Happy Atheist Forum

Let's discuss the issue of people who claim to truly have a personal relationship with God. They see this relationship as "proof" to them that God does in fact exist. As an atheist, I truly cannot understand how someone can let themselves ever believe that they are in a personal relationship with something or someone that cannot be seen or heard. This completely baffles me. I personally would worry about my own sanity if I was ever in a relationship like that. Is this some sort of psychological comfort to them that they feel they need and can't live without? I really don't understand.

Gsaint here has this sort and relationship and she would like to discuss this with everyone. She has given me permission to discuss this in a new thread:

QuoteRe: Gsaint from the Black Atheist Thread
Sent: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:03 pm
From: gsaint
To: lundberg500  

thank you for asking you may and I am willing to discuss this with everyone

Here is one of her quotes to me on her personal relationship with God.

QuoteI live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God.

Until God can be proven NOT to exist, Christians will maintain that personal relationship with God. They see the fact that God cannot be proven to exist as PROOF that he DOES exist. How could you possibly debate a Christian who truly maintains that they have this personal one on one relationship with God?

From the locked thread:

QuoteThis is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence
2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things
3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

This is the argument that all non-believers resort to when they know they've lost.  "You're an idiot.  It doesn't make sense.  You believe in an illusion."

1.  When it works, it works.
2.  Unicorns are not unlimited and unfathomable beings.
3.  Actually, your specific belief can be proven to be narrow-minded and nihilistic.

Quote from: "Achronos"1.  When it works, it works.

...And when it doesn't, it [strike:9cyuymbl]doesn't[/strike:9cyuymbl] still magically seems to for fundie types.

Quote2.  Unicorns are not unlimited and unfathomable beings.

Neither are gods.

Quote3.  Actually, your specific belief can be proven to be narrow-minded and nihilistic.

Just for the heck of it, would you please present the proof?

EDIT: Oh, and in your signature, could you please explain what is so tragic about photophobia, be it physical or metaphorical..? Or were you just trying to go for some of that "ancient wisdom" by quoting Plato..?

Quote from: "Achronos"From the locked thread:

QuoteThis is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence
2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things
3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

This is the argument that all non-believers resort to when they know they've lost.  "You're an idiot.  It doesn't make sense.  You believe in an illusion."

1.  When it works, it works.
2.  Unicorns are not unlimited and unfathomable beings.
3.  Actually, your specific belief can be proven to be narrow-minded and nihilistic.

I see what you did there.

1. When does it work?
2. But the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
3. Me, narrow-minded? You probably don't even acknowledge the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And yes, depending on your definition of nihilism, it is nihilistic.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Just for the heck of it, would you please present the proof?

Proof of nihilism?  The idea that you are nothing but an existing consciousness that will cease to exist?  Isn't that what you believe?  What should I prove to you?

QuoteOh, and in your signature, could you please explain what is so tragic about photophobia, be it physical or metaphorical..? Or were you just trying to go for some of that "ancient wisdom" by quoting Plato..?

Photophobia?  My sig says what is says.  The tragedy of existence without God is complete vanity.

I'll quote Psalm 127: " Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. 2 It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep"

Quote from: "Achronos"This is the argument that all non-believers resort to when they know they've lost.  "You're an idiot.  It doesn't make sense.  You believe in an illusion."

1.  When it works, it works.
2.  Unicorns are not unlimited and unfathomable beings.
3.  Actually, your specific belief can be proven to be narrow-minded and nihilistic.

1.) When there is no god, there is no god.
2.) Subatomic robots aren't limited and no has fathomed them.
3.) Even if that specific belief can be proven to be narrow-minded and nihilistic, can it be proven to be logically contradictory?

I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

That would be just too bleak, so it can't possibly be true.

And if we're doing biblical quotes, Achronos, how about:

Romans 8:24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Or as Bertrand Russell put it: "We may define faith, as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We speak only of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

Because it's existential nihilism.

Which means: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

Because it's existential nihilism.

Which means: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

Because it's existential nihilism.

Which means: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

No Ghostbusters references?

I've never seen Ghostbusters.  

QuoteI've never seen Ghostbusters

Really? That's a really good movie. One of my favs of all time. You've got to watch that one.

Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayorâ€" real wrath-of-God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!

QuoteThe devil does not hunt after those who are lost; he hunts after those who are aware, those who are close to God. He takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles.

:eek2:    Having the mind of a child??  

Matthew 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Quote from: "Achronos"Unicorns are not unlimited and unfathomable beings.

Huh? Unicorns aren't real. They can be whatever I want them to be. You might as well argue that dragons can't really breathe fire.

Quote from: "OldGit"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I want to know what's wrong with existential nihilism.

That would be just too bleak, so it can't possibly be true.

And if we're doing biblical quotes, Achronos, how about:

Romans 8:24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Or as Bertrand Russell put it: "We may define faith, as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We speak only of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Faith is the way in which one thinks. I believe I told you that already.  It's not a matter of observable evidence, it's a matter of a way of thinking.

Have you ever wondered and asked for yourself, why is it that some atheists have resorted to belief later on in their lives?  I can't speak for them, but certainly for myself, I see vanity in a cosmos without God.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is the way in which one thinks. I believe I told you that already.  It's not a matter of observable evidence, it's a matter of a way of thinking.

Have you ever wondered and asked for yourself, why is it that some atheists have resorted to belief later on in their lives?  I can't speak for them, but certainly for myself, I see vanity in a cosmos without God.

If you're referring to death bed conversions most of those are subterfuge by believers. What makes you think believers don't shed their faith later in life? In many cases they do.

I would also say your faith is probably (for all I know; I don't know you) limited to ideas pertaining to religion. In any other case, everyone wants evidence.

Ah! The above post duplicated itself. O merciful overlords, please delete this one.  

Quote from: "Achronos"Proof of nihilism?  The idea that you are nothing but an existing consciousness that will cease to exist?  Isn't that what you believe?  What should I prove to you?

Proof of narrow-mindedness. I suppose I should have specified more precisely.

QuotePhotophobia?  My sig says what is says.  The tragedy of existence without God is complete vanity.

No, it says something along these lines:

QuoteWe can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato

Demonstrate the tragedy, please. The part about men being afraid of the light. Be it metaphorical photophobia or medical matters little. Where be the tragedy..? If there is none, why use that quote?

QuoteI'll quote Psalm 127: " Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.

It's bullshit though. A builder builds in vain if the work is never completed or completed and never used. A watchman stays awake in vain when it is reasonable to expect that he will not see what's coming even when it's coming.

Quote2 It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep"

Uh-huh... And..? (Point being..?)

The tragedy is this.  That all my memories, all my loved ones, all what I know will be gone.  Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but my whole life can.

Quote from: "Achronos"The tragedy is this.  That all my memories, all my loved ones, all what I know will be gone.  Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but my whole life can.

That's life.

You can either accept reality or get caught up in wishful fantasy. I choose to do the former.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"The tragedy is this.  That all my memories, all my loved ones, all what I know will be gone.  Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but my whole life can.

That's life.

You can either accept reality or get caught up in wishful fantasy. I choose to do the former.

Such as the fantasy of materialism?
You have not really proven your point here, only asserted your dogma.

QuoteEnergy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed

That eliminates the need for God right there.  

LS there's nothing wrong with "existential nihilism." It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist.

What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Quote from: "Achronos"LS there's nothing wrong with "existential nihilism." It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist.

What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Let's see...you just told someone that they don't like living and that they have no love in them...can you give me a reason for why I shouldn't issue strike 3?

Quote from: "Achronos"What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Christian love is:
Disapproval, objection and ostracisation of homosexuals
Discrimination against non Christians and love between Christians and non Christians
Judgment of people's lack of belief in the Christian god
Rejection of safe sexual practices
Guilt and ostracisation of followers who have not repented sins via penance

Atheist love could be:
Tolerance
Freedom
Acceptance
Mutual coexistence
(depending on the individual atheist since no doctrine is promoted)

Quote from: "Achronos"I see vanity in a cosmos without God.

... says the guy who believes that humans are the central locus of all Creation.

Go on ...

Quote from: "Achronos"LS there's nothing wrong with "existential nihilism." It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist.

What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

I'm not saying that anything "beyond us" can't exist; I'm saying that I choose not to believe in such things. It's not a faith. It's not a dogma.

Like Whitney implied, I'm not suicidal, nor am I heartless.

So I will re-post my statement to you fine ladies and Gentlemen out there

I said to Mr. lundberg500 "I live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God."

I still haven't heard anyone disprove this point

Quote from: "gsaint"So I will re-post my statement to you fine ladies and Gentlemen out there

I said to Mr. lundberg500 "I live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God."

I still haven't heard anyone disprove this point

I will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

QuoteI will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

so what your saying is you have no proof?

Quote from: "gsaint"so what your saying is you have no proof?

What business  is it of yours?  It's his personal relationship with Elvis.

QuoteWhat business is it of yours? It's his personal relationship with Elvis.

more verbal dancing yet no proof.

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteI will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

so what your saying is you have no proof?

Do you have proof that God is talking to you? Elvis Presley was a real man whose existence is verifiable. I can't say the same for your God.

Do you have proof that Elvis isn't talking (and occasionally singing) to me?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What business is it of yours? It's his personal relationship with Elvis.

Thank you, Thump. I'm glad some people around here still value the virtue of faith.

QuoteDo you have proof that God is talking to you? Elvis Presley was a real man whose existence is verifiable. I can't say the same for your God.

Do you have proof that Elvis isn't talking (and occasionally singing) to me?

First you give me proof that I do not have a relationship with God and then I will answer you question

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteDo you have proof that God is talking to you? Elvis Presley was a real man whose existence is verifiable. I can't say the same for your God.

Do you have proof that Elvis isn't talking (and occasionally singing) to me?

First you give me proof that I do not have a relationship with God and then I will answer you question

First you give me proof that I do not have a relationship with Elvis and then I will answer your question.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "gsaint"So I will re-post my statement to you fine ladies and Gentlemen out there

I said to Mr. lundberg500 "I live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God."

I still haven't heard anyone disprove this point

I will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

*sigh* Not this again.  How many times do you have to be told that nobody is offering subjective evidence for why you should believe?  It is offered as a reason for why that singular individual believes, and in that, they are justified.  We've been over this...

This idea that the God I believe in can somehow be denoucned logically, well on that contrary, myself, along with many others working in the top of their fields, whether philosophy, cosmology, biology, history, you name it, have logically arrived at the God of the Bible. It's not that difficult.  

I've asked you on several occasions to prove to me that you're not a brain in a vat, but alas, you refuse. I'm waiting. And until you prove that then what good is it to say that you are not suicidal and not heartless?

Quote from: "lundberg500"As an atheist, I truly cannot understand how someone can let themselves ever believe that they are in a personal relationship with something or someone that cannot be seen or heard. This completely baffles me. I personally would worry about my own sanity if I was ever in a relationship like that. Is this some sort of psychological comfort to them that they feel they need and can't live without? I really don't understand.

Believing in beings which cannot be seen or heard is not a sign of mental illness. It is no different from believing in the electron despite never seeing one---or believing in Santa Claus. Both correct and incorrect beliefs in invisible beings are held by sane people. The reason that we have some incorrect beliefs in invisible beings is not mental illness. It's a failure to be skeptical. But skepticism has to be taught. It is not nearly as natural as believing in invisible beings. (Now believing in beings which you see and hear but nobody else does ... that might be a different story.)

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteWhat business is it of yours? It's his personal relationship with Elvis.

more verbal dancing yet no proof.

Hey, you should google the phrase "hoist by his own petard."

Quote from: "metaed"

Quote from: "lundberg500"As an atheist, I truly cannot understand how someone can let themselves ever believe that they are in a personal relationship with something or someone that cannot be seen or heard. This completely baffles me. I personally would worry about my own sanity if I was ever in a relationship like that. Is this some sort of psychological comfort to them that they feel they need and can't live without? I really don't understand.

Believing in beings which cannot be seen or heard is not a sign of mental illness. It is no different from believing in the electron despite never seeing one---or believing in Santa Claus. Both correct and incorrect beliefs in invisible beings are held by sane people. The reason that we have some incorrect beliefs in invisible beings is not mental illness. It's a failure to be skeptical. But skepticism has to be taught. It is not nearly as natural as believing in invisible beings. (Now believing in beings which you see and hear but nobody else does ... that might be a different story.)

Great post.

QuoteFirst you give me proof that I do not have a relationship with Elvis and then I will answer your question.

does this mean you quit?

I do appreciate an objective direct answer from metaed. I don't need someone to agree with me I just someone willing to share their proof that I do not have a relationship with God.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "metaed"

Quote from: "lundberg500"As an atheist, I truly cannot understand how someone can let themselves ever believe that they are in a personal relationship with something or someone that cannot be seen or heard. This completely baffles me. I personally would worry about my own sanity if I was ever in a relationship like that. Is this some sort of psychological comfort to them that they feel they need and can't live without? I really don't understand.

Believing in beings which cannot be seen or heard is not a sign of mental illness. It is no different from believing in the electron despite never seeing one---or believing in Santa Claus. Both correct and incorrect beliefs in invisible beings are held by sane people. The reason that we have some incorrect beliefs in invisible beings is not mental illness. It's a failure to be skeptical. But skepticism has to be taught. It is not nearly as natural as believing in invisible beings. (Now believing in beings which you see and hear but nobody else does ... that might be a different story.)

Great post.

From here (http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/09/first-detailed-photos-of-atoms.html):

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi51.tinypic.com%2F2ahcilc.jpg&hash=6da3266aad605b0a7e51e56a528220e27d79d5c7)

Quote from: "metaed"

Quote from: "lundberg500"As an atheist, I truly cannot understand how someone can let themselves ever believe that they are in a personal relationship with something or someone that cannot be seen or heard. This completely baffles me. I personally would worry about my own sanity if I was ever in a relationship like that. Is this some sort of psychological comfort to them that they feel they need and can't live without? I really don't understand.

Believing in beings which cannot be seen or heard is not a sign of mental illness. It is no different from believing in the electron despite never seeing one---or believing in Santa Claus. Both correct and incorrect beliefs in invisible beings are held by sane people. The reason that we have some incorrect beliefs in invisible beings is not mental illness. It's a failure to be skeptical. But skepticism has to be taught. It is not nearly as natural as believing in invisible beings. (Now believing in beings which you see and hear but nobody else does ... that might be a different story.)

The key phrase in Lundberg's post is "personal relationship".

I believe in things that cannot be seen or heard (like...uh...), but I do not think that they know and love me. That's the difference.

I do agree that theism isn't a mental illness, just a lack of healthy skepticism.

EDIT: Maybe I don't actually believe in anything that can't be seen or heard.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "gsaint"So I will re-post my statement to you fine ladies and Gentlemen out there

I said to Mr. lundberg500 "I live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God."

I still haven't heard anyone disprove this point

I will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

*sigh* Not this again.  How many times do you have to be told that nobody is offering subjective evidence for why you should believe?

Not true. Lots of Christians are, even if you are not one of them.

QuoteIt is offered as a reason for why that singular individual believes, and in that, they are justified.  We've been over this...

Just like I'm justified in believing that Elvis talks to me. Glad we could sort that out.

QuoteI've asked you on several occasions to prove to me that you're not a brain in a vat, but alas, you refuse. I'm waiting. And until you prove that then what good is it to say that you are not suicidal and not heartless?

It's an axiom that I'm not a brain in a vat. We've been over this...

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteEnergy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed

That eliminates the need for God right there.  

That's a sloppy restatement of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, which is only concerned with closed systems.

Energy/matter has extension in spacetime. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive addition. Therefore the temporal events of the past cannot be an actual infinite.

Since nothing with extension in spacetime can have always existed, anything with extension in spacetime has to have been caused to exist, energy included.

QuoteSince nothing with extension in spacetime can have always existed, anything with extension in spacetime has to have been caused to exist, energy included.

You've gussied up Anselm with scientific language, yet you've committed his fallacy of special pleading.

Since I have yet to see any evidence that anyone can provide that debunks my relationship with God. I will have to say that the Atheist's view point, on a relationship with God, is based on a blind belief.  I will periodically pop back in to see if anyone has presented proof that what I experience is incorrect.

Quote from: "gsaint"Since I have yet to see any evidence that anyone can provide that debunks my relationship with God. I will have to say that the Atheist's view point, on a relationship with God, is based on a blind belief.  I will periodically pop back in to see if anyone has presented proof that what I experience is incorrect.

I just talked to Elvis, and he told me that what you experience is incorrect. That's my proof.

What you believe is none of my business, really, is it?  So long as you don't push it on me, at least.

Quote from: "Achronos"myself, along with many others working in the top of their fields, whether philosophy, cosmology, biology, history, you name it, have logically arrived at the God of the Bible. It's not that difficult.

And yet you come to a forum full of people who live by logic and reasoning and you are unable to show them in a convincing logical fashion that the god of the bible is true.

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteI will believe that Elvis Presley has been talking to me in my head for 20 years, and will continue to believe so, until you can prove that he hasn't and won't.

I'm waiting.

so what your saying is you have no proof?

What he is saying is that there is no reason for anyone to take your claim of hearing god in your head as serious proof of god and therefore there is no reason to attempt to disprove it.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"LS there's nothing wrong with "existential nihilism." It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist.

What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Let's see...you just told someone that they don't like living and that they have no love in them...can you give me a reason for why I shouldn't issue strike 3?

eh hem...are you going to address this?  If you don't address it then next time I won't even give you a chance to explain yourself.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not true. Lots of Christians are, even if you are not one of them.

So that's in then?  As long as one Christian somewhere does it, then the entire foundations of Christianity rest upon that?

QuoteJust like I'm justified in believing that Elvis talks to me. Glad we could sort that out.

Principle. Of. Credulity.  Learn it.  It's plainly clear that you do not know it.

QuotePrinciple of Testimony - with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eye-witnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.

"I believe that the Judeo-Christian God, an omniscicent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who exists outside of space and time, has a personality, created the universe, has always existed, did all of the things credited to him in the Bible, a book full of internal and external contradictions, absurdities, and clear inspirations from other religions/cultures/stories that he wrote etc., is communicating to me through my head, and we have a personal relationship."

"I believe that Elvis Presley, a dead celebrity whose existence is verifiable, is communicating to me through my head."

By the way, you said earlier that you didn't mean God talking to you through your head. What did you mean, then? Isn't that what prayer is all about?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Not true. Lots of Christians are, even if you are not one of them.

So that's in then?  As long as one Christian somewhere does it, then the entire foundations of Christianity rest upon that?

When did I say, or even imply, that?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"LS there's nothing wrong with "existential nihilism." It's a condition that reflects your faith. Existentially speaking you prefer not existing and your hope is for it to materialize that way. The problem is that may not be exactly how things are. Your faith is guiding you to that condition and it may very well be delusional. Proof of non-existence can't be proven since no one who has died has come back to tell us that, that is how it is on the other side. Existentially, It's a question that will never be answered by anyone. It's a circular argument without any proofs. True science requires proofs. The truth of the matter is that one will always be gambling when it comes to the question of does god exist.

What drives me and others I suppose to belief in god rather than disbelieving is love. Proof doesn't exist either fore or against. What does exist is want and if we have love in us. We follow Christ who is love.

Let's see...you just told someone that they don't like living and that they have no love in them...can you give me a reason for why I shouldn't issue strike 3?

eh hem...are you going to address this?  If you don't address it then next time I won't even give you a chance to explain yourself.

You have an issue with my last statement, which is understanable, however I should clarify that I am speaking about Christians. God's revelation is given to something called a loving heart. We know from the Scriptures that God is love; Christianity is the Religion of Love. (You may look at the failures, see people who call themselves Christians and are not, and say there is no love there; but Christianity is indeed the religion of love when it is successful and practiced in the right way.) Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that it is above all by their love that His true disciples are to be distinguished.

That is what I mean when Christians follow Christ, because He is love. I am stating what drives me to believe in Christ. If you feel that He isn't love, or you can find love some other way, that's fine. But it's this materialistic, existential nihilism, which does lead to hate (as we've seen in history), serving only yourself and ultimately non-existence. This exactly why I called LS out on being just a brain in a vat. All you are basically, are the atoms that make up your body and that's it. No hope for something else, none it's this life and that's it. Those memories, loved ones, all of it vanish at your death. Now how exactly can you tell me that's love? You really think the majority of people are going to buy that? This is the fallacy of materialism. And it is a tragedy.

Quote from: "Achronos"You have an issue with my last statement, which is understanable, however I should clarify that I am speaking about Christians. God's revelation is given to something called a loving heart. We know from the Scriptures that God is love; Christianity is the Religion of Love. (You may look at the failures, see people who call themselves Christians and are not, and say there is no love there; but Christianity is indeed the religion of love when it is successful and practiced in the right way.) Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that it is above all by their love that His true disciples are to be distinguished.

If I had to look at all the world's religions and pick one to give the title of "Religion of Love" to, I'd probably pick one of those Eastern religions, like Buddhism or Confucianism or something.

QuoteThat is what I mean when Christians follow Christ, because He is love.

The Christ depicted in the Bible isn't, which, despite your claims to the contrary, is the only basis for your religion.

QuoteI am stating what drives me to believe in Christ.

Isn't that an appeal to consequences fallacy?

QuoteIf you feel that He isn't love, or you can find love some other way, that's fine.

I won't get tortured in Hell?

QuoteBut it's this materialistic, existential nihilism, which does lead to hate (as we've seen in history), serving only yourself and ultimately non-existence.

Another seemingly appeal to consequences fallacy. Also, examples?

QuoteThis exactly why I called LS out on being just a brain in a vat.

I prefer to call myself a bag of meat, but whatever term you think fits.

QuoteAll you are basically, are the atoms that make up your body and that's it.

Yep. That's all that anything is.

QuoteNo hope for something else, none it's this life and that's it.

Yep. Probably.

QuoteThose memories, loved ones, all of it vanish at your death.

Unless technology has advanced far enough to preserved my brain or clone me or make me a transhuman, yep.

QuoteNow how exactly can you tell me that's love?

...Did I ever say it was love?

QuoteYou really think the majority of people are going to buy that?

No.

QuoteThis is the fallacy of materialism.

Fallacy? Which one, exactly?

QuoteAnd it is a tragedy.

Perhaps, if you wish to see it as such.

LS I am only going to say this one last time, Chrsitianity and I mean historic Christianity is no way based on the Bible (It wasn't even canonized until a couple hundred years after His Resurrection). It only serves as a witness of what we do and I will say that it is a book created by man using human terms to describe the divine experience. And if you do not have the interpretation from the authors who wrote these books, then you will never understand it. I wish it was as easy as opening up the 4 Gospels and learning all about Christ, but that is just not the case.

I personally don't believe you will be tortued in "Hell" (if that is even a literal place, which I actually do not hold to). I am willing to argue that God will serve a "harsher" judgment on the Christians but we are all judged individually. I know the American  side likes to preach "fire and brimstone" and condemn those that don't  believe. If that was the case, then Christ would have condemned everyone when he was on this Earth; no he came to give the free gift of eternal life to everyone, not just a select group.

QuoteI prefer to call myself a bag of meat,

Well I think that settles this debate and any future one then.

Quote from: "Achronos"LS I am only going to say this one last time, Chrsitianity and I mean historic Christianity is no way based on the Bible (It wasn't even canonized until a couple hundred years after His Resurrection). It only serves as a witness of what we do and I will say that it is a book created by man using human terms to describe the divine experience. And if you do not have the interpretation from the authors who wrote these books, then you will never understand it. I wish it was as easy as opening up the 4 Gospels and learning all about Christ, but that is just not the case.

I'm talking about modern day Christianity.

QuoteI personally don't believe you will be tortued in "Hell" (if that is even a literal place, which I actually do not hold to). I am willing to argue that God will serve a "harsher" judgment on the Christians but we are all judged individually. I know the American  side likes to preach "fire and brimstone" and condemn those that don't  believe. If that was the case, then Christ would have condemned everyone when he was on this Earth; no he came to give the free gift of eternal life to everyone, not just a select group.

Fair enough, I guess.

Quote

QuoteI prefer to call myself a bag of meat,

Well I think that settles this debate and any future one then.

...What. Why?

Achronos,  love doesn't require eternal reward, its a reward in itself.  

I'm well aware of the typical Christian view of love...yours doesn't really seem to fit it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm talking about modern day Christianity.

What you are speaking of, or should I say throwing all the Christians in a Protestant Evangelical group.

You also did say:

QuoteThe Christ depicted in the Bible isn't, which, despite your claims to the contrary, is the only basis for your religion.

So what about the Christ that was depicted before the Bible? I guess that really doesn't matter, because in actuality the original Church that he established was about the life he gave to people. If you villianize Christ by the Bible, and if that was an accurate assesment, then would Christianity be as explosive as it was in the first 3 centuries leading up the legalization of Christianity by Constantine? If Christ was so bad, why would anyone follow him? To take that further, why would anyone die for that? 11 of the 12 apostles were martyed on a lie? What they came together and decided "Oh so we are going to make this great myth up about the Son of God, Him doing these miracles, and He rose from the dead...but here's the catch we could die by spreading this story!" Yeah that sounds real plausible.

QuoteIFair enough, I guess.

And that is either you believe or not. You really think it would be fair that only the Christians would be saved and even some of the most holiest, good, honest atheists I have encountered (who are more pious than alot of Christians I've encountered) are going to be tortued for eternity?

Now that is illogical.

Quote[...What. Why?

If all you are is a bag of meat, well sorry to say but there really is no point in conversing with you then.

QuoteAchronos, love doesn't require eternal reward, its a reward in itself.

I agree.

QuoteI'm well aware of the typical Christian view of love...yours doesn't really seem to fit it.

What do you mean, that we only love for that eternal reward? I'll be honest, if I loved people as much as I could and I don't get eternal life, so be it.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm talking about modern day Christianity.

What you are speaking of, or should I say throwing all the Christians in a Protestant Evangelical group.

You also did say:

QuoteThe Christ depicted in the Bible isn't, which, despite your claims to the contrary, is the only basis for your religion.

So what about the Christ that was depicted before the Bible? I guess that really doesn't matter, because in actuality the original Church that he established was about the life he gave to people. If you villianize Christ by the Bible, and if that was an accurate assesment, then would Christianity be as explosive as it was in the first 3 centuries leading up the legalization of Christianity by Constantine? If Christ was so bad, why would anyone follow him? To take that further, why would anyone die for that? 11 of the 12 apostles were martyed on a lie? What they came together and decided "Oh so we are going to make this great myth up about the Son of God, Him doing these miracles, and He rose from the dead...but here's the catch we could die by spreading this story!" Yeah that sounds real plausible.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus never existed and his story is just that -- a story.

Quote

QuoteIFair enough, I guess.

And that is either you believe or not. You really think it would be fair that only the Christians would be saved and even some of the most holiest, good, honest atheists I have encountered (who are more pious than alot of Christians I've encountered) are going to be tortued for eternity?

Now that is illogical.

Yes, because it's obvious that's what I believe. Haven't I made it clear that I'm an average-joe Christian in the time I've been here?

Quote

Quote[...What. Why?

If all you are is a bag of meat, well sorry to say but there really is no point in conversing with you then.

Why?

And, sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

This isn't an argument. This is pontificating.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteSince nothing with extension in spacetime can have always existed, anything with extension in spacetime has to have been caused to exist, energy included.

You've gussied up Anselm with scientific language, yet you've committed his fallacy of special pleading.

Actually, my syllogisms are Thomistic.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

This isn't an argument. This is pontificating.

What exactly is wrong with my "pontification"? And you still have failed to explain why saying that I'm a bag of meat makes you win the debate.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And, sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feelit necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

This isn't an argument. This is pontificating.

What exactly is wrong with my "pontification"? And you still have failed to explain why saying that I'm a bag of meat makes you win the debate.

Goodness...if I wanted to debate with a bag of meat then I'll just pull out the bag of meat in my freezer.

Ugly... giant... bags of mostly water!
[youtube:2mvz3l42]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH97dYR6Lg[/youtube:2mvz3l42]

It's clear you have such utter contempt for what is spiritual, so why even bother with religion at all? You are not quite convinced yet just how troubling the trustworthiness of the brain is for materialists. I rather do appreciate people who take being rational as a serious pursuit, because I think we are too often ruled by our passions and emotions, neither of which do we spend much time trying to examine. However, the search for truth requires a certain amount of practicality: a logical argument does not always account for reality.  Lots of things happen that are illogical, which is why we still have problems with our computers! :sigh:

Quote from: "gsaint"So I will re-post my statement to you fine ladies and Gentlemen out there

I said to Mr. lundberg500 "I live with God daily. You have shown me nothing that says that what I am experiencing is a delusion. You haven't been able to do so because you can't prove your point. I will believe this until you give me good solid proof to disprove a 20 year relationship with God."

I still haven't heard anyone disprove this point

First, the theist has the burden of proof by making that positive statement bolded in red above. In your case you have to show the existence of this god and that you also have some sort of relationship with it.
Secondly, a person who has a persistent false (sometimes psychotic) belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence suffers from a delusion.

When you can show this to us, we may then proceed.

Quote from: "gsaint"I live with God daily.

The absence of:
1) Any clear, convincing, coherent definition of god, and
2) Any evidence of something that exists and has some effect(s) on the natural world yet is not explicable within it...
3) Show why the evidence you present is more compelling than the other definitions of gods.

I can safely say that you do not, indeed, live with God daily. On the other hand, is Thor, the God of Thunder, the same god you've deluded yourself to believe is NOT real?

I'm sure that Yahweh doesn't exist for the same reason I know square circles don't exist. As sure as I assume you are that The Tooth Fairy does not exist. I mean, after all, no-one has shown otherwise. First I'd have to know what a god is. I know it's not any of the things people say are gods - those are all human creations - so I'd have to find out what exactly it is. After that, it's simple; like anything that wanted to prove its existence, it would only have to show itself to me. Then I wouldn't even have to believe it existed; I would know.

Of course, gsaint could put every god in a line-up. gsaint could point out all the ones and exclaim "Those, those are the gods that don't exist."Then my question would be, point to the one that does. But is it really the same god or do we just see it differently because sometimes he wears a silly hat? So when you offer your evidence of this god:
If a god exists, and has the ability to influence things on this planet, and/or in my life, then it must be detectable.
What color is it?
What does it smell like?
How big is it?
What does it sound like?
What does it feel like?
Where does it reside?

Please note that any answer you give must be accompanied with evidence. Something you read in a book is not acceptable.
But do remember that these are not proofs:
Monotheism's Origins
An Argument from God's Simplicity
An Argument from God's Perfection
An Argument from God's Sovereignty
Argument from Causal Order
An Argument from God's “Total Causality”
An Argument from Omnipotence
An Argument from the Demand for Total Devotion
An Argument from Achronos

At any rate, if there was a god which existed, that god would know and be able to provide the evidence which would convince me of that god's existence. After a 20 year relationship, presenting the evidence should be rather simple.


It would seem possible that a god might exist, and not care whether you know it exist or not, or what you believe. The functional difference between such a god, and no god appears to be nil. If there is no functional difference between that god and no god, then no god is the preferred explanation. Pardon me, I was merely pondering the question of whether a god that exists would 'necessarily' have to have any requirement to make himself definitively known.

Alas, once a person begins to require evidence, such as myself, belief is no longer the issue. Faith and reason appear to be mutually exclusive. I've never been able to figure out why God would appeal to man via faith, rather than reason. If, as I reckon you believe, God is creator of man, then God created man with the ability to reason. So why abandon reason in deference to faith? If God were to appeal to our reason, such that belief was no longer necessary, then we would know God rather than just believe we know.

Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God? If you don't trust me or have faith in what I say then you won't except what I have to say anyway. You say you are willing to hear but I am not so sure. You tell me the burden of proof is on be but I believe you idea that all of creation came into existence from nothing far harder to believe. I have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

QuoteSo why abandon reason in deference to faith? If God were to appeal to our reason, such that belief was no longer necessary, then we would know God rather than just believe we know.

I you really want to know.  God uses reason and faith. Still He requires faith becasue He wants you to trust Him. He wants you to trust Him enough to obey Him.

Quote from: "gsaint"Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God? If you don't trust me or have faith in what I say then you won't except what I have to say anyway. You say you are willing to hear but I am not so sure. You tell me the burden of proof is on be but I believe you idea that all of creation came into existence from nothing far harder to believe. I have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

1. Why should we trust with unquestioning faith what somebody on the internet says?
2. How is it you became the authority on God, the meaning to life, the universe and everything?

Quote from: "gsaint"Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God?

I know that you believe that your god exists. I won't believe in your god simply because you tell me that your god exists.

Quote from: "gsaint"I have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

The obvious retort here would be
Have you seen your god create something into existence?

Quote from: "gsaint"He wants you to trust Him enough to obey Him.

What a wonderful proposition for a personal relationship, much like a dog obeys its master

Quote from: "gsaint"Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God?

Why should I?

QuoteIf you don't trust me or have faith in what I say then you won't except what I have to say anyway.

I believe that you believe that you have a personal relationship with God.

QuoteYou say you are willing to hear but I am not so sure.

Of course you aren't.

QuoteYou tell me the burden of proof is on be but I believe you idea that all of creation came into existence from nothing far harder to believe.

STRAW MAN ALERT! STRAW MAN ALERT! Also, I'm pretty sure it's another fallacy...maybe a non sequitor.

QuoteI have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

I've never seen your God, or any god, actually.

Quote

QuoteSo why abandon reason in deference to faith? If God were to appeal to our reason, such that belief was no longer necessary, then we would know God rather than just believe we know.

I you really want to know.  God uses reason and faith. Still He requires faith becasue He wants you to trust Him. He wants you to trust Him enough to obey Him.

He can't appeal to our reason because that would mean we wouldn't trust him? What?

EDIT: Ah! It was a red herring!

Yeah, logical fallacies will get you nowhere here, gsaint.

Quote from: "gsaint"Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God?

I can take that two different ways.
1) Would I trust you to tell me what you believe is true about the existence of a god. The answer to that is yes.
2) Or, do I trust you enough to believe in your evidence about the existence of a god.

QuoteIf you don't trust me or have faith in what I say then you won't except what I have to say anyway.

I have no choice but to trust you...trust anyone, until otherwise certain circumstances arise that would lead me away from that trust. I'm fine on the trust issue, but why throw in the extra caveat? Faith.

QuoteYou say you are willing to hear but I am not so sure.

You don't know me very well, so I can understand that. I'll hear any evidence for the existence of any god, deity, supernatural entity anyone has to offer.

QuoteYou tell me the burden of proof is on be but...

Yes. The burden of proof for the existence of the god you believe in is on you. Anyone who makes a positive statement, the burden is on them to show evidence.

Quote..but I believe you idea that all of creation came into existence from nothing far harder to believe. I have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

I for one can happily say I don't know how everything started; it wasn't my idea. Is this your evidence? Your evidence for the existence of the god you believe in is 'creation'?

QuoteI you really want to know.  God uses reason and faith.

How can you possibly know this?

QuoteStill He requires faith becasue He wants you to trust Him.

How quaint. I see how you started the post with trust issues of me and you and now slip it in to me and god. You see, I can trust you because I'm fairly sure a live human being that wrote the post I'm responding to. I have no reason not to think otherwise. And, if I had the time and money, I'm sure, with your permission, I could eventually see you in person to verify you're the one who wrote your post. Relatively speaking, that would be easy. But not for a god that hides itself away. How do you know this to be true and why is it true for everyone?

QuoteHe wants you to trust Him enough to obey Him.

Almost like Charlie's Angels. But at least the girls could HEAR him. At least the girls had the same experience of Charlie and could verify it with a man named Bosley, who heard Charlies as well.

I do not hear gods. There are over 2700 gods, deities and supernatural entities (qualifying for worship) that have been posited to exist. So far, I have heard none of them. The longer you write, presenting no evidence, the more cans you open and we get nowhere. Let's just take the first baby step and offer your evidence for the existence of your god.

Quote from: "gsaint"Do you trust me enough to believe what I have to say about the existence of God?

I can take that two different ways.
1) Would I trust you to tell me what you believe is true about the existence of a god? The answer to that is yes.
2) Or, do I trust you enough to believe in your evidence about the existence of a god? The answer to that remains to be seen.

QuoteIf you don't trust me or have faith in what I say then you won't except what I have to say anyway.

I have no choice but to trust you...trust anyone, until otherwise certain circumstances arise that would lead me away from that trust. I'm fine on the trust issue, but why throw in the extra caveat? Faith.

QuoteYou say you are willing to hear but I am not so sure.

You don't know me very well, so I can understand that. I'll hear any evidence for the existence of any god, deity, supernatural entity anyone has to offer.

QuoteYou tell me the burden of proof is on be but...

Yes. The burden of proof for the existence of the god you believe in is on you. Anyone who makes a positive statement, the burden is on them to show evidence.

Quote..but I believe you idea that all of creation came into existence from nothing far harder to believe. I have never seen something pop into existence from nothing.

I for one can happily say I don't know how everything started; it wasn't my idea. Is this your evidence? Your evidence for the existence of the god you believe in is 'creation'?

QuoteI you really want to know.  God uses reason and faith.

How can you possibly know this?

QuoteStill He requires faith becasue He wants you to trust Him.

How quaint. I see how you started the post with trust issues of me and you and now slip it in to me and god. You see, I can trust you because I'm fairly sure a live human being that wrote the post I'm responding to. I have no reason not to think otherwise. And, if I had the time and money, I'm sure, with your permission, I could eventually see you in person to verify you're the one who wrote your post. Relatively speaking, that would be easy. But not for a god that hides itself away. How do you know this to be true and why is it true for everyone?

QuoteHe wants you to trust Him enough to obey Him.

Almost like Charlie's Angels. But at least the girls could HEAR him. At least the girls had the same experience of Charlie and could verify it with a man named Bosley, who heard Charlies as well. I do not hear gods. There are over 2700 gods, deities and supernatural entities (qualifying for worship) that have been posited to exist. So far, I have heard none of them. The longer you write, presenting no evidence, the more cans you open and we get nowhere.

Now, I said above I trust you. Fulfill that trust and take the first baby step and offer your evidence for the existence of your god. I'm quite willing to hear it.

One more thing to help us move along. We need a definition of God. Since I think you are Christian, I'll write a definition of God and you may change, add or delete the definition as you see fit.

God is:
the supreme being of the universe; an unbodied mind, is everywhere
and transcends everything.
righteous in all its attitudes and actions (which includes),  
free from sin,
perfect in character,  
and just.

God is also:
eternal (without beginning or end),
Omnipotent,
omniscient,  
omnibenevolent (love and all good),
limitless in authority,
immutable,
and truth.

Moreover, God is self-existent,
nonspatial,
nonmaterial,
unimaginably powerful,
and personal.

Does that work for you?

Also, don't forget that I'm not asking for 100% proof. I'm asking for probable evidence that your God has a basis in reality.

thank you all for answering honestly.  I suspected you would say what you all said so I find myself at a disadvantage. What would make you trust what I had to say?

QuoteHow quaint. I see how you started the post with trust issues of me and you and now slip it in to me and god. You see, I can trust you because I'm fairly sure a live human being that wrote the post I'm responding to. I have no reason not to think otherwise. And, if I had the time and money, I'm sure, with your permission, I could eventually see you in person to verify you're the one who wrote your post. Relatively speaking, that would be easy. But not for a god that hides itself away. How do you know this to be true and why is it true for everyone?

Why do you think God hides himself away?  Yes you could do all this to find out I exist. So I am going to assume that you think anyone should be able to do the same with God. I would have to say that yes you should be able to actively look for God and find Him. Now the question is do you really want to find Him? Are you more comfortable with the fact that there is no God or would you like to know Him? Like you stated before that time, money and my permission are the things that you would need first before you would go out and find me. I would also say that you would also have to care enough to want to find me. If you don't care you may never find me right? Even if I was sitting next to you on a bus you wouldn't know it was me becasue you wouldn't care enough to search. Could this not be the same with God? Let me clarify somethings. No God does not occupy space or time like I do but that doesn't mean He is impossible to find.

Gawen your definition is mostly correct I will add somethings

He is the Triune God comprised of the God Head (father), Jesus the son fully man and fully God, The Holy Spirit which resides in all those who exchange their life for the life of Christ.
Jesus became sin for all man kind to be forgiven of sin
The Holy Spirit is a guide and councilor for daily life
All parts of the trinity are all equal

Quote from: "gsaint"thank you all for answering honestly.  I suspected you would say what you all said so I find myself at a disadvantage. What would make you trust what I had to say?

Answer me this: why should I trust what you say when it comes to matters of religion, and not iSok, who claims that Islam is true, not Christianity?

QuoteWhy do you think God hides himself away?

If he isn't hiding, then why is there no evidence for his existence? "The beauty of nature" and other such bullshit answers do not count as evidence.

QuoteYes you could do all this to find out I exist. So I am going to assume that you think anyone should be able to do the same with God. I would have to say that yes you should be able to actively look for God and find Him.

I've looked for him, and haven't found him.

QuoteNow the question is do you really want to find Him?

I did, and I still do wish that a god exists.

QuoteAre you more comfortable with the fact that there is no God

No.

Quoteor would you like to know Him?

If he exists, then yes.

QuoteLike you stated before that time, money and my permission are the things that you would need first before you would go out and find me. I would also say that you would also have to care enough to want to find me. If you don't care you may never find me right?

Why wouldn't we care? Our immortal souls are on the line.

QuoteEven if I was sitting next to you on a bus you wouldn't know it was me becasue you wouldn't care enough to search.

I would attribute not asking everyone on a bus whether they were you to lack of motivation.

QuoteCould this not be the same with God? Let me clarify somethings. No God does not occupy space or time like I do but that doesn't mean He is impossible to find.

I'm pretty sure that means he is.

Quote from: "gsaint"thank you all for answering honestly.  I suspected you would say what you all said so I find myself at a disadvantage. What would make you trust what I had to say?

Trust is not an issue, as I said above.
Thank you for the additions to what God IS, btw. Now that we have exposed God for what it is, you still must show me HOW you KNOW it.

QuoteWhy do you think God hides himself away?

I'm not entirely sure. My current train of thought is that God/s do not exist and that is why I can't see, feel, hear, smell, taste them. I was hoping for something a bit more substantial in your reply to me...like the evidence you have that causes you to believe your God exists. It simply cannot be that 'you looked for him'.

QuoteNow the question is do you really want to find Him?

Let's not cover previous ground, shall we? Provide your evidence of its existence and the way I am able to find it. Whether I care or not is neither here nor there. Assume there is some curiosity on my part which I suppose would denote a degree of 'caring'.

QuoteNo God does not occupy space or time like I do but that doesn't mean He is impossible to find.

I shall endeavour to remember this in future debate with you. However, first things first. The evidence of your Gods existence...if you please.

Perhaps if I ask you in this way?
What criteria do YOU use to decide if something exists?
What criteria do you use in regard as evidence of non-existence?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You've gussied up Anselm with scientific language, yet you've committed his fallacy of special pleading.

Actually, my syllogisms are Thomistic.

I first read it in Anselm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm.27s_argument)

You may wish to call it "Thomistic", or what-have-you.  I call it bullshit, because it's an example of special pleading.

It'd be nice if you addressed that aspect, but I'm sure you have some meeting of world-famous theologians to attend, or something.

My criteria for the fact that God does exist

He is able to manipulate things if he wants to
You can communicate with him through prayer
Answered prayer and provisions.
Blesses his people not necessarily monetary
The people who's lives have been changed
Prophesies being fulfilled or the fact He keeps His promises

The changed life is the important part of Christianity and is one of the promises of God. Here is a link to a dramatization of people's who's live have been changed by their relationship with God
http://www.unshackled.org/listen_10.html If you would like to know about my story just PM me.

Prophesies are the next thing. It says in the Bible that if there are prophesies that are not fulfilled then those prophesies are not from God. So that should me that everyone of the Prophesies in the Bible should be come true correct? There are a lot so I will not God through them all but

Read all of Psalms 22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2022&version=NIV This was written by King David I don't know the actual date of this Psalm but the collection of 147 Psalms were written from the 1400BC-430BC.  I believe this to be a prophesy of Jesus on the Cross and Jesus even is quoted saying the first words of this verse in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. I will point you to a couple of verses that speak of the crucifixion Vs. 14-18 if you jump back to vs 8 people are quoted to have said these things if you look at Matthew 27:43

The City of Tyre is prophesied to be destroyed by many nations and the Phoenician would not be found again please read the verses and don't take my word for it in Amos 1:9-10 in Ezekiel 26:3,12,14 and 21 In Zechariah 9:3-4 . the book of Amos was written between 760-750 BC Ezekiel was written between 593-571 BC. So Tyre is in modern day Lebanon. The city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon for 13 years from 585 to 572 BC and was captured. Then in 332 BC Alexander the Great invaded the Persian Empire and the city served as a center for Persian Fleet. Since he wanted to make things go by quickly Alexander the great used the stones from the island fortress and built a causeway from the stone and timber. Check out vs Ezekiel 26:4,14. Alexander the great took care of the Phoenician empire.

the Defeat of Babylon was prophesied in Isaiah 13:1-14:23" 21:1-10 which was written in 700-680BC in 710 BC they were defeated by Sargon II a Assyrian king, then in 702 and 689 they were defeated by Sennacherib king of Assyria, in 648 they were besieged by Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, and later defeated in 539 the empire fell to Cyrus the Persian. In verse 14:23 it says that Babylon will become a swamp and it is.

The People of Israel will never be completely destroyed is prophesied in Leviticus 26:44 which was written in 1440 BC and they have been attacked by many nations and people and they are still hear.

Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed in Matthew 24:1-2 which was written around 70-80AD in 70 AD the Roman empire destroyed the empire and tore down the temple

The temple will be rebuilt Rev 11:1 they are already starting and check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYVZY6ImHk (just in case I did that wrong here is the link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYVZY6ImHk
In Luke 21:23-24 was written in 59-63 AD says that Jerusalem will be trampled on by gentiles or non-Jews. Just look at Jerusalem or the video above.

And like I have already said I speak with him daily  like today he wanted me to stand in a certain check out line even though I would have rather gone through the self check out. I ended up talking to a lady becasue of it. There was another time I was traveling from San Antonio TX to Austin TX there was a main walking on the Highway God said pull over and pick that man up. I did and the man told me while I was traveling that he had prayed to God that someone would give him a ride from San Antonio to Austin. He had just recently given his life to Christ.

Quote from: "gsaint"My criteria for the fact that God does exist

He is able to manipulate things if he wants to
You can communicate with him through prayer
Answered prayer and provisions.
Blesses his people not necessarily monetary
The people who's lives have been changed
Prophesies being fulfilled or the fact He keeps His promises

Those same criteria can be used to prove the existence of santa claus.

He is able to manipulate things if he wants to
   Got any testable evidence of this?

You can communicate with him through prayer
   If he's talking back to you could it be possibly be explained by something medical/psychological?

Answered prayer and provisions.
   Trying the same thing millions of times and getting a handful of positive results that can be explained without god is not proof. Why does it seem like if you pray for a new job you don't get it until you do it yourself and then god gets the credit?

Blesses his people not necessarily monetary
   So people say but it seems like getting blessed or not doesn't depend on whether you have faith or are even a good person, we certainly don't see any indication of "survival of the kindest"

The people who's lives have been changed
   Again, could this also not be explained by rational means such as people changing their own lives or others helping them out?

Prophesies being fulfilled or the fact He keeps His promises
   Where's solid evidence of this? I see mostly vague passages being interpreted to mean they predicted things that have happened but nothing even as clear as the predictions of nostradamus. Where's the verse that says "in 1969 men will land on the moon, it'll be on TV", or "Catholic priests will get busted for touching little boys but the pope will sweep it under the rug"

Gsaint, these reasons are extremely weak.

QuoteHe is able to manipulate things if he wants to

Only in your mind. Please prove otherwise.

QuoteYou can communicate with him through prayer

Ummm.. no, you can't. Again, only in your mind.

QuoteAnswered prayer and provisions.

Is this why thousands and thousands of innocent little children die each day from hunger? So, he can heal blisters and find good parking spaces for Christians while letting the kiddos in other countries die, right?

QuoteProphesies being fulfilled or the fact He keeps His promises

This one is very, very wrong. The New Testament writers wrote to fit the Old Testament prophecies. They were familiar with the Greek translated Old Testament. They used midrash of the prophecies to show that their Jesus fulfilled them. Again, you are taking the bible at its word that the events of the New Testament actually happened. The New Testament writers were just making the prophecies fit. The writer of Mark just used Psalms 22 as the basis for his own  writing about the death of his Jesus. It was real easy to do. Look at the Old Testament scripture and use a little midrash to get it to fit what you are writing about. Did Jesus keep his promise about returning? He said he would return in the generation of people standing before him then. Did that happen? NO. It has been almost 2,000 years.. and still no Jesus.

Here's where you are VERY wrong:

QuoteJesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed in Matthew 24:1-2 which was written around 70-80AD in 70 AD the Roman empire destroyed the empire and tore down the temple

Matthew was NOT written around 70-80 CE. There is no evidence that it was not written until the time of the Bar Kokhba revolution around 135 CE. NONE. Here again, the writers of the NT knew of the temple being destroyed in 70 CE and they made the prophecy fit. I believe that the Little Apocalypse fits perfectly when considered to have been written during the time of the Bar Kokhba revolution. It was written with a story of Jesus living before the destruction of the first temple. The author has Jesus tells his disciples that the temple will be destroyed. Jesus then tells of false prophets (like Simon Bar Kokhba), wars, and a final war where Jerusalem will be destroyed. At this time, the end of the world will come and Jesus will return. The author wants people to be saved through Jesus and flee Jerusalem. This is obviously written by an author who already knew that the temple had been destroyed in 70 CE and wanted to show that Jesus had predicted it. I believe that the writer of the Little Apocalypse thought that the Bar Kokhba revolt was going to culminate in the end of the world.

QuoteI speak with him daily like today he wanted me to stand in a certain check out line even though I would have rather gone through the self check out. I ended up talking to a lady becasue of it. There was another time I was traveling from San Antonio TX to Austin TX there was a main walking on the Highway God said pull over and pick that man up.

This is scary to me. You should read Dan Barker's book "Losing Faith in Faith". He was a former preacher and now atheist. He tells a story in his book about when he was still a devout Christian and he is driving his car. God is telling him where to turn and he ends up in a cornfield in the middle of nowhere.  

Oh, dear, that's a hoot.

There are 2500 prophecies in the bible. 2000 of those prophesies have been fulfilled and 500 are still in the future.
there are a 100 old Testament prophesies about Jesus that have been written and fulfilled in the bible.


So lundberg500 you postulate that the men in the first century took the old testament and found all of the prophesies pertaining to Jesus and wrote them down to support their claim about Jesus. That is a good question so lets explore it.
In Psalms 22, Psalms 34:20, and in Zechariah 20:12 it all takes in account the crucifixion of Jesus with vivid detail, but at that time crucifixion will not be invented for another 400 years.  So that is a very luck thing for the apostles to have an opprotunity to use these verse if they just made up the story. It such a lucky thing that it would be a 1 to 10^13 chance that they would be able to use these verses to support their made up story.
I have a question Who are they writing these books too in your idea of how the gospels came about?
 

QuoteMatthew was NOT written around 70-80 CE. There is no evidence that it was not written until the time of the Bar Kokhba revolution around 135 CE. NONE. Here again, the writers of the NT knew of the temple being destroyed in 70 CE and they made the prophecy fit. I believe that the Little Apocalypse fits perfectly when considered to have been written during the time of the Bar Kokhba revolution. It was written with a story of Jesus living before the destruction of the first temple. The author has Jesus tells his disciples that the temple will be destroyed. Jesus then tells of false prophets (like Simon Bar Kokhba), wars, and a final war where Jerusalem will be destroyed. At this time, the end of the world will come and Jesus will return. The author wants people to be saved through Jesus and flee Jerusalem. This is obviously written by an author who already knew that the temple had been destroyed in 70 CE and wanted to show that Jesus had predicted it. I believe that the writer of the Little Apocalypse thought that the Bar Kokhba revolt was going to culminate in the end of the world.

OK I will try as best I can to address your statement. It is believed that Luke used the gospels of Matthew and Mark. Now Luke and Act are the same document just split up so we can assume if we can date Acts then we can at least assume that Matthew and Mark are earlier then that.  
So Acts discusses the history of the early church and is centered around Jerusalem but there is no mention of the fall of the temple which happened in 70AD. There is no mention of Nero which happened in the mid-60 century. It wasn't becasue they were fearful of the roman government becasue even in the face of persecution and death of themselves or their family the christian still spread the word of Christ. The martyrdom of James 61AD Paul 64BC and Peter 65BC are not written about in Acts. If you will remember Acts does recount the martyrdom of Steven and James the brother of John. Since Paul and Peter are major figures in Acts it would be surprising that they would be omitted if Acts was written after their deaths. The war with the Romans was a big deal, which started in 66BC, So if Acts was written after the start of the war it would be strange that Luke didn't mention anything about the war. So it can be assumed that Act was written in the early 60's. So that would place the other books before that as well.

Still if you don't want to rely on Matthew this statement  of the temple being destroyed was also written in Mark 13:2 and in Luke 21:6

Quote

QuoteHe is able to manipulate things if he wants to

Only in your mind. Please prove otherwise.

The proof of the prophesies I have stated before show his power to do as he wishes.

QuoteUmmm.. no, you can't. Again, only in your mind.

You prove that it is only in my mind.

QuoteIs this why thousands and thousands of innocent little children die each day from hunger? So, he can heal blisters and find good parking spaces for Christians while letting the kiddos in other countries die, right?

God has devised a plan that these children don't die of hunger each day and that is those who believe in him should provide for those in need. If anyone is to blame for not supporting those children then it would be people like me. I and all those who put our faith in God need to make changes in our lives so that we can make sure less and less of the poor and starving in the world do not have to die hungry. We have the resources and I have already made plans to use my resources so that these children do not have to die of hunger or preventable disease. I have built it into my business to be able to give a portion of my profits to this cause and I hopefully can go with my church to Haiti. My church also makes provisions for those in need places around the world. There are programs and there are people willing to risk their lives and their comfort so that those needy children are feed and taken care of as well as hearing the word of God.

QuoteThis is scary to me. You should read Dan Barker's book "Losing Faith in Faith". He was a former preacher and now atheist. He tells a story in his book about when he was still a devout Christian and he is driving his car. God is telling him where to turn and he ends up in a cornfield in the middle of nowhere.

I didn't end up nowhere I ended up picking up a man that had prayed that he would be provided a way to Austin from San Antonio. I had just prayed that I would listen and respond to God. Both of our prayers were answered. Both he and I exist and both he and I never met each other until that day. Yet we both know and pray to the same God and on that day the same God answered both our prayers.

Quote from: "gsaint"There are 2500 prophecies in the bible. 2000 of those prophesies have been fulfilled and 500 are still in the future.

According to whom?

Also, Jesus was to return during the lifetimes of the witnesses.  That has obviously not happened.

Damascus was prophesied to become a ruinous heap.  That has obviously not happened; Damascus is one of the oldest cities still inhabited in the world.

The Nile has never dried up in its course.

Was your god wrong?  Were his prophets fools?

Or maybe there is no god or gods.

I see a ton of parallels with the book of mormon there, much of it was plagarized from the king james bible and the rest was entirely made up in order to show a bunch of prophecies having been fulfilled by claiming that it was a translation of a text written by someone in 600BC when in fact none of it was.

Now, if I wrote a book with a bunch of prophecies, all of which have come true (which they would since they actually describe events in the past.) Then claimed that the book was written long before those events and all I'd done was translate it from an earlier copy (which is now gone, angels took it back or something) it would seem like the book accurately predicted future events.

Its one of the oldest tricks around and has been used to fool people for centuries. You simply write about some events that people remember, date the book as being older than those events and then sprinkle in some morality tales and some vague future predictions (it works better if they don't happen until after you're gone, don't want people calling BS while you're still around). Then you add in some warnings about bad things that will happen to you if you question the book or the prophet or fall out of line with how the author wants you to behave.

You'd think in the age of science this sort of thing couldn't be done. After all if some sci-fi writer made up a bunch of crap to manipulate people into handing over money it be quickly proven to be junk and nobody would bother with it.

If you want to understand the bible for what it is read dianetics and the book of mormon, if you haven't converted to either by the time you're done ask yourself why and then read the bible again.

QuoteSo lundberg500 you postulate that the men in the first century took the old testament and found all of the prophesies pertaining to Jesus and wrote them down to support their claim about Jesus. That is a good question so lets explore it.
In Psalms 22, Psalms 34:20, and in Zechariah 20:12 it all takes in account the crucifixion of Jesus with vivid detail, but at that time crucifixion will not be invented for another 400 years. So that is a very luck thing for the apostles to have an opprotunity to use these verse if they just made up the story. It such a lucky thing that it would be a 1 to 10^13 chance that they would be able to use these verses to support their made up story.

You obviously don't understand what midrash means. Writers in the 2nd Century, not 1st, wrote stories using old testament prophecies and applied them to the Jesus character. Your point makes absolutely no sense at all. 1 in 10 chance, huh? The writers of the NT knew the Old Testament scripture. They wanted to show that their Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies so they applied them to their new writing. This was common with NT writers, see this link here:

http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_use_of_the_Old_Testament#Midrash

QuoteSo if Acts was written after the start of the war it would be strange that Luke didn't mention anything about the war. So it can be assumed that Act was written in the early 60's. So that would place the other books before that as well

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You will NEVER convince me that Acts written in the early 60's.     At this point, you have about lost all credibility with me. Acts was written much later than the 60s CE. This statement by you is just about an ender with me posting to you. I can tell now what I'm dealing with.

QuoteGod has devised a plan that these children don't die of hunger each day and that is those who believe in him should provide for those in need.

A plan? No, you don't get it. These children are dying every single day. There is no plan. Thousands die every day from hunger. What planet are you living on? Oh yeah, the delusional Christian bubble.

A relationship with God for me is more than just a mental excercise.

Quote from: "Achronos"A relationship with God for me is more than just a mental excercise.

How so?

Also -- how is it more than him talking to you in your head?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"A relationship with God for me is more than just a mental excercise.

How so?

Also -- how is it more than him talking to you in your head?

Well Orthodoxy itself is a relationship with God. Not a series of rules to live by, nor is it a theological system, nor is it a particular structure of church government. For us mystery is where we meet God, it is the present moment which is eternal.

I'll quote one of my favorite authors on this topic, Mr. Webber:

"Let's start from the beginning with the beginning of man. When man and woman (Adam and Eve) disobeyed God, He altered their reality so that they became aware of their seperateness, their estrangement, from God, who until then had been their sole purpose for being. The man and the woman rejected relatonship with God as a person and went into exile. They forced God to become an impersonal power, a demand, a commandment, just as a rebellious child forces a parent to become overpowering, impersonal, and free from dialouge when the child presses beyond the limits that have been provided for its safety and nurture.

According to the thoughts that course through the human mind, the situation that emerges at the end of the story of Adam and Eve is considered to be the end of the whole story. Certainly this situation is reflected in the attitude of contemporary society. God is a "take-it-or-leave-it" sort of thing, useful if manipulated, otherwise merely the relic of a bygone, unsophisticated age. This distant yet powerful God depends on logic and human interest to exist at all. Ultimately God is merely something or someone unknown by very powerful. Like children with their hands over their eyes, humanity can "unmake" God by covering their sight, thereby not only depriving themselves of the source of their lives, but emerging with a lack of the one thing they deem God capable of providing--an absolute sense of right and wrong.

Where there is power, there will always be human beings who like to wield it for their own ends. Throughout history, individuals have realized there is an advantage to be gained by persuading other people that they have this "God-power" under their control. This has been the normal function of religion in almost all civilizations, and it is demonstrated in a number of ways. Since, in this context, God is merely a force or a power, people try to control it, predict the mind of the power, or even foretell what the power is going to do next. They force the power to limit itself in one way or another, either making itself available only in a given form (in or through a particular interpretation of a scripture or revelation), or allowing it to function only through the intermediary of a priesthood, an infallible spokesperson, or a particular human institution. In the end such a religion becomes yet another way of manipulating people so that the few can control the many to benefit their own politicall, social, or financial aspirations.

These last few sentences are a fairly harsh judgment of what religion has meant to most people throughout most of our history. in fact, this is precisely what religion looks like when it is controlled by the ways of the fallen mind. Since the mind fears uncertainty, it is natural that, at this level, religion is used as a means of gaining certainty in an uncertain universe, as well as allowing some people to impose their own wants and desires on others in the name of their deity. If those with power label this certainty as "faith", they may think they have achieved their goal. However, this is not the case. Faith does not exist in the mind. It exists in the heart[/u]. And even in the heart, it is always a gift from God, not a conclusion of the mind's computation. In its fallen state, the best the mind can offer by way of faith is simply a strongly held opinion. "Strongly held opinion" describes prejudice, not faith.

We cannot make an opinion, even strongly held opinion, sacrosanct by labeling it "Faith" and then behaving for all the world as if it could not be challenged. To do so is to belittle genuine faith--which comes not as a result of thinking but as a result of trusting God--and to place our own needs as the driving force of the universe. If we need to be certain about anything, let it not be about our own fears and desires. If we are busy defending God, we can be fairly sure we are stuck in our minds. In the domain fo the heart, truth never needs a defense."

Here is Matt 26: 6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

Look at the last verse/sentence that is a pretty bold statement for those who were making something up. How could they know that their religion would move across the world? They didn't even know that some part of the would existed yet this statement is true. I even sharing it right now and it is showing up on screen in different parts of the world.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
This one is happening right now and if it doesn't get preached to the ends of the world then it is a lie and the end may or may not come, but if it does then it is all true.

There are other verses like these Psalms 98:3, Luke 24:7,

QuoteWrong, wrong, wrong. You will NEVER convince me that Acts written in the early 60's. At this point, you have about lost all credibility with me. Acts was written much later than the 60s CE. This statement by you is just about an ender with me posting to you. I can tell now what I'm dealing with.

If you don't mind would you share your information on how you came to this conclusion.

QuoteI see a ton of parallels with the book of Mormon there, much of it was plagiarized from the king james bible and the rest was entirely made up in order to show a bunch of prophecies having been fulfilled by claiming that it was a translation of a text written by someone in 600BC when in fact none of it was.

the book of Mormon and their prophet have inconsistencies that the Bible do not have. The book of Mormon is based in American and it goes into inscriptions of geography that don't fit with the area being describe. They have not been able to link the DNA of Native Americans with the people of Israel. Joseph Smith has prophesied may things that did not come true.
Joseph Smith said that Jesus would return within 56 years you can find that in the History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189. But Jesus did say No man will know when he will be coming back Matt 24:36
Joseph Smith said the the temple will be built in New Zion which would be Missouri. Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31The church was supposed to be built in Joseph Smith time but it wasn't instead they were driven out of that area in 1833.
Mr. Smith also said that all nations would be involved in the civil war Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3. All nations didn't get involved.
It says in Due 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

QuoteNow, if I wrote a book with a bunch of prophecies, all of which have come true (which they would since they actually describe events in the past.) Then claimed that the book was written long before those events and all I'd done was translate it from an earlier copy (which is now gone, angels took it back or something) it would seem like the book accurately predicted future events.

Its one of the oldest tricks around and has been used to fool people for centuries. You simply write about some events that people remember, date the book as being older than those events and then sprinkle in some morality tales and some vague future predictions (it works better if they don't happen until after you're gone, don't want people calling BS while you're still around). Then you add in some warnings about bad things that will happen to you if you question the book or the prophet or fall out of line with how the author wants you to behave.

Would you please provide the information that helped you come to this conclusion. Where did the idea of Christianity spring up and what evidence points to this claim? What were the names of the people who started it. Why did they start it? I understand you sincerely feel this way about his subject but if you wouldn't mind giving me historical data for you claim.  

Also there aren't a few moral tales and there aren't all vague predictions. It not so vague to say that not a stone will be left standing or that someone's story will be preached to all the world. That when you give your life to Christ the holy spirit will come to dell within you. It would be moral to tell people that (A) and (B) are wrong so do all you can not to do them. If you are making stuff up it is weird to say (A) and (B) are wrong and their is nothing that you can do to stop you from doing it. Yet their is on who came named Jesus who was fully man and fully God and he died a shameful and humiliating death on the cross and became sin so that you don't die the second death, which is eternal separation from God. So since Jesus did this for you all you need to do is accept his gift and the Holy Spirit will dwell in you so that you will have the power to not sin and you will be given the power to pick up your cross daily and follow after him.  

QuoteYou obviously don't understand what midrash means. Writers in the 2nd Century, not 1st, wrote stories using old testament prophecies and applied them to the Jesus character. Your point makes absolutely no sense at all. 1 in 10 chance, huh? The writers of the NT knew the Old Testament scripture. They wanted to show that their Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies so they applied them to their new writing. This was common with NT writers, see this link here:

Would you please explain in more depth who midrash is proof that Matthew was written in the 2nd Century.

I apologize if my earlier statements were confusing that is never my intention so I will try to clarify my statement.  The writers of the New testament had a 1 and 10to the 13th power chance or a 1 and a 10,000,000,000,000 chance that crucifixion would have existed in that time period to be used in their story. So if it was made up that is pretty lucky if it wasn't made up then it is pretty amazing.

QuoteA plan? No, you don't get it. These children are dying every single day. There is no plan. Thousands die every day from hunger. What planet are you living on? Oh yeah, the delusional Christian bubble.

I understand your interest in this subject and would like to know some of the solutions you have though of and some of the way you are helping. I would still have to disagree with you though God has a plan for all things and I plan on living out his plan of my life.

QuoteAlso, Jesus was to return during the lifetimes of the witnesses. That has obviously not happened.

Damascus was prophesied to become a ruinous heap. That has obviously not happened; Damascus is one of the oldest cities still inhabited in the world.

The Nile has never dried up in its course.

In 732 BC Damascus was defeated by Tigiath-Pileaser III. If didn't say that it would never be inhabited again it said wit would be a heap of ruin. People can live in a heap of ruins.
As for the Nile river check out this article from the Time magazine  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967087,00.html

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

The question is what does the the Kingdom of God mean? The Kingdom of God is not a physical place but a spiritual place.It was established when Jesus died and rose from the dead then ascended and the Holy Spirit came and dwelt in those who gave or will give their lives to Christ. The Kingdom of God is a spiritual transformation when the soul becomes reborn into the kingdom of heaven.

This is among my favorite things to do when confronting people that proclaim that they have a "special relationship" with GOD, and even say he speaks to them in prayer :bananacolor:

gsaint, you have a great deal of critical biblical learning to do. But to do it, you have to let Jesus sit by himself every now and then. It's not a healthy thing for someone to have their bff over 24/7, let alone control their lives.

QuoteIf you don't mind would you share your information on how you came to this conclusion (that Acts was not written in the 60's CE).

Acts was NOT written in the 60s CE. There is evidence that Acts makes use of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (90’s CE), Acts was written to unify the two opposing sides of Peter and Paul, Acts was written after Marcion of Pontus (140s CE), and NO writer makes mention of Acts until late in the second century CE.

There is evidence that Acts of the Apostles used, as one of its sources, Jewish Antiquities, written by Josephus around 93 CE. Parallels between Acts and Josephus'Antiquities of the Jews have long been argued. Main reasons for this are the circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I, the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet, and the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to.

Here are just a few examples that demonstrate the reliance on Josephus:  

1. In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he is 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'sicarii'  into the desert. In both The Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus talks about Jewish rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers. Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptian. Luke, writing in Greek, used the term sicarii, a Latin word for assassins. Josephus, who also wrote in Greek, seems to have been the first to use this foreign word as a term for Jewish rebels who carried out assassinations under cover of urban crowds.

2. In Antiquities 20.5, Josephus is relating events during the time of procurators Cuspius Fadus (44-46) and Tiberius Alexander (46-48). He writes first of the beheading of a magician called Theudas who had led many astray and then of the crucifixion of the sons of Judas of Galilee. Josephus mentions first Theudas and then Judas, in reverse chronological order â€" and it is precisely that reverse order which is put into the mouth of Gamaliel at the trial of Peter and the apostles in Acts 5.34-39 â€" except that Gamaliel does not realize that the order is reversed nor does the writer himself notice the other anachronism. It is evident that Luke knew nothing of Theudas from Christian sources, but inserted mention of him into the account as a piece of useful history that Luke learnt from Josephus.

3. Josephus used the term sects or 'philosophical schools' (Greek: haireseis), to describe the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Luke was the only other author known to have described the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes this way (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5), and he also referred to Christianity as another philosophical school of the Jews (Acts 24:5, 28:22). Luke had Paul call the Pharisees the 'most precise school' among the Jews in the reference at 26:5. Only Josephus and Luke referred to the Pharisees as the 'most precise school'.

There are also several instances that don’t make sense for Acts to have been written during the first century CE. Like in Acts 4:4 when Peter is addressing an audience that results in the number of Christian converts rising to 5,000 people in Jerusalem. Christians converts cannot have numbered five thousand in Jerusalem in the first century CE. There is NO evidence to support that at all. Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s CE. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BCE and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 CE. There are historical inaccuracies ALL through Acts.

Some early proponents of the late dating of Acts were Ferdinand Christian Baur (1800s) who characterized early Christianity as a kind of battle between competing sides with one side being the Jewish Christians led by Peter and the other being Gentile Christians led by Paul. In Acts, as you know, the two perform similar miracles, experience life changing visions, deliver evangelistic speeches, and undergo imprisonments followed by remarkable releases. Matthias Schneckenburger, in the 19th century, was one of the first to develop the theory that the Acts was written about the year 150 CE in order to vindicate against the Judaizers the missionary apostolate to the Gentiles. The Tübingen school extended this hypotheses by suggesting that the writer of the Acts had only one purpose in mind, namely, to compose the differences between the two contending parties in the Church: the Petrine faction that wanted the Church to be Judaeo-Christian, and the Pauline which held out for a universal apostolate to all nations. There prevailed a controversy between these two parties in the church until a fusion took place towards the middle of the second half of the second century.

I am of the opinion that Acts was written after Marcion of Pontus introduced the letters of Paul sometime around the 130s-140s CE. Acts characterized Paul as being in line with the Jerusalem apostles rather that acting as the sole apostle as Marcion supposed. It is believed that the letter to the Galatians was in mind when writing Acts 15. Paul’s epistles were not circulated until after Marcion. Acts was written, partially, to disassociate Paul from Marcion.

The dating of Acts well into the second century CE also explains why there is no reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. That would have been almost a hundred years ago when Acts was written sometime in the 140’s to 150’s CE. Also, NO writer confirms the existence of Acts until the second century CE. It is not before the last decades of the second century that one finds undisputed traces of Acts.

Also, Luke and Acts were addressed to “Most Excellent Theophilus”. There is no way that this could have been Theophilus of Israel (37-41 CE) because Acts describes events happening much later than him. This was most likely Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in Syria who served from 167-177 CE. Eusebius stated that Theophilus of Antioch was born a pagan and owed his conversion to Christianity to the careful study of the Holy Scriptures. This could easily have been from the gospels of Luke and Acts that were addressed to him. The word ‘theophilus” in Greek means “friend of god” or “loved by god.” But, because Luke and Acts were found addressed to “Most Excellent Theophilus” then this suggests a person of high authority such as Bishop Theophilus in Syria 167-177 CE.  All of this makes sense when you consider that Luke and Acts were most likely a response to Marcion’s gospel written around the 140-160s CE. It is also curious that Josephus dedicated his Jewish Antiquities to Epaphroditus, a real name that meant 'Touched by Aphrodite' and Luke dedicated both the Gospel and Acts to Theophilus, which means 'Friend of God'.

Also, how can anyone take seriously the Acts of the Apostles with ALL THESE MIRACLES? Why do so many people overlook the fact that Acts is littered with miracles? Christians believe these miracles and then, of course, assume that the historical information given in Acts must be accurate as well. I will never understand the mind of someone who believes in miracles with no evidence. It truly baffles my mind. Since you obviously take Acts to be an accurate portrayal of history, do you also truly believe these miracles and supernatural events in Acts actually happened?

1. Jesus is claimed to have ascended to heaven 1:9
2. Violent wind at the Cenacle in Jerusalem causes the apostles to become filled with the Holy Ghost and start speaking in tongues 2: 2-6
3. Many signs and wonders done by the Apostles in Jerusalem 2: 43
4. Peter heals the lame man at the Temple gate 3: 1-16
5. Prayer causes shaking of the assembly building in Jerusalem and all men are filled with the holy ghost  4:31
6. Ananias and Saphira struck dead by God at Peter’s feet for not giving Peter more money 5: 5-11
7. Apostles perform signs and wonders among the people 5: 12
8. Peter’s shadow cures the sick and people with unclean spirits in the streets 5: 15-16
9. An angel opens the prison doors open for the Apostles 5: 19
10. Stephen works great and wonders and miracles 6: 8
11. Stephen reports as truth that an angel of the Lord talked to Moses from a burning bush 7:30-35
12. Stephen looks up to heaven and sees Jesus before he is stoned to death 7:55-56
13. Philip cures the crippled and possessed in Samaria 8: 6-7, 13
14. An angel tells Philip where to go 8:26-29
15. Philip is snatched by the Spirit of the Lord and he disappears and is then transported to a city miles away 8: 39
16. A light from heaven shines down on Paul and he hears the voice of Jesus 9:3-7
17. Paul is struck blind on the road to Damascus for three days 9: 8-9
18. Ananias cures Paul of his blindness 9: 17-18
19. Peter heals the paralytic Aeneas 9: 33-35
20. Peter raises the dead Tabitha 9: 36-42
21. An angel speaks to Cornelius 10:3-7
22. Peter goes into a trance. Heaven opens up for him and a voice from heaven speaks to him 10:10-16
23. The Holy Ghost causes men around Peter to start speaking in tongues 10:44-47
24. Peter is liberated from prison by an angel who raises him up and releases his chains 12: 6-11
25. Herod is suddenly slain by an angel 12: 23
26. The Holy Ghost speaks to some prophets and teachers 13:2
27. Paul temporarily blinds the sorcerer Elymas 13: 9-12
28. Paul talks about God raising Jesus from the dead 13:30-34
29. Miracles worked by Paul and Barnabas on mission journey 14: 3
30. Paul cures the crippled man of Lystra 14: 8-10
31. Paul is stoned and miraculously healed at Lystra 14: 19-20
32. Great signs and wonders done among the Gentiles by Barnabas and Paul 15: 12
33. Paul exorcises a girl possessed of divining spirit 16: 16-18
34. Paul and Silas pray to God in prison then an earthquake causes the prison doors to open and the chains fall from Paul and Silas 16: 25-30
35. God speaks to Paul 18:9
36. Paul lays his hands upon twelve men and they are filled with the Holy Ghost and begin speaking in tongues 19:6
37. Sick people are cured by touching the handkerchief or apron of Paul 19: 11-12
38. An evil spirit speaks about knowing Jesus and Paul and then strips people of their clothes 19:15-16
39. Paul raises the young man Eutychus who fell to his death from a high window after falling asleep listening to Paul 20: 9-12
40. Paul shakes off a viper from his arm and is not affected by the venom  28: 3-6
41. Paul heals Publius’ father of dysentery and others who where sick and diseased 28: 8-9

Nobody likes my GOD's Favorite color test

Quote from: "gsaint"My criteria for the fact that God does exist

He is able to manipulate things if he wants to

Then all it boils down to is you have no free will.

QuoteYou can communicate with him through prayer. Answered prayer and provisions.

God has already determined who will have faith and who is hopelessly abandoned. All prayer and good works are inevitably corrupt. Do me a favour? Pray to God and ask him how the afterlife is treating Timothy? Sure, prayer will get you what you ask for...unless it doesn't. Or, it doesn't right away; God answers all prayers, just sometimes it's 'no.' Or 'not right now.'

QuoteBlesses his people not necessarily monetary

That is an unsubstantiated assertion.

QuoteThe people who's lives have been changed

God is not necessary to explain the fact that your ideals changed and then you changed to better suit the ideals you adopted. Why does God reveal himself to different people in such conflicting and contradictory ways? It's almost as if He were many different gods. And why does He always agree with his followers even when His followers disagree with each other?

QuoteProphesies are the next thing.

Others have already tackled the prophecy assertions.

QuoteAnd like I have already said I speak with him daily  like today he wanted me to stand in a certain check out line even though I would have rather gone through the self check out. I ended up talking to a lady becasue of it.

That was a very anticlimactic bit of woo. I can pick any check out lane I wish and talk to any person at it as well....and do not need a god to do so.

QuoteThere was another time I was traveling from San Antonio TX to Austin TX there was a main walking on the Highway God said pull over and pick that man up. I did and the man told me while I was traveling that he had prayed to God that someone would give him a ride from San Antonio to Austin. He had just recently given his life to Christ.

More woo. But this time it involves another person who claims to have prayed, so this makes it woo woo. How is this any different than I think I'll pick that guy up and when he gets in he says I was just thinking that I wish someone would pick me up?

I think your god is indeed more humble than you. He is sooo humble as to be non-existant, where his followers lack such humility and instead claim to know the attributes of god. More likely though is that followers have imagined a god and now gives them the attributes they has imagined. I always thought it was the height of human arrogance to think that having a personal relationship/revelations means that you have some sort of special hotline to a being that has no other evidence for its existence other than your personal revelations. It is hubris of the highest order.

An omniscient God should know what it would take to convince me that it exists. Because this hasn't happened, I can safely conclude that God does not want me to know that he exists or that he does not exist, in which case my atheism is the rational choice. Throw away your bias and nothing in reality appears to come from a god. If you base your arguments on certain axioms such as existence exists then your arguments can be grounded in reality. Can you agree to this axiom or would you prefer to argue that neither you nor your god can claim existence?

QuoteOh, and in your signature, could you please explain what is so tragic about photophobia, be it physical or metaphorical..? Or were you just trying to go for some of that "ancient wisdom" by quoting Plato..?

Photophobia?  My sig says what is says.  The tragedy of existence without God is complete vanity.

I've met more vane Christians than vane atheists...

Quote from: "TheJackel"Nobody likes my GOD's Favorite color test lol   I guess he has more than one?

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Nobody likes my GOD's Favorite color test lol   I guess he has more than one?

Not according to other theists who claim to have that special relationship :P Everyone trying to be clever with their answers :) And statistically speaking, the colors given are generally related to said persons own favorite color :)

lundberg500 I guess you could have guessed this but i disagree. I would need more than one person's take on history to debunk the writings of the New Testament.

Josephus also talks about Jesus

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly . . . He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous [things] about him . . ."

â€"Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews

You have heard what I deem to be proof and don't seem to agree with it, so may I ask you what would it take for you to be willing to consider the possibility of a God? What kind of proof are you after? I know some of you have already stated you proof but would you please restate them. Also is it only the fact that you haven't see proof of God the only reason you don't believe in a God? Life for example are people who believe in the existence of a God another reason you don't believe? If it is what is it about those who believe that stops you?

Quote from: "gsaint"lundberg500 I guess you could have guessed this but i disagree. I would need more than one person's take on history to debunk the writings of the New Testament.

You should read this page. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)

QuoteJosephus also talks about Jesus

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly . . . He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous [things] about him . . ."


â€"Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews

Quote from: "Linked Website Above"Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

QuoteYou have heard what I deem to be proof and don't seem to agree with it, so may I ask you what would it take for you to be willing to consider the possibility of a God?

A good reason.

QuoteWhat kind of proof are you after?

Good proof. What exactly that is, I'm not sure.

QuoteI know some of you have already stated you proof but would you please restate them. Also is it only the fact that you haven't see proof of God the only reason you don't believe in a God?

No.

QuoteLife for example are people who believe in the existence of a God another reason you don't believe? If it is what is it about those who believe that stops you?

No.

QuoteJosephus also talks about Jesus

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly . . . He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous [things] about him . . ."

 :hmm:

Quote from: "gsaint"lundberg500 I guess you could have guessed this but i disagree. I would need more than one person's take on history to debunk the writings of the New Testament.

Josephus also talks about Jesus

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly . . . He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous [things] about him . . ."

â€"Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews

You have heard what I deem to be proof and don't seem to agree with it, so may I ask you what would it take for you to be willing to consider the possibility of a God? What kind of proof are you after? I know some of you have already stated you proof but would you please restate them. Also is it only the fact that you haven't see proof of God the only reason you don't believe in a God? Life for example are people who believe in the existence of a God another reason you don't believe? If it is what is it about those who believe that stops you?

The story of Jesus is hardly even original. That kind of folklore has been around for a very long time, and not just in Christianity. The proof I see is a lot of story telling, and much of it being from 3rd person accounts. Anyways, you can have fun trying to "prove" your position.

The Forbbiden Knowledge: Truth? (http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=123&p=476805)

Jesus's Rivals:
[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paGZB_G7h0Q[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]
[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbMZURnxQSc[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]
[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lslMrWSq8A[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]
[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5OSGEaIJY[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]
[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gMmfVjh8Y[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]

Note: I lost the source site to the list below..
Some of these share similar folklore with Jesus.

1. His mother was a virgin woman: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Zoroaster
2. He was born on December 25: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
3. His earthly (adopted) father was a carpenter: Jesus, Krishna
4. His birth was signaled by a heavenly star: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
5. At his birth, shepherds presented him with gifts: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
6. He was born in a manger or a cave: Jesus, Dionysus, Mithra
7. As a baby, he is declared a king. Wise men present him with gifts of gold: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
8. Angels or other good divine spirits sang songs or danced at his birth: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
9. He was threatened by a king or tyrant who tried to kill him as an infant: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses
10. He was of royal lineage: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
11. He taught at the temple as a child and astounded all who heard him with his wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
12. He was baptized at a river: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
13. His hapless baptizer is later decapitated: Jesus, Horus
14. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil: Jesus, Zoroaster
15. He was a traveling teacher of great wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Mithra
16. His ministry preached a message of charity, peace and love. He lived in poverty and loved the poor: Jesus, Krishna
17. He taught of heaven and hell, revealed mysteries, resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse: Jesus, Zoroaster
18. He gave a famous sermon on a mountain: Jesus, Horus
19. He had 12 disciples: Jesus, Horus, Mithra
20. He gave his disciples the power to work miracles: Jesus, Krishna
21. He was transfigured in front of his disciples, sometimes described as shining as the sun: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
22. He healed the sick and the injured: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Serapis, Zoroaster
23. He cast out demons: Jesus, Horus, Zoroaster
24. He fed hundreds or thousands with magically generated food: Jesus, Buddha
25. He walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
26. He brought back the dead: Jesus, Horus
27. He turned water into wine: Jesus, Dionysus
28. His followers were admonished to take vows of poverty and renounce worldly desires: Jesus, Buddha
29. He was called such exalted titles as "Lord", "Master", "Light of the World", "Holy One", "Redeemer", "The Way", "The Truth", etc.: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
30. He is called "Logos" or "The Word": Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Prometheus, Zoroaster
31. He was called "the anointed one" (how "Christ" translates): Jesus, Dionysus, Horus
32. He was known to his followers as a Shepherd of Humanity: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Serapis
33. He was known as a fisher, associated with the fish: Jesus, Horus
34. He's identified with the ram or lamb: Jesus, Dionysus, Horus, Mithra
35. He's identified with the lion: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
36. He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
37. He rode in a triumphal procession on a donkey: Jesus, Dionysus
38. He condemned the clergy for their ambition and hypocrisy. He would later fall victim to their scheming: Jesus, Krishna
39. He crushed a serpent's head: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
40. Declared the savior of humanity, slain for our salvation: Jesus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra
41. He sometimes is known by a heart symbol: Jesus, Krishna
42. His body and/or blood is consumed through bread/wine in a symbolic ritual: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, Zoroaster
43. He had a sacred cup or grail: Jesus, Zoroaster
44. He died while hung from a cross or a tree: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna
45. His good friend, a fisherman named Peter/Petraeus, would desert him: Jesus, Prometheus
46. He was crucified between two thieves: Jesus, Horus, Krishna
47. He was around the age of 30 when he was crucified: Jesus, Krishna
48. At his death, the sun darkened or there were other grim supernatural signs: Jesus, Krishna
49. He went to the underworld for three days: Jesus, Attis, Mithra
50. He was resurrected: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
51. He was resurrected during the springtime, the date of which would become a day of celebration among his followers: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra
52. His sacred day is Sunday: Jesus, Mithra
53. He is the second part of a divine trinity and/or considered to be one with his father god: Jesus, Attis, Krishna
54. He promises to return one day: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Zoroaster
55. When he comes again, he will ride on a white horse to do battle with the prince of evil: Jesus, Krishna

There are other obvious problems with the bible:

Genesis only makes semi-logical sense if you take it into context of the day/night cycles of a 24 hour period.

  Magical Unicorns!:
Deuteronomy 33:17.

Quote"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends."

Further possible Plagiarism or unoriginality:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=18212437&blogId=513421273


CHRISTIANITY IS THE WORSHIPING OF A SUN GOD?

[youtube:2ss5xfgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw[/youtube:2ss5xfgc]


CONCLUSION:

After reading and watching the videos, is Christianity a copy paste religion? Is it's story even original?

Damn the youtube vids on National Geographic's documentary on Jesus's Rivals have been taken down :P

http://www.google.com/#q=National+Geogr ... 14e6107c47 (http://www.google.com/#q=National+Geographic+jesus+rivals&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=QfM1TfqBG8O78gaDkYm7CA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQqwQwAw&fp=6e586614e6107c47)

having 55 things in common with other ideas about gods does not show me that Christianity has picked and pulled form other religions. If you are going to make a statement like that please show me when and where the similar ideas became a part of the christian faith

son in greek-  huios, ( hwee-os' )
sun in greek-helios,  hay'-lee-os

son in hebrew-ben,  bane
sun in hebrew-shemesh,  sheh'-mesh

Just because son and sun sound the same in English didn't mean they sounded the same in Greek or Hebrew.

Acts is not a forgery. It has been tested and proven with archeological findings time after time
Luke accurately uses titles names and locations correctly through out the book of acts.

Acts specifically mentions people by name their place in society.
Gallio  Acts 18:12-16  governed  Achaia brother of Seneca, the famous Roman philosopher and tutor of Nero
In ancient Delphi a letter of the Emperor Claudius indicates that Gallio must have become Proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51.35 Achaia was a Senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15, and also from A.D. 44 onward. Luke accurately calls Gallio by his official title, "proconsul of Achaia." By doing this, Luke departs from his usual custom of calling countries by their general titles and instead of referring to the province of Achaia by the more ordinary name of Greece he does not call Gallio the proconsul of Greece but of Achaia

Archaeology has shown the book of Acts to be accurate in its references to commerce. For example, Acts 16:11-15 records how at Philippi, Paul and his companions converse with some of the cities local women, one of whom is specifically named as "Lydia...a purple merchant from the city of Thyatira..." The woman's name is a reminder that Thyatira was situated in the ancient kingdom of Lydia; a place that was well known for the manufacturing of purple dyes extracted from the juice of the madder root.40 In addition to this, there is also inscriptural evidence to show that the trading in purple dye was prevalent in Philippi at this time.41

The idol that bore the inscription "to an unknown god" (v. 23) is of interest. Although this inscription has not yet been discovered in Athens,48 Pauanias, who visited the city in 150 A.D. gives a thorough account of the religious activity of the Athenasians in his book Description of Greece and mentions "alters of the gods named unknown."49 The practice of exorcism is another area for consideration. Thomson observes how Luke's description of attempted exorcism by the Jewish Seven Sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-16 is in accordance with Jewish practices prevalent in the first century.50 Often, the practice was associated with various magical rites and practices whereby the sacred name of God would be pronounced.51

I received my information from this website http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/acts.htm this website also give references of the data presented
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History by Colin J. Hermer also goes through historical proof of the book of acts

I am here to share my beliefs. I also want to know what your beliefs are and why.

Quote from: "gsaint"having 55 things in common with other ideas about gods does not show me that Christianity has picked and pulled form other religions. If you are going to make a statement like that please show me when and where the similar ideas became a part of the christian faith

That's really exactly what it shows...

Quoteson in greek-  huios, ( hwee-os' )
sun in greek-helios,  hay'-lee-os

son in hebrew-ben,  bane
sun in hebrew-shemesh,  sheh'-mesh

Just because son and sun sound the same in English didn't mean they sounded the same in Greek or Hebrew.

Kinda missed the point, someone else can deal with that one

QuoteActs is not a forgery. It has been tested and proven with archeological findings time after time
Luke accurately uses titles names and locations correctly through out the book of acts.

Acts specifically mentions people by name their place in society.
Gallio  Acts 18:12-16  governed  Achaia brother of Seneca, the famous Roman philosopher and tutor of Nero
In ancient Delphi a letter of the Emperor Claudius indicates that Gallio must have become Proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51.35 Achaia was a Senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15, and also from A.D. 44 onward. Luke accurately calls Gallio by his official title, "proconsul of Achaia." By doing this, Luke departs from his usual custom of calling countries by their general titles and instead of referring to the province of Achaia by the more ordinary name of Greece he does not call Gallio the proconsul of Greece but of Achaia

Archaeology has shown the book of Acts to be accurate in its references to commerce. For example, Acts 16:11-15 records how at Philippi, Paul and his companions converse with some of the cities local women, one of whom is specifically named as "Lydia...a purple merchant from the city of Thyatira..." The woman's name is a reminder that Thyatira was situated in the ancient kingdom of Lydia; a place that was well known for the manufacturing of purple dyes extracted from the juice of the madder root.40 In addition to this, there is also inscriptural evidence to show that the trading in purple dye was prevalent in Philippi at this time.41

The idol that bore the inscription "to an unknown god" (v. 23) is of interest. Although this inscription has not yet been discovered in Athens,48 Pauanias, who visited the city in 150 A.D. gives a thorough account of the religious activity of the Athenasians in his book Description of Greece and mentions "alters of the gods named unknown."49 The practice of exorcism is another area for consideration. Thomson observes how Luke's description of attempted exorcism by the Jewish Seven Sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-16 is in accordance with Jewish practices prevalent in the first century.50 Often, the practice was associated with various magical rites and practices whereby the sacred name of God would be pronounced.51

I received my information from this website http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/acts.htm this website also give references of the data presented
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History by Colin J. Hermer also goes through historical proof of the book of acts

You may want to read the book of mormon and the koran, they make the same claims and there's hundreds of websites just like that one that claim to be able to prove the historical accuracy of both books. Just like the one you posted they present "evidence" that is not corroborated. Where's the names of the archaeologists who found said evidece? Can any of it be found in peer-reviewed journals? I'd bet that you don't have to dig far to find their evidence to be not much more than hearsay and speculation or outright fraud. A few historical facts don't make something true. In washington state there is indeed a town called forks (I've been there), the weather is crappy, and there's native americans there. There's actually tons of historical accuracy and accurate names and places in twilight but it's still fiction.

QuoteI am here to share my beliefs. I also want to know what your beliefs are and why.

I'm atheist, I don't believe any gods exist and that includes yours. Until someone proves empirically that ones does exist I'll continue to not care about worshiping any of them. (if any omnipotent being is reading this and really wants me to believe send me cash, you know my address already, just drop a cashiers check in the mail slot)

QuoteActs is not a forgery. It has been tested and proven with archeological findings time after time

Gsaint, please show evidence for all these miralces and supernatural events in Acts:

1. Jesus is claimed to have ascended to heaven 1:9
2. Violent wind at the Cenacle in Jerusalem causes the apostles to become filled with the Holy Ghost and start speaking in tongues 2: 2-6
3. Many signs and wonders done by the Apostles in Jerusalem 2: 43
4. Peter heals the lame man at the Temple gate 3: 1-16
5. Prayer causes shaking of the assembly building in Jerusalem and all men are filled with the holy ghost  4:31
6. Ananias and Saphira struck dead by God at Peter’s feet for not giving Peter more money 5: 5-11
7. Apostles perform signs and wonders among the people 5: 12
8. Peter’s shadow cures the sick and people with unclean spirits in the streets 5: 15-16
9. An angel opens the prison doors open for the Apostles 5: 19
10. Stephen works great and wonders and miracles 6: 8
11. Stephen reports as truth that an angel of the Lord talked to Moses from a burning bush 7:30-35
12. Stephen looks up to heaven and sees Jesus before he is stoned to death 7:55-56
13. Philip cures the crippled and possessed in Samaria 8: 6-7, 13
14. An angel tells Philip where to go 8:26-29
15. Philip is snatched by the Spirit of the Lord and he disappears and is then transported to a city miles away 8: 39
16. A light from heaven shines down on Paul and he hears the voice of Jesus 9:3-7
17. Paul is struck blind on the road to Damascus for three days 9: 8-9
18. Ananias cures Paul of his blindness 9: 17-18
19. Peter heals the paralytic Aeneas 9: 33-35
20. Peter raises the dead Tabitha 9: 36-42
21. An angel speaks to Cornelius 10:3-7
22. Peter goes into a trance. Heaven opens up for him and a voice from heaven speaks to him 10:10-16
23. The Holy Ghost causes men around Peter to start speaking in tongues 10:44-47
24. Peter is liberated from prison by an angel who raises him up and releases his chains 12: 6-11
25. Herod is suddenly slain by an angel 12: 23
26. The Holy Ghost speaks to some prophets and teachers 13:2
27. Paul temporarily blinds the sorcerer Elymas 13: 9-12
28. Paul talks about God raising Jesus from the dead 13:30-34
29. Miracles worked by Paul and Barnabas on mission journey 14: 3
30. Paul cures the crippled man of Lystra 14: 8-10
31. Paul is stoned and miraculously healed at Lystra 14: 19-20
32. Great signs and wonders done among the Gentiles by Barnabas and Paul 15: 12
33. Paul exorcises a girl possessed of divining spirit 16: 16-18
34. Paul and Silas pray to God in prison then an earthquake causes the prison doors to open and the chains fall from Paul and Silas 16: 25-30
35. God speaks to Paul 18:9
36. Paul lays his hands upon twelve men and they are filled with the Holy Ghost and begin speaking in tongues 19:6
37. Sick people are cured by touching the handkerchief or apron of Paul 19: 11-12
38. An evil spirit speaks about knowing Jesus and Paul and then strips people of their clothes 19:15-16
39. Paul raises the young man Eutychus who fell to his death from a high window after falling asleep listening to Paul 20: 9-12
40. Paul shakes off a viper from his arm and is not affected by the venom  28: 3-6
41. Paul heals Publius’ father of dysentery and others who where sick and diseased 28: 8-9

Was it this thread that I gave some suggestions on having a relationship with God? I guess due to my poor wording and/or understanding from the audience it was addressed to but in any case what I was really trying to get across, is that God is serious business, and if someone thinks it's just going to be an interesting intellectual exercise, they're mistaken. We can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here. We're not going to settle it in books, or debates either.

If someone has a genuine desire to find God, there are important things that would prove invaluable in helping someone find Him. It's kind of like a Hobbit in the Shire not believing a word of Frodo's when he tells them he stood on Mt. Doom and the journey that it took to get there. Frodo could show them the maps, he could show them his scars, he could tell them the names of the others who accompanied him, but none of that will make a difference to someone who's not willing to do what it takes to take that same journey and find out for themselves.

That's probably a poor analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind! Someone setting out for a specific end ultimately has to do things that ensure their success.

Quote from: "Achronos"Was it this thread that I gave some suggestions on having a relationship with God? I guess due to my poor wording and/or understanding from the audience it was addressed to but in any case what I was really trying to get across,  is that God is serious business, and if someone thinks it's just going to be an interesting intellectual exercise, they're mistaken. We can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here. We're not going to settle it in books, or debates either.

If someone has a genuine desire to find God, there are important things that would prove invaluable in helping someone find Him. It's kind of like a Hobbit in the Shire not believing a word of Frodo's when he tells them he stood on Mt. Doom and the journey that it took to get there. Frodo could show them the maps, he could show them his scars, he could tell them the names of the others who accompanied him, but none of that will make a difference to someone who's not willing to do what it takes to take that same journey and find out for themselves.

That's probably a poor analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind! Someone setting out for a specific end ultimately has to do things that ensure their success.

Wasn't the shire destroyed before frodo got back? Nobody there would have been alive to believe him, his other friends probably would have been inclined to believe him since they'd seen some pretty crazy stuff themselves and would have probably seen some pretty major changes that could only have been a direct result of the one ring being destroyed.

Quote from: "Achronos"Was it this thread that I gave some suggestions on having a relationship with God? I guess due to my poor wording and/or understanding from the audience it was addressed to but in any case what I was really trying to get across, is that God is serious business, and if someone thinks it's just going to be an interesting intellectual exercise, they're mistaken. We can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here. We're not going to settle it in books, or debates either.

If someone has a genuine desire to find God, there are important things that would prove invaluable in helping someone find Him. It's kind of like a Hobbit in the Shire not believing a word of Frodo's when he tells them he stood on Mt. Doom and the journey that it took to get there. Frodo could show them the maps, he could show them his scars, he could tell them the names of the others who accompanied him, but none of that will make a difference to someone who's not willing to do what it takes to take that same journey and find out for themselves.

That's probably a poor analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind! Someone setting out for a specific end ultimately has to do things that ensure their success.

No, you gave suggestions on how to attach emotions to an ideological concept.. Relationships usually include the actual person and not some conceptual Idea of one. Your suggestions are in the realm of manipulation geared to engineer devotion to an ideological construct.

QuoteWe can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here

This reads as: Let's skip all that and just go with argument A "my suggestions pointed out earlier".. Good try though

Quote from: "Achronos"Someone setting out for a specific end ultimately has to do things that ensure their success.

It depends what the end goal is.
If the end goal is to have a personal relationship with god then that is one thing. However if the end goal is to learn or get close to the truth then that may be an entirely different goal.

To have a personal relationship with god it is impossible to follow the path of facts, proof, substance etc.

To know the truth it depends on how your mind works as an individual.
A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

With path A, everyone arrives at the same end point
With path B, it depends on what is used as the source of the faith and belief

I don't care which path people take as long as the people on each path don't start trying to control some part of the lives of the people on the other paths.

I can show you all the evidence in the world but it seems that you need to look for yourselves.

QuoteTo know the truth it depends on how your mind works as an individual.
A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

which one are you stevil?

Quote from: "gsaint"I can show you all the evidence in the world but it seems that you need to look for yourselves.

QuoteTo know the truth it depends on how your mind works as an individual.
A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

which one are you stevil?

No need for "all" the evidence in the world. One piece of evidence should suffice. Go for it.

Quote from: "gsaint"I can show you all the evidence in the world but it seems that you need to look for yourselves.

QuoteTo know the truth it depends on how your mind works as an individual.
A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

which one are you stevil?

The bolded part of your quote seems really stupid to me (and probably everyone else who hasn't been fed that nonsense their whole life).

Why in the world would you think that truth can be determined by deciding to believe in an idea you like?

Quote from: "Achronos"Was it this thread that I gave some suggestions on having a relationship with God? I guess due to my poor wording and/or understanding from the audience it was addressed to but in any case what I was really trying to get across, is that God is serious business, and if someone thinks it's just going to be an interesting intellectual exercise, they're mistaken. We can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here. We're not going to settle it in books, or debates either.

If someone has a genuine desire to find God, there are important things that would prove invaluable in helping someone find Him. It's kind of like a Hobbit in the Shire not believing a word of Frodo's when he tells them he stood on Mt. Doom and the journey that it took to get there. Frodo could show them the maps, he could show them his scars, he could tell them the names of the others who accompanied him, but none of that will make a difference to someone who's not willing to do what it takes to take that same journey and find out for themselves.

That's probably a poor analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind! Someone setting out for a specific end ultimately has to do things that ensure their success.

Undeniably there are times -- whether during the agonizing days of a lingering
illness, the seemingly eternal moments of a violent and humiliating mugging, or the split
second of anticipating the impact of an imminent car crash -- when all mankind recognize
the reality of human fragility and the lack of human control over destiny. Who does a
person beseech for help in such circumstances other than The Creator?

Such moments of desperation should remind every person, from the religious scholar to the professed
Atheist, of the dependence of mankind upon a reality far greater than our own meager
human selves. A reality far greater in knowledge, power, will, majesty and glory.
In such moments of distress, when all human efforts have failed and no element
of material existence can be foreseen to provide comfort or rescue, Whom else will a
person instinctively call upon? In such moments of trial, how many stress-induced
appeals are made to God, complete with promises of lifelong fidelity?
Yet, how few are kept?

- Dr. Laurence Brown

Quote from: "Stevil"A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

That's a false dichotomy, and I don't even think it's accurate. I feel that most people would be somewhere in-between -- empiricism is good, but sometimes you just need to have faith.

Quote from: "Achronos"Was it this thread that I gave some suggestions on having a relationship with God? I guess due to my poor wording and/or understanding from the audience it was addressed to but in any case what I was really trying to get across, is that God is serious business, and if someone thinks it's just going to be an interesting intellectual exercise, they're mistaken. We can sit on this boards and discuss the rules of logic, cosmology, history, etc., until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to settle anything here. We're not going to settle it in books, or debates either.

If someone has a genuine desire to find God, there are important things that would prove invaluable in helping someone find Him.

Yes! Why are we concerned with whether or not God exists when we can just start talking to ourselves already? This isn't the time for critical thinking. You're suppose to just believe me and do as I say.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"A: Some people feel that the path to truth is by seeking that which is consistently testable and predictable, disregarding faith and belief.
B: Others feel that the path to the truth is by having faith and belief disregarding the need for that which is consistently testable and predictable.

That's a false dichotomy, and I don't even think it's accurate. I feel that most people would be somewhere in-between -- empiricism is good, but sometimes you just need to have faith.

In my observations, it seems most people use both approaches, whether they're aware of it or not; just for different things and to different degrees.

Having a relationship with god isn't meant to be taken literally. What I don't get is, why can't they just love god without entering in a relationship with him? It's all bogus to me. If you can't have sex with god, then there's no point. Remember, the thrill is in the chase. God, in any way, isn't worth chasing at all.

Quote from: "NaturaLCalamity"Having a relationship with god isn't meant to be taken literally. What I don't get is, why can't they just love god without entering in a relationship with him? It's all bogus to me. If you can't have sex with god, then there's no point. Remember, the thrill is in the chase. God, in any way, isn't worth chasing at all.

After a relationship with God, should not be taken literally. I do not understand why, not only can you love without being in contact with him, my God? It 's all fake to me. If you do not have sex with God, then it makes sense. Remember the thrill of the hunt. God, at least not worth chasing at all. (http://www.ypass.net/misc/babelbabble/)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "NaturaLCalamity"Having a relationship with god isn't meant to be taken literally. What I don't get is, why can't they just love god without entering in a relationship with him? It's all bogus to me. If you can't have sex with god, then there's no point. Remember, the thrill is in the chase. God, in any way, isn't worth chasing at all.

After a relationship with God, should not be taken literally. I do not understand why, not only can you love without being in contact with him, my God? It 's all fake to me. If you do not have sex with God, then it makes sense. Remember the thrill of the hunt. God, at least not worth chasing at all. (http://www.ypass.net/misc/babelbabble/)

WHat?

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "NaturaLCalamity"Having a relationship with god isn't meant to be taken literally. What I don't get is, why can't they just love god without entering in a relationship with him? It's all bogus to me. If you can't have sex with god, then there's no point. Remember, the thrill is in the chase. God, in any way, isn't worth chasing at all.

After a relationship with God, should not be taken literally. I do not understand why, not only can you love without being in contact with him, my God? It 's all fake to me. If you do not have sex with God, then it makes sense. Remember the thrill of the hunt. God, at least not worth chasing at all. (http://www.ypass.net/misc/babelbabble/)

WHat?

I'm not shore what that means either, but some gods/goddesses are more appealing than others.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv10PP.jpg&hash=71e14d95de34ca647611ca13f09e1a491e4b7a94)

I like the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, haven't seen it for about yen years though.

A momentary search regarding this topic brought up this short clip.  Comments?

  http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/R ... onship.mp3 (http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/How_to_Study__Personal_Relationship.mp3)

Granted this isn't how the run-of-the-mill Christian would understand it but I think it makes much more sense of the concept.  Anyway looking forwards to responses as always! : )

You want piece of evidence? I have given you a boat load. Still, lets look at the universe where did it come from if not God

Quote from: "gsaint"You want piece of evidence? I have given you a boat load. Still, lets look at the universe where did it come from if not God

You'd still be left with the problem of where did god come from.

I think most atheists are content with saying there are some things we don't really know yet.

Quote from: "gsaint"You want piece of evidence? I have given you a boat load.

Could you please point me to these "boat loads of evidence"? Just links to your posts with them would suffice.

QuoteStill, lets look at the universe where did it come from if not God

It's an unknown at this point, although we have theories.

Quote from: "gsaint"You want piece of evidence? I have given you a boat load.

So would that would be 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits of evidence?
That's a lot of evidence, should be enough for any one.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "gsaint"You want piece of evidence? I have given you a boat load.

So would that would be 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits of evidence?
That's a lot of evidence, should be enough for any one.

Someone should start an experiment in which one man builds a boat to those dimensions with tools of the period and then pack it with animals, then a handful of people can spend a month on it to see if they can care for and feed said animals.

I have a personal relationship with my psychic guide, and he guides through the good and the bad, directing me as if he were just my own limited intuition. In my internal dialogue with this being I've come to notice that he thinks what I would think without him as if I were directing my internal conversation with another wise mind, shares the same values as I do, even though those values differ from a book that is supposedly his, and basically sees the world as I do. He certainly knows about as much as I know, but extremely rarely gives me an answer that really couldn't have come from me alone. Instead, he prompts me to seek answers to questions as if without him.

Sure, I resort to him for guidance, but shucks, he's just so much like me that we feel like real buddies!   We both know eachother inside and out.

There were times when I just knew that the thoughts that were popping into my head were coming from him, all-knowing as he is (being on the other side and all) but alas, those thoughts have failed many times, just as my human intuition would.

Whether this is proof that my psychic guide really is the one guiding me through my life I don't know - but I really like to believe it is!

Sorry, I read about 3 pages and cannot stand the wall of text anymore. This argument has been done before. Being in christianity for about 18 years myself (until I was able to escape my father's clutches) I've seen it all. Witnessing seminars for using incompetent arguments to "circumnavigate, or go around the person's intellect" as pointed out by Mr. Cameron. "Show me proof that I'm wrong.". Sorry if these points have been covered in the pages I didn't read. But, here is just a few that I can write  out in a constricted time schedule on this day.

1. Read "the spirit molecule." About DMT in your brain, and can also be triggered through substance. Same experience as though you were "drunk in the spirit" and whatnot
2. Mithra? Read about that god. Around up to around 1000 years before your "messiah" and actually documented in history. Other than the bible, Jesus isn't mentioned. Ponteus Pilot's biographer never even mentioned his name.
3. 98 percent of scientists are atheists. Surely not all of them are apart some big conspiracy to control religion. And if they are, they're doing a poor job at it.

It seems that Moses had a discussion with a GOD.. Err.. Volcano!

[youtube:14ctmg1p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtI-lSvS028[/youtube:14ctmg1p]