But "eye-witness reports" from his apostles / martyrs? Umm... ya.. that's not a biased source.... I bet you can find a smattering of North Koreans to say dearly departed Kim Jong Il cured someone's herpes by laying his mighty penis on them... not possible, not scientific, but they say it.
Another issue I have, well, kinda the same one I mentioned earlier. They change the rules! I recently heard that Pope John Paul II (side note, man I would love that to be made into a movie poster - Pope John Paul II : Pope Harder) is going to be made into a saint - but there were criteria for sainthood, namely pulling off a miracle or two. Now I was around for a good bit of PJPII's papacy and never saw him pull off anything miraculous. But now the church is either watering down the definition of miracles, or making shit up - both offside IMO, and likely done for a publicity stunt, so they can sell another bobble head / pin to convince people that they are safe while driving / seadooing / teleporting.
Hell, they should consider Paul Henderson's goal a miracle.... he could be the patron saint of international hockey. Joe Carter's homerun in the World Series?
Also, GTA . . . any final act of contrition has to be sincere. One cannot simply "change their mind at the last minute".
i always thought this one was kind of funny too. no offense, but on my death bed, when i'm lying their painfully dying with my loved ones all around me crying their eyes out, yeah i may pray and i'll probably believe it when i do. guess i can do what i want until then.
btw, i don't think many people realize how strict the term atheism is especially compared to agnosticism. an agnostic holds that there isn't enough evidence to either prove god exists or doesn't exist so he withholds judgment. an atheist could have god appear right in front of him and they could have a conversation and the atheist would still think there's no god. big difference.
...choosing to believe in something with zero proof is pretty much impossible for me. is that my fault?
I have to call BS on this one. You believe in things with 'zero proof' every day. Of all the facts you can think of, how many of them have you independently verified the truth of? Or have you merely accepted the testimony of another (or many others) as proof?
There is ample evidence that Jesus existed, and that God exists, and that he is active in the world today. You simple choose to discount/disbelieve/explain away this evidence, which is your prerogative.
There is no proof man has ever walked on the moon - though I believe the evidence strongly suggests someone did - to the point that I accept it as fact. Similarly there is evidence that aliens have visited the earth. I don't believe it, though some do.
You can choose to believe the latter case applies more to the claims of christians (or whichever religion), but saying you need 'proof' of something before believing it is (hopefully) untrue.
edit: Almost forgot to answer your question. If you're choosing not to believe something, then yes, it is your fault.
Even you folks who think Zimmerman deserved jail, etc., etc. - surely you must agree that the media was tremendously unfair to him leading up to the trial, right? Or is that ok if we think someone's guilty?
There is ample evidence that Jesus existed, and that God exists, and that he is active in the world today. You simple choose to discount/disbelieve/explain away this evidence, which is your prerogative.
One could (quite correctly) point out that our friend there isn't choosing to discount/disbelieve/explain away your "evidence" so much as you're seeing what you want to see, and calling it proof (quite incorrectly).
One could (quite correctly) point out that our friend there isn't choosing to discount/disbelieve/explain away your "evidence" so much as you're seeing what you want to see, and calling it proof (quite incorrectly).
Mark
Wait, I called it proof? That would have been very incorrect!
I have to call BS on this one. You believe in things with 'zero proof' every day. Of all the facts you can think of, how many of them have you independently verified the truth of? Or have you merely accepted the testimony of another (or many others) as proof?
are you being serious here? independently verifying something and researching/reading the proofs already proven by others is very different. please show me where the proof of god's existence is because you're suggesting that there is some. please show me and all the other doubters out there. you'd really be doing us a service (i.e. saving our souls).
as for everything else that i 'believe' in with 'zero proof', can you give some examples. what do i believe in that has zero proof? what do i believe in that i can't easily do some a google search on and find the scientific evidence that proves it? furthermore, how do you even know what i believe in? pretty sure you're coming off here as slightly arrogant in suggesting that you know exactly what i think, but i'll ignore that for now if you can show me this definitive proof of god.
again, i should stipulate that i also question the theory of the big bang, for example, along with other so called scientific theories, so perhaps you should get to know me better before you start making assumptions on what i believe in. i don't just doubt religion thank you very much.
There is ample evidence that Jesus existed, and that God exists, and that he is active in the world today. You simple choose to discount/disbelieve/explain away this evidence, which is your prerogative.
if you show me evidence that i can't disprove then i will agree with you. i can't argue against facts. i'm not that good. so again, please show me instead of just saying 'it's out there and you're just ignoring it'.
There is no proof man has ever walked on the moon - though I believe the evidence strongly suggests someone did - to the point that I accept it as fact. Similarly there is evidence that aliens have visited the earth. I don't believe it, though some do.
okay, now i'm really thinking you're not being serious. there is proof that man walked on the moon. you can find tons and tons of information about the moon landing. you can speak to tons and tons of people who worked for nasa, worked on the rocket, conducted research on rocks and crap they brought back etc. there are videos of it, tons of records, and so on. now, if there was that much evidence to prove god's existence we'd be having a different conversation here.
and btw, to say 'there's no proof' but the 'evidence strongly suggests' doesn't quite make sense. you may want to rephrase your argument here. (i.e. definition of evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something;groundforbelief;proof. AND something that makes plain orclear;anindicationorsign)
there is evidence of aliens? please show me that as well. this is probably another thread topic though, but i'd be interested in this for sure. aliens are my second favourite apocalypse scenario (behind zombies obviously).
You can choose to believe the latter case applies more to the claims of christians (or whichever religion),
um...what? latter in this case is referring to aliens? i'm lost here to what you're trying to say. please explain more.
but saying you need 'proof' of something before believing it is (hopefully) untrue.
wait, are you saying that me needing proof to believe in something is hopefully untrue!? wft? so you wish that all people just believed in things without proof? wft? i strongly hope that i'm just misunderstanding you here because...damn that's scary.
to be honest, this is one of the things that scares me the most about religions fanatics. they don't need proof that they are right, they just 'know' it and that's all the proof they need to convince themselves that what they are doing is right. it's the excuse for the crusades and pretty much every other war between different religions. obviously no one can prove your belief to be wrong as it's just what you want to believe. like i mentioned previously, atheists can have a big problem on their hands just like religious people. agnostics (and all skeptics for that matter) hold off judgment without proper evidence. obviously we can argue about what is 'proper' evidence though as well if you'd like.
edit: Almost forgot to answer your question. If you're choosing not to believe something, then yes, it is your fault.
that was not what i said but you're close. i never said that i choose to not believe. i said i choose to question it without sufficient evidence to prove it. so does the fact that i question it and not just blindly believe make me a bad person? didn't god give me the power to question and make my own choice? well, my choice is i need to know things with (i'm stealing from descartes here as i don't really have a proper term in mind at the moment) 'a clear and distinct perception' before i can believe in them. god has not supplied me with this clear and distinct perception. in fact, it's his plan not to supply anyone (minus all those guys 2000 years ago) with any evidence at all of his existence.
this is fun so i'll try to explain in more details.
god gave us the rational capacity to think and choose for ourselves, our free will (which i'm assuming for this argument). at the same time, he gave us zero proof of his existence (again, please show me the definitive proof if you have some. i've asked this a couple times and i still haven't seen anyone offer any yet). so, the logical conclusion here is that god just set up this test for us in our lives. he created rational, free thinking, sentient beings. he gave them tons of evidence to question his existence. he provided zero evidence of his existence. then he expects us to believe in him just because he allegedly said so 2000 years ago. for some omniscient, omnipotent being, that sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
not to mention, i doubt things that people say to my face. i doubt things that i read online all the time. so why the hell would i just believe some account that has been altered and rewritten by some guys 2000 years ago?
idk, i can even get into my opinions on the general concept of 'tradition' as well. i can't even fathom why people just accept 'traditional' things as good simply because 'it's tradition'. just makes absolutely no sense to me. again, this is probably another thread topic though.
yes, you did. see how i mentioned the word 'proof'. you can't just ignore part of my sentence. good try though (actually i'm lying. it wasn't a good try. quite pathetic in fact when you add in your arrogant tone).
EDIT: just to clarify further, there is a difference between "i choose not to believe in x" and "i choose not to believe in x without proof". the former means that even with evidence i still wouldn't believe it. if you don't understand the difference then perhaps we should just stop commenting to each other on this topic.
and please feel free to comment on EVERYTHING else i said as opposed to the one thing you didn't finish reading the sentence of.
wait, are you saying that me needing proof to believe in something is hopefully untrue!? wft? so you wish that all people just believed in things without proof? wft? i strongly hope that i'm just misunderstanding you here because...damn that's scary.
I will cease to refer to things you believe/don't believe in because that seems to anger you.
I believe Socrates existed. I have no proof, just historical documents.
I believe black holes exist. I have no proof, just evidence collected and reported by others.
I believe that you, trigs, are an actual person expressing your opinions on this forum and that you are not just an alter ego of Milo to give him someone to argue with. I have no proof, but it is a reasonable thing to believe in absence of evidence to the contrary.
I believe my wife loves me. I have no proof, but the evidence (she still puts up with me) tells me she does.
I believe Saul of Tarsus existed, and later changed his name to Paul after claiming to have encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. I have no proof of this, but only historical documents.
If you claim to believe things only that you have proof for, then you are misunderstanding the word proof and how it is different from evidence, at least in a scientific sense. Or you live a very suspicious and disbelieving life. (I note your previous quotation from a dictionary and do not dispute it; however surely you recognize that the two words do have a different meaning.)
At no point have I claimed nor do I claim to have proof of any God or god's existence. I'm sorry if you read that into my previous comments. If I had proof I would not have faith.
yes, you did. see how i mentioned the word 'proof'. you can't just ignore part of my sentence. good try though (actually i'm lying. it wasn't a good try. quite pathetic in fact when you add in your arrogant tone).
and please feel free to comment on EVERYTHING else i said as opposed to the one thing you didn't finish reading the sentence of.
I didn't ignore anything, but arguing about what you said/meant is stupider than arguing about religion on the internet. I apologize for my tone, but it is subjective and unfortunately debating in print has that effect. Believe me (without proof) that I don't mean to try and talk down or be arrogant in any way. Surely you realize your arguments present as arrogant as well?
And hey, I'm working on the rest! Cut me some slack here
I believe Socrates existed. I have no proof, just historical documents.
i have major issues with the concept of 'history'. i don't know if what was written down years ago is true or a lie. i don't know if there was a socrates or not. i don't know if what was attributed to him was actually written by him (technically it wasn't but whatever). however, i do know that the ideas that he was credited writing are real. i've read them and so have many others. i can take that as a proof that the idea is actually a true thing. his existence is obviously debatable. (btw, socrates was a great example for me for obvious reasons so it's kind of funny you chose him as an example).
I believe black holes exist. I have no proof, just evidence collected and reported by others.
yes, we can prove black holes exist using the scientific method. please do this for god as well.
I believe that you, trigs, are an actual person expressing your opinions on this forum and that you are not just an alter ego of Milo to give him someone to argue with. I have no proof, but it is a reasonable thing to believe in absence of evidence to the contrary.
saying that you believe in my existence and comparing that to believing in god's existence...you don't see anything kind of different about those scenarios? really?
I believe my wife loves me. I have no proof, but the evidence (she still puts up with me) tells me she does.
you do have proof of that. she tells you. she acts like she does (presumably for years). everything she does suggests it (unless she's mad at you maybe, but even then). hell, i'm sure you could test her and prove it as well although you probably choose not to. now show me how i can test god's love for me.
I believe Saul of Tarsus existed, and later changed his name to Paul after claiming to have encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. I have no proof of this, but only historical documents.
bible doesn't count as a historical document, but let's just say it did. just see my socrates comments above.
If you claim to believe things only that you have proof for, then you are misunderstanding the word proof and how it is different from evidence, at least in a scientific sense. Or you live a very suspicious and disbelieving life. (I note your previous quotation from a dictionary and do not dispute it; however surely you recognize that the two words do have a different meaning.)
are you really sure about that? perhaps you should check out the definition of proof as well: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. (my bold added)
At no point have I claimed nor do I claim to have proof of any God or god's existence. I'm sorry if you read that into my previous comments. If I had proof I would not have faith.
yup, you just blindly believe and judge others (like me) who choose to question instead.
I didn't ignore anything, but arguing about what you said/meant is stupider than arguing about religion on the internet. I apologize for my tone, but it is subjective and unfortunately debating in print has that effect. Believe me (without proof) that I don't mean to try and talk down or be arrogant in any way. Surely you realize your arguments present as arrogant as well?
And hey, I'm working on the rest! Cut me some slack here
i said nothing arrogant or mean until you dismissed everything i said without a single comment of why i was wrong. that is arrogance. the fact that i sat here and wrote a ton trying to explain my point means i'm actually interested in the debate and i'm taking the time to analyze your points.
if you don't want to discuss anymore that's fine. i'll just ignore you from now on.
EDIT: but it'll suck for the rest of us trying to understand
EDIT #2: and yes i agree having discussions like this over the internet is not the best way to debate. are you suggesting we get together and continue it? i may take you up on that offer. i'm working with prophet right now reading some stuff he sent me.
and on another point in reference to believing in god, it is in fact impossible to believe in god by following his first commandment: i am the lord your god. worship no other gods but me.
first of all, he tells us that we must worship him and no others as he is the one, true god. therefore, we must obey this and worship him because he tells us to. however, at the same time, you cannot properly worship god if you are worshiping him because he told you to. you can only truly worship god in the way he wants if you freely choose to worship him. therefore, to truly worship him, you must be worshiping him DESPITE the first commandment commanding you to. therefore, in order to actually worship god you must ignore the first commandment. however, then you are not following the commandments. quite troubling and paradoxical if you ask me. (yeah i took too many years of logic classes in university, i know.)
i do find it quite humorous that god couldn't even get the first commandment to be logically sound i must admit.
a) saying that you believe in my existence and comparing that to believing in god's existence...you don't see anything kind of different about those scenarios? really?
I've never seen you*. I've never seen a picture of you, or a video of you. All I have to go on is some words on a screen that could be edited by a hacker or have been created by someone using an alias. Of course there are things different, but there are things the same too, which is why I used it as an example.
*We may have met at a Royal Cup, but for arguments sake let's pretend otherwise.
b) you do have proof of that. she tells you. she acts like she does (presumably for years). everything she does suggests it (unless she's mad at you maybe, but even then). hell, i'm sure you could test her and prove it as well although you probably choose not to. now show me how i can test god's love for me.
Ok, so you use proof and evidence interchangeably. Fine, I will go with that from now on. Because she could be lying/acting, couldn't she? Living with me for access to my mad cash and epic beard. What test can possibly prove one person's love for another that doesn't involve her dying to save me (and even then...) The only person has irrefutable proof that my wife love me is my wife*. Though I believe it with all my heart.
*And Jesus.
c) bible doesn't count as a historical document, but let's just say it did. just see my socrates comments above.
The bible doesn't count (why not, again?) - I can go with that. But the bible itself is a collection of historical documents. Or if it's not, what is it then?
d) yup, you just blindly believe and judge others (like me) who choose to question instead.
I'm trying to show that I don't blindly believe anything, but do so based on evidence including personal experience. And that I, like most everyone, can believe something without 'proof' in the sense of 100% certainty.
How am I judging you, or is debating you/trying to show your logical inconsistencies automatically judging? I'm not saying and have not said anything about your goodness/badness based on your beliefs or lack thereof.
I would welcome the chance to get together and continue any time our schedules make it possible. Hope you didn't block me yet.
That has always been my bitch about this whole trip. So, God supposedly made me. With failings. One of which happens to be that I don't believe in him. Now I'm going to hell for all eternity? He screwed up! Not me!
are you being serious here? independently verifying something and researching/reading the proofs already proven by others is very different. please show me where the proof of god's existence is because you're suggesting that there is some. please show me and all the other doubters out there. you'd really be doing us a service (i.e. saving our souls).
as for everything else that i 'believe' in with 'zero proof', can you give some examples. what do i believe in that has zero proof? what do i believe in that i can't easily do some a google search on and find the scientific evidence that proves it? furthermore, how do you even know what i believe in? pretty sure you're coming off here as slightly arrogant in suggesting that you know exactly what i think, but i'll ignore that for now if you can show me this definitive proof of god.
again, i should stipulate that i also question the theory of the big bang, for example, along with other so called scientific theories, so perhaps you should get to know me better before you start making assumptions on what i believe in. i don't just doubt religion thank you very much.
if you show me evidence that i can't disprove then i will agree with you. i can't argue against facts. i'm not that good. so again, please show me instead of just saying 'it's out there and you're just ignoring it'.
okay, now i'm really thinking you're not being serious. there is proof that man walked on the moon. you can find tons and tons of information about the moon landing. you can speak to tons and tons of people who worked for nasa, worked on the rocket, conducted research on rocks and crap they brought back etc. there are videos of it, tons of records, and so on. now, if there was that much evidence to prove god's existence we'd be having a different conversation here.
and btw, to say 'there's no proof' but the 'evidence strongly suggests' doesn't quite make sense. you may want to rephrase your argument here. (i.e. definition of evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something;groundforbelief;proof. AND something that makes plain orclear;anindicationorsign)
there is evidence of aliens? please show me that as well. this is probably another thread topic though, but i'd be interested in this for sure. aliens are my second favourite apocalypse scenario (behind zombies obviously).
um...what? latter in this case is referring to aliens? i'm lost here to what you're trying to say. please explain more.
wait, are you saying that me needing proof to believe in something is hopefully untrue!? wft? so you wish that all people just believed in things without proof? wft? i strongly hope that i'm just misunderstanding you here because...damn that's scary.
to be honest, this is one of the things that scares me the most about religions fanatics. they don't need proof that they are right, they just 'know' it and that's all the proof they need to convince themselves that what they are doing is right. it's the excuse for the crusades and pretty much every other war between different religions. obviously no one can prove your belief to be wrong as it's just what you want to believe. like i mentioned previously, atheists can have a big problem on their hands just like religious people. agnostics (and all skeptics for that matter) hold off judgment without proper evidence. obviously we can argue about what is 'proper' evidence though as well if you'd like.
that was not what i said but you're close. i never said that i choose to not believe. i said i choose to question it without sufficient evidence to prove it. so does the fact that i question it and not just blindly believe make me a bad person? didn't god give me the power to question and make my own choice? well, my choice is i need to know things with (i'm stealing from descartes here as i don't really have a proper term in mind at the moment) 'a clear and distinct perception' before i can believe in them. god has not supplied me with this clear and distinct perception. in fact, it's his plan not to supply anyone (minus all those guys 2000 years ago) with any evidence at all of his existence.
this is fun so i'll try to explain in more details.
god gave us the rational capacity to think and choose for ourselves, our free will (which i'm assuming for this argument). at the same time, he gave us zero proof of his existence (again, please show me the definitive proof if you have some. i've asked this a couple times and i still haven't seen anyone offer any yet). so, the logical conclusion here is that god just set up this test for us in our lives. he created rational, free thinking, sentient beings. he gave them tons of evidence to question his existence. he provided zero evidence of his existence. then he expects us to believe in him just because he allegedly said so 2000 years ago. for some omniscient, omnipotent being, that sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
not to mention, i doubt things that people say to my face. i doubt things that i read online all the time. so why the hell would i just believe some account that has been altered and rewritten by some guys 2000 years ago?
idk, i can even get into my opinions on the general concept of 'tradition' as well. i can't even fathom why people just accept 'traditional' things as good simply because 'it's tradition'. just makes absolutely no sense to me. again, this is probably another thread topic though.
yes i agree having discussions like this over the internet is not the best way to debate. are you suggesting we get together and continue it? i may take you up on that offer. i'm working with prophet right now reading some stuff he sent me.
Is it time to get a hall, 3 members on each side and hash this out? My contract ends next July, (although I might come home at Christmas) but I would be willing to be one of the speakers. I could get us a free hall/room to seat 100, more if it was to be held in a church building in the KW/Waterloo/Guelph area. The six of us agree to the question and format. Hey there might only be the six of us be who knows. Anyone else????
Comments
But "eye-witness reports" from his apostles / martyrs? Umm... ya.. that's not a biased source.... I bet you can find a smattering of North Koreans to say dearly departed Kim Jong Il cured someone's herpes by laying his mighty penis on them... not possible, not scientific, but they say it.
Another issue I have, well, kinda the same one I mentioned earlier. They change the rules! I recently heard that Pope John Paul II (side note, man I would love that to be made into a movie poster - Pope John Paul II : Pope Harder) is going to be made into a saint - but there were criteria for sainthood, namely pulling off a miracle or two. Now I was around for a good bit of PJPII's papacy and never saw him pull off anything miraculous. But now the church is either watering down the definition of miracles, or making shit up - both offside IMO, and likely done for a publicity stunt, so they can sell another bobble head / pin to convince people that they are safe while driving / seadooing / teleporting.
Hell, they should consider Paul Henderson's goal a miracle.... he could be the patron saint of international hockey. Joe Carter's homerun in the World Series?
Mark
i always thought this one was kind of funny too. no offense, but on my death bed, when i'm lying their painfully dying with my loved ones all around me crying their eyes out, yeah i may pray and i'll probably believe it when i do. guess i can do what i want until then.
btw, i don't think many people realize how strict the term atheism is especially compared to agnosticism. an agnostic holds that there isn't enough evidence to either prove god exists or doesn't exist so he withholds judgment. an atheist could have god appear right in front of him and they could have a conversation and the atheist would still think there's no god. big difference.
I have to call BS on this one. You believe in things with 'zero proof' every day. Of all the facts you can think of, how many of them have you independently verified the truth of? Or have you merely accepted the testimony of another (or many others) as proof?
There is ample evidence that Jesus existed, and that God exists, and that he is active in the world today. You simple choose to discount/disbelieve/explain away this evidence, which is your prerogative.
There is no proof man has ever walked on the moon - though I believe the evidence strongly suggests someone did - to the point that I accept it as fact. Similarly there is evidence that aliens have visited the earth. I don't believe it, though some do.
You can choose to believe the latter case applies more to the claims of christians (or whichever religion), but saying you need 'proof' of something before believing it is (hopefully) untrue.
edit: Almost forgot to answer your question. If you're choosing not to believe something, then yes, it is your fault.
Most disgraced name in news?
Even you folks who think Zimmerman deserved jail, etc., etc. - surely you must agree that the media was tremendously unfair to him leading up to the trial, right? Or is that ok if we think someone's guilty?
One could (quite correctly) point out that our friend there isn't choosing to discount/disbelieve/explain away your "evidence" so much as you're seeing what you want to see, and calling it proof (quite incorrectly).
Mark
ooooo... so many questions... >:D
Carry on..
Wait, I called it proof? That would have been very incorrect!
are you being serious here? independently verifying something and researching/reading the proofs already proven by others is very different. please show me where the proof of god's existence is because you're suggesting that there is some. please show me and all the other doubters out there. you'd really be doing us a service (i.e. saving our souls).
as for everything else that i 'believe' in with 'zero proof', can you give some examples. what do i believe in that has zero proof? what do i believe in that i can't easily do some a google search on and find the scientific evidence that proves it? furthermore, how do you even know what i believe in? pretty sure you're coming off here as slightly arrogant in suggesting that you know exactly what i think, but i'll ignore that for now if you can show me this definitive proof of god.
again, i should stipulate that i also question the theory of the big bang, for example, along with other so called scientific theories, so perhaps you should get to know me better before you start making assumptions on what i believe in. i don't just doubt religion thank you very much.
if you show me evidence that i can't disprove then i will agree with you. i can't argue against facts. i'm not that good. so again, please show me instead of just saying 'it's out there and you're just ignoring it'.
okay, now i'm really thinking you're not being serious. there is proof that man walked on the moon. you can find tons and tons of information about the moon landing. you can speak to tons and tons of people who worked for nasa, worked on the rocket, conducted research on rocks and crap they brought back etc. there are videos of it, tons of records, and so on. now, if there was that much evidence to prove god's existence we'd be having a different conversation here.
and btw, to say 'there's no proof' but the 'evidence strongly suggests' doesn't quite make sense. you may want to rephrase your argument here. (i.e. definition of evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. AND something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign)
there is evidence of aliens? please show me that as well. this is probably another thread topic though, but i'd be interested in this for sure. aliens are my second favourite apocalypse scenario (behind zombies obviously).
um...what? latter in this case is referring to aliens? i'm lost here to what you're trying to say. please explain more.
wait, are you saying that me needing proof to believe in something is hopefully untrue!? wft? so you wish that all people just believed in things without proof? wft? i strongly hope that i'm just misunderstanding you here because...damn that's scary.
to be honest, this is one of the things that scares me the most about religions fanatics. they don't need proof that they are right, they just 'know' it and that's all the proof they need to convince themselves that what they are doing is right. it's the excuse for the crusades and pretty much every other war between different religions. obviously no one can prove your belief to be wrong as it's just what you want to believe. like i mentioned previously, atheists can have a big problem on their hands just like religious people. agnostics (and all skeptics for that matter) hold off judgment without proper evidence. obviously we can argue about what is 'proper' evidence though as well if you'd like.
that was not what i said but you're close. i never said that i choose to not believe. i said i choose to question it without sufficient evidence to prove it. so does the fact that i question it and not just blindly believe make me a bad person? didn't god give me the power to question and make my own choice? well, my choice is i need to know things with (i'm stealing from descartes here as i don't really have a proper term in mind at the moment) 'a clear and distinct perception' before i can believe in them. god has not supplied me with this clear and distinct perception. in fact, it's his plan not to supply anyone (minus all those guys 2000 years ago) with any evidence at all of his existence.
this is fun so i'll try to explain in more details.
god gave us the rational capacity to think and choose for ourselves, our free will (which i'm assuming for this argument). at the same time, he gave us zero proof of his existence (again, please show me the definitive proof if you have some. i've asked this a couple times and i still haven't seen anyone offer any yet). so, the logical conclusion here is that god just set up this test for us in our lives. he created rational, free thinking, sentient beings. he gave them tons of evidence to question his existence. he provided zero evidence of his existence. then he expects us to believe in him just because he allegedly said so 2000 years ago. for some omniscient, omnipotent being, that sounds pretty damn stupid to me.
not to mention, i doubt things that people say to my face. i doubt things that i read online all the time. so why the hell would i just believe some account that has been altered and rewritten by some guys 2000 years ago?
idk, i can even get into my opinions on the general concept of 'tradition' as well. i can't even fathom why people just accept 'traditional' things as good simply because 'it's tradition'. just makes absolutely no sense to me. again, this is probably another thread topic though.
tldr: blah blah blah
i will totally start a thread on this topic as well. religion fits into it kind of.
i thought he only appeared on toast?
I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
Fine... evidence... still incorrect.
Mark
yes, you did. see how i mentioned the word 'proof'. you can't just ignore part of my sentence. good try though (actually i'm lying. it wasn't a good try. quite pathetic in fact when you add in your arrogant tone).
EDIT: just to clarify further, there is a difference between "i choose not to believe in x" and "i choose not to believe in x without proof". the former means that even with evidence i still wouldn't believe it. if you don't understand the difference then perhaps we should just stop commenting to each other on this topic.
and please feel free to comment on EVERYTHING else i said as opposed to the one thing you didn't finish reading the sentence of.
I will cease to refer to things you believe/don't believe in because that seems to anger you.
I believe Socrates existed. I have no proof, just historical documents.
I believe black holes exist. I have no proof, just evidence collected and reported by others.
I believe that you, trigs, are an actual person expressing your opinions on this forum and that you are not just an alter ego of Milo to give him someone to argue with. I have no proof, but it is a reasonable thing to believe in absence of evidence to the contrary.
I believe my wife loves me. I have no proof, but the evidence (she still puts up with me) tells me she does.
I believe Saul of Tarsus existed, and later changed his name to Paul after claiming to have encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. I have no proof of this, but only historical documents.
If you claim to believe things only that you have proof for, then you are misunderstanding the word proof and how it is different from evidence, at least in a scientific sense. Or you live a very suspicious and disbelieving life. (I note your previous quotation from a dictionary and do not dispute it; however surely you recognize that the two words do have a different meaning.)
At no point have I claimed nor do I claim to have proof of any God or god's existence. I'm sorry if you read that into my previous comments. If I had proof I would not have faith.
I didn't ignore anything, but arguing about what you said/meant is stupider than arguing about religion on the internet. I apologize for my tone, but it is subjective and unfortunately debating in print has that effect. Believe me (without proof) that I don't mean to try and talk down or be arrogant in any way. Surely you realize your arguments present as arrogant as well?
And hey, I'm working on the rest! Cut me some slack here
i have major issues with the concept of 'history'. i don't know if what was written down years ago is true or a lie. i don't know if there was a socrates or not. i don't know if what was attributed to him was actually written by him (technically it wasn't but whatever). however, i do know that the ideas that he was credited writing are real. i've read them and so have many others. i can take that as a proof that the idea is actually a true thing. his existence is obviously debatable. (btw, socrates was a great example for me for obvious reasons so it's kind of funny you chose him as an example).
yes, we can prove black holes exist using the scientific method. please do this for god as well.
saying that you believe in my existence and comparing that to believing in god's existence...you don't see anything kind of different about those scenarios? really?
you do have proof of that. she tells you. she acts like she does (presumably for years). everything she does suggests it (unless she's mad at you maybe, but even then). hell, i'm sure you could test her and prove it as well although you probably choose not to. now show me how i can test god's love for me.
bible doesn't count as a historical document, but let's just say it did. just see my socrates comments above.
are you really sure about that? perhaps you should check out the definition of proof as well: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. (my bold added)
yup, you just blindly believe and judge others (like me) who choose to question instead.
i said nothing arrogant or mean until you dismissed everything i said without a single comment of why i was wrong. that is arrogance. the fact that i sat here and wrote a ton trying to explain my point means i'm actually interested in the debate and i'm taking the time to analyze your points.
if you don't want to discuss anymore that's fine. i'll just ignore you from now on.
EDIT: but it'll suck for the rest of us trying to understand
EDIT #2: and yes i agree having discussions like this over the internet is not the best way to debate. are you suggesting we get together and continue it? i may take you up on that offer. i'm working with prophet right now reading some stuff he sent me.
first of all, he tells us that we must worship him and no others as he is the one, true god. therefore, we must obey this and worship him because he tells us to. however, at the same time, you cannot properly worship god if you are worshiping him because he told you to. you can only truly worship god in the way he wants if you freely choose to worship him. therefore, to truly worship him, you must be worshiping him DESPITE the first commandment commanding you to. therefore, in order to actually worship god you must ignore the first commandment. however, then you are not following the commandments. quite troubling and paradoxical if you ask me. (yeah i took too many years of logic classes in university, i know.)
i do find it quite humorous that god couldn't even get the first commandment to be logically sound i must admit.
Again, I apologize, but I just don't see where I did that. I did use the phrase "I call BS on that one" but I proceeded to defend why I felt that way.
I would welcome the chance to get together and continue any time our schedules make it possible. Hope you didn't block me yet.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk
No God = No Hell
So why is it even an issue?
Can a non-believer explain this please.
Aliens
Philli
HU4GODZ!!!
Double knockout format...winning team determines god or God...or for the super affected fanatics, G-d!
Is it time to get a hall, 3 members on each side and hash this out? My contract ends next July, (although I might come home at Christmas) but I would be willing to be one of the speakers. I could get us a free hall/room to seat 100, more if it was to be held in a church building in the KW/Waterloo/Guelph area. The six of us agree to the question and format. Hey there might only be the six of us be who knows. Anyone else????
1. Prophet 22
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
But what the hell, I'll go
Mark