soul searching to come to that conclusion. Maybe one day. I am saying that the argument against the trinity is solid. I just don't see how someone could go down that road and still believe in the deity of Christ...something that I can't imagine myself ever denying. I guess time will tell...
Strongb0w
Banned
wurd
lol...no, but I have to admit...none of that sounds horrible
Lolol
