Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 376

Thread: Why DON'T you believe in GOD ???

  1. #1 Why DON'T you believe in GOD ??? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    it's just a simple question... anyone who has problems with religion and GOD should have an answer for this question... would you like to share the reasons that keep you back from believeing ?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    The question is in essence flawed. It would be the same as asking "Why don't you believe George W. Bush is in fact Sauron, the Lord of the Rings?". Why not believe in something? Because the human mind can only process a limited amount of information. That is, we are incapable of believing in every single believable fact. No man has ever thought of a small bottle of cologne shooting through space whilst talking to a towl. While in fact, it might very well be possible.

    The belief in God, an absurd entity, might be grounded deep in human civilisation but that need not imply that non-believers need a reason to believe in something. Those believers need a reason as to why distinguish their belief from the belief in small bottle of cologne.

    Mr U


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    it is the nature of man to explain the world around him in terms that he can share with his companions

    in spite of overwhelmingly limited information, man tries to define all processes around him.

    man has an ability to lie both to himself (subconsciously) and to others, with or without purposeful intent.

    the human mind subconsciously puts more emphasis on information associated with a presupposed belief.

    man communicates information using symbols. much of what we learn is conveyed with these symbols. the use of symbology greatly decreases the accuracy and amount of truth in an idea and allows for interpretation (especially over long periods of time).

    it is the nature of a community to hold on to traditional ideals and methods, even (and sometimes especially) in the face of new, more efficient or accurate ideals.

    the idea of god cannot be proven wrong in any way by definition. god is said to be omnipotent, so a lack of evidence for god's presence is able to be explained by this.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    I don't believe in god because I have never come across any convincing evidence that god exists. I don't believe in things unless there is a reason to believe in them.
     

  6. #5 Re: Why DON'T you believe in GOD ??? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it's just a simple question... anyone who has problems with religion and GOD should have an answer for this question... would you like to share the reasons that keep you back from believeing ?
    Lack of incontrovertible evidence. Lack of substantial evidence.
    I have no problem with religion or God, so perhaps my response is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    No man has ever thought of a small bottle of cologne shooting through space whilst talking to a towl.
    You have.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    You have.
    I am not.. human.

    Lack of incontrovertible evidence. Lack of substantial evidence.
    I have no problem with religion or God, so perhaps my response is irrelevant.
    The Universe, Life, et cetera can be seen as evidence for God by a devout religious person. Yet, in a sense, it might also be perceived as not being a bottle of cologne talking to a towel, and as such leaving the very real possibility that it is in fact out there, rather than here on earth. Evidence is merely a manner of looking at irrelevant factoids, with the intent of simplifying and debeautifying reality. As many have said before me, shame on you mr Bush!

    Mr U
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Lack of incontrovertible evidence. Lack of substantial evidence.
    I have no problem with religion or God, so perhaps my response is irrelevant.
    The Universe, Life, et cetera can be seen as evidence for God by a devout religious person.
    It can also be seen as such by a devout agnostic, such as myself. However, while it is evidence, it is neither incontrovertible, or substantial. Hence the careful phrasing of my original post.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

    I'm not a "nonbeliever" or as I like to call "a rational human being" not because I do or do not believe in God, which is generally dramatized by a bearded man in a very light but cloudy place, but because I despise the comfortable mediocrity religious devotion provides.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Very easy question to answer, and pretty much the same as the above answers. I don't believe in God because there's no good reason to believe in God.
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I don't believe in god because I have never come across any convincing evidence that god exists. I don't believe in things unless there is a reason to believe in them.
    Do you have reasons for everything you believe in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I don't believe in God because there's no good reason to believe in God.
    How "good" must a reason be to make you have some other thoughts on this matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Lack of incontrovertible evidence. Lack of substantial evidence.
    Do you have "incontrovertible/substantial" evidence for everything you classify as right?


    ... you know... christians say that the Bible is wrote by man under the guidance of GOD... that the Bible is GOD's Word... that it is written by divine inspiration given to man...

    ... others say that the Bible is just a book written some time ago so that man could "make up" a fantasy world and heaven in order to have a reason/purpose in life...

    What if I could strenghten the first things I said... about the Bible being the Word of GOD... could that classify as evidence?... every book has an author... and for the Bible it's GOD... and I can justify this...
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    I am not a religious mind (explanation will be given later
    in this post), but...

    Bible wrote under guidance of the God -
    some texts are proved to be written hundreds of years
    after the event they're descriping, so what is the part
    of the God in this progess?

    Events descriped in Bible give rather contraversal (hope
    I wrote this word right) picture of the Gods nature,
    when thinking the absolute monoteism - shouldn't
    the God be one and only?

    Many people forget that our "christianity" is actually based
    on "hellenistic-christianity" (I don't know the correct words
    to use), that was one "subcult" of the original christianity -
    "judish-christianity" (unfortunately Romans totally destroyed
    the original christianity during years of persecution but
    some christian churches near Egypt still follow samekind
    of rules as judish-christians)...

    So why I don't be so religious? Well, mostly because
    all the religions I have faced offers the same with
    different names, forms, rules etc... and the most important
    reason is that all given proofs (or attemps to proof)
    of existence of the God is, should we say, rather paradoxal...

    I don't wan't to offend but I think I don't believe because,
    I can't accept things I don't understood (sounds familiar, eh?)
    and because I need something that I can rely today, tomorrow a.s.o.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Do you have reasons for everything you believe in?
    Yes. If I didn't have a reason to believe something, why would I believe it?
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Lack of incontrovertible evidence. Lack of substantial evidence.
    Do you have "incontrovertible/substantial" evidence for everything you classify as right?
    This was actually a quote from me, and not scifor refugee.
    I don't classify anything as right or true in the sense I think you mean. I provisionally accept certain explanations as being the most probable. Some, such as the rotation of the Earth around the sun, or evolution, are so well established that it would require a very large amount of contrary evidence to cause me to shift that provisional view.
    Others, such as the Big Bang, I have a much more guarded view about. I would not be at all surprised to see it disappear within a decade as the accepted wisdom.
    So, yes, I believe things, or more correctly, I tend to believe things, based upon the quality and quantity of evidence for them. Otherwise, one could find oneself believing anything, just because it sounded like a good idea, or was especially elegant. This is the scientific method. It is an effective one and has allowed us to gain great understanding of our world.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Homo Universalis
    No man has ever thought of a small bottle of cologne shooting through space whilst talking to a towel.
    You have.
    I thought HU was subtly hinting at HU's gender....


    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I don't believe in god because I have never come across any convincing evidence that god exists. I don't believe in things unless there is a reason to believe in them.
    Do you have reasons for everything you believe in?
    Erm, I do! It's called the "rational viewpoint"! It's not for everyone, but it's not a mortal lock that "everybody believes in at least some things for no discernible reason".

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I don't believe in God because there's no good reason to believe in God.
    How "good" must a reason be to make you have some other thoughts on this matter?
    If God even demonstrated once the Power he is supposed to be endowed with, or even the Love and Compassion he is supposed to be filled with, or remotely showed Himself the way He is supposed to have done millennia ago, I would revise my view. I was brought up in religion, Catholicism in fact, and I was taught about an All-Powerful God who had created the world, sent the Flood for Noah, stopped the World for Joshua (and Isaiah later on), sent a miracle-working Son, and who cared for me and looked after me. But after a while you notice that no real miracle workers are around today, neither are there any other world-shattering miraculous events, neither does anyone's belief and devotion to God particularly help them in the commonplace tragedies or triumphs of a lifetime.

    You look around you and you see a myriad more things for God to intervene in and show his Love than were ever depicted in the Bible. He sent Jesus to the Middle East when thanks to the Roman Empire there wasn't even any question of wars and brother set against brother. What about now? What about letting the Holocaust happen to what was supposed to be His Chosen People? If this was a nineteen hundred-year-late punishment for rejecting Jesus, what kind of God holds a grudge like that anyway? Against people who devoutly worship him no less than Christians do?

    Looking back, you realise that if you believed, what you were really being promised was a good Afterlife. Then you realise that there is no evidence whatsoever for what happens to us after we die, that nobody has ever come back from Heaven (or Hell) to tell us what it was like, or to demonstrate what specific qualities qualified them for either place. The only way of knowing is by reading the Bible, and there it becomes only too evident that no two preachers even read the Bible in precisely the same way. Even within one sect, one man's minor misdemeanor is another man's ticket to the eternal flame. After that you recognise that any God who condemns even the vilest criminal to infinite torture is no God worth worshipping in any case.

    If God had stepped in at any point during that journey to demonstrate a) his Power and b) that He really does love and care for humanity and that He really does have a Plan, then I would have enough reason to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    ... you know... christians say that the Bible is wrote by man under the guidance of GOD... that the Bible is GOD's Word... that it is written by divine inspiration given to man...

    ... others say that the Bible is just a book written some time ago so that man could "make up" a fantasy world and heaven in order to have a reason/purpose in life...

    What if I could strenghten the first things I said... about the Bible being the Word of GOD... could that classify as evidence?... every book has an author... and for the Bible it's GOD... and I can justify this...
    But if you really could justify it in an objective way that was incontrovertible, then we'd all be theists, and Christian theists to boot. You'd be the greated theologian of all time! I think not. And please don't come back with "proof" that the Bible is God's Word based on what it says in the Bible. The Qu'ran has the same backing. So does the Bhaghavad Gita. Conversely, all the scholastic study of the actual words of the Bible in its original languages has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Bible is the work of fallible humans, who are incapable of creating a consistent picture of God or even of describing events in a non-contradictory manner.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    "Why don't you believe in God?"

    Translates:

    "Why don't you share MY belief of MY God?"


    I never have found a exception to this rule so far...


    My idea of God is a sort of complicated thing and I don't use to share it as it sitll is a work in progress and anyway it's highly mystical... :?

    Anyway I do believe in "my" God more than I believe in God-believers' God, and usually I haven't got the lesser sympathy for "foreigner mysticism"... specially unrequested foreigner mysticism. :wink:

    FAI, I don't like Frank Herbert's Dune, and Heinlein's "Stranger in a strange land" is the ONLY BOOK EVER which I started and didn't finished to read it.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    some texts are proved to be written hundreds of years
    after the event they're descriping, so what is the part
    of the God in this progess?.
    - do you know what texts are those ? The Bible isn't just a big prophecy

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    Events descriped in Bible give rather contraversal picture of the Gods nature,
    when thinking the absolute monoteism - shouldn't
    the God be one and only?.
    - God can give and He can take, He can heal and He can wound, He can punish and He can repay, He can be dissapointed and He can be pleased... and He is ONE and ONLY ONE even if we consider all those above...

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    all the religions I have faced offers the same with
    different names, forms, rules etc...
    - christianity has the Bible... and the Bible was a lot of prophecies that really came true... not all religions give you such things....

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    I don't wan't to offend but I think I don't believe because,
    I can't accept things I don't understood (sounds familiar, eh?)
    and because I need something that I can rely today, tomorrow a.s.o.
    - but what about Big-Bang, origins of life, and many many others... can you really understand those? are they so clear for you? they are just wild guesses... but you understand them... how?..... and you need something you can rely on? isn't God reliable? ... don't worry... He won't turn His back on you...


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolitel
    I don't classify anything as right or true in the sense I think you mean. I provisionally accept certain explanations as being the most probable. Some, such as the rotation of the Earth around the sun, or evolution, are so well established that it would require a very large amount of contrary evidence to cause me to shift that provisional view.
    Others, such as the Big Bang, I have a much more guarded view about. I would not be at all surprised to see it disappear within a decade as the accepted wisdom.
    So, yes, I believe things, or more correctly, I tend to believe things, based upon the quality and quantity of evidence for them. Otherwise, one could find oneself believing anything, just because it sounded like a good idea, or was especially elegant. This is the scientific method. It is an effective one and has allowed us to gain great understanding of our world.
    - so your life is just a big game??? ... someone comes with an ideea and some evidence for it....you move towards him... then someone else hears about this ideea and comes with contrary evidence... yyeeeyyy... move towards him... then someone else backup the first guy... so you move back to your first belief... and so, and so, and so... untill death chatches up with up, even if we haven't really decided who is right !!!.. some life, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    If God even demonstrated once the Power he is supposed to be endowed with, or even the Love and Compassion he is supposed to be filled with, or remotely showed Himself the way He is supposed to have done millennia ago, I would revise my view. I was brought up in religion, Catholicism in fact, and I was taught about an All-Powerful God who had created the world, sent the Flood for Noah, stopped the World for Joshua (and Isaiah later on), sent a miracle-working Son, and who cared for me and looked after me. But after a while you notice that no real miracle workers are around today, neither are there any other world-shattering miraculous events,
    - if you drop a rubber ball it with bounce and bounce and bounce and in the end it will stop!!! if "Mr. X" used to work at some shop a few years ago it doesn't mean he still works there.... IF GOD did something , if He made miraculous events, doesn't mean He will do so forever... He can reward and then he can punish... give and take...and remember:for GOD one day can mean 1000 years, and 1000 years can mean one day... One day he gives... the other day: who knows?... and you are talking about just a few people that really had faith big enough to be "miracle workers"... today you won't find anyone else that has the same faith...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    neither does anyone's belief and devotion to God particularly help them in the commonplace tragedies or triumphs of a lifetime.
    - really ?? have you talked to every christian on this planet? how can you make such statements? ... I pray... and I get different answers in different ways... and if your in a tragedy doesn't mean that God HAS to get you out of it.... He put you there in the first place... just like he did to Abraham which proved his faith...


    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    If this was a nineteen hundred-year-late punishment for rejecting Jesus, what kind of God holds a grudge like that anyway?.
    - Jesus was sent to die for our sins and and to once again show GOD's love... if He was "accepted" He wouldn't have been crucified... so this is NOT a punishment for not accepting Him... it's a part of His plan...


    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    If God even demonstrated once the Power he is supposed to be endowed with, or even the Love and Compassion he is supposed to be filled with, or remotely showed Himself the way He is supposed to have done millennia ago, I would revise my view.
    - the fact that you were bord and have the change to receive eternal life in heavens, the fact that you lived to this day, that you have breath and food, ration and knowledge PROVES his LOVE... do you actually believe that you are an evolved creature from a cell? and that cell came from chemicals? just look at yourself, you can't even fully understand what you are, but you think you know how you came to existance?... GOD created you because of HIS love... and He doesn't have any debts to you... HE doesn't need to prove anything to you... YOU are the one that owe Him your life and need to prove that you can follow Him and believe in Him....

    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    any God who condemns even the vilest criminal to infinite torture is no God worth worshipping in any case.
    - God doesn't have any pleasure in sending criminals to hell... He gave each and everyone a chance to choose !!!... if that criminal ended up in hell means that he made a wrong choince and followed his own rules... again.. GOD doesn't want anyone in hell... those that are there, got there with there own legs....

    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    But if you really could justify it in an objective way that was incontrovertible, then we'd all be theists, and Christian theists to boot. You'd be the greated theologian of all time! I think not. And please don't come back with "proof" that the Bible is God's Word based on what it says in the Bible.
    - please excusse me if I didn't express my self very good... but I didn't say that I'm going to PROOVE anything... just STRENGHTEN, JUSTIFY something my words... big diference there... The Bible is FULL of knowledge ... we can find there statements that use "the weight of air", "fingerprints", "the round shape of earth", "The fact that earth 'hangs' in space", "the circuit of water in nature"... these are from the book of Job,.... written in about 1900 B.C.... how could have man had such knowledge of these things in that time?...... It's not THE evidence... but I think it is worth thinking about it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    or even of describing events in a non-contradictory manner.
    - can you give me examples of such events?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    "Why don't you believe in God?"

    Translates:

    "Why don't you share MY belief of MY God?".
    - No, Lucifer... if I can see clearly, I used ENGLISH for that question... I don't think you need to translate that...... "Why don't you believe in God?"... the one and ONLY GOD... the God that created everything, even you?... there is only one GOD I believe in...the same One in which millions of people believe
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it's just a simple question... anyone who has problems with religion and GOD should have an answer for this question... would you like to share the reasons that keep you back from believeing ?
    I have stayed out of this thread until now and only enjoyed reading it until now because the question was not properly addressed to me, since I do believe in God (in every sense of that phrase), and as born-again Christian no less, even if a rather radical and free thinking member of that set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    "Why don't you believe in God?"

    Translates:

    "Why don't you share MY belief of MY God?"

    I never have found a exception to this rule so far...
    Then Lucifer's response struck a cord with me, for I think he hit it right on the nail. I have in fact said many times said that I consider the question of the existence of God to be a nonsensical one. The sensible question is, "what does the word God refer to?" Of course, for many of the atheists in this forum the answer is pretty straight forward, God is simply a delusion or fantasy created by people for some combination of the purposes of psychological comfort, fraud or a means to power. Others simply see it as a self replicating idea -- kind of a ideological or linguistic virus. The more tolerant atheists may see God simply as a myth or story which people use as a device to simply make their lives more interesting.

    My first handle on God, for my upbringing was so liberal that I was nearly a blank slate even after I desperately asked Jesus into my life to save me from myself, was a growing conviction that a faith in God was somehow equivalent to a faith that life is worth living. I was comparing all the ideas of God from many religions and with what I knew from the science and philosophy I was studying to puzzle out what the word "God" could possibly mean. It was a love of "existentialism" and particularly Albert Camus which helped germinate this conviction I mentioned and I came to believe that every experience in life could be seen as a gift from God to learn from and cherish. It is was a commitment of faith that served me well.

    Since then I have come to see God as an all powerful being who created the universe as a cradle for life which he nurtured and cultivated to eventually produce mankind (not neccessarly to imply that we were in any way a final goal to his work). I believe that He transformed us by the mere act of communication which germinated within us a fascination for abstract ideas and provided the key difference from the other primates catalyzing our invention of complex language and culture.

    But perhaps most important of all, I now see Him as the ultimate good more worthy of my consideration and love than my own self.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    My idea of God is a sort of complicated thing and I don't use to share it as it sitll is a work in progress and anyway it's highly mystical... :?

    Anyway I do believe in "my" God more than I believe in God-believers' God, and usually I haven't got the lesser sympathy for "foreigner mysticism"... specially unrequested foreigner mysticism. :wink:
    Haven't the slightest idea what the last part of this means. But I wonder if your impression of the "God-believers' God" might be a convenient fiction based on ignorance of the unfathomably diverse and complex beliefs of those you call "God-believers".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    FAI, I don't like Frank Herbert's Dune, and Heinlein's "Stranger in a strange land" is the ONLY BOOK EVER which I started and didn't finished to read it.
    I was fascinated by "Stranger in a strange land" and read it twice although it is not among my favorites and I certainly would not reccomend it to other Christians. "Dune", however, occupies a place on my shelf next to some of Frank Herbert's other books, including "The Santaroga Barrier" and "The Dosadi Experiment", all of which I re-read nearly every year. I do not have copies of the other books in the Dune series and never read past the third.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    - No, Lucifer... if I can see clearly, I used ENGLISH for that question... I don't think you need to translate that...... "Why don't you believe in God?"... the one and ONLY GOD... the God that created everything, even you?... there is only one GOD I believe in...the same One in which millions of people believe
    Talk about convenient fictions!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    F (i L i) P:
    - but what about Big-Bang, origins of life, and many many others... can you really understand those? are they so clear for you? they are just wild guesses... but you understand them... how?..... and you need something you can rely on? isn't God reliable? ... don't worry... He won't turn His back on you...
    I don't believe the certain exiting truth of Big-Bang or totally
    accept the coincidental nature of origins of life...
    When it come down to understanding them as a separate form,
    I only can say, that my understanding belongs to me
    (I understand thing differently than you and your understanding
    differs from mine) and this awareness make not to believe
    to proofs not specifyed by "supreme understanding".

    And this might be little cynical (selfish etc.) but life has tought me
    that there ain't a thing you could totally rely.
    For a moment think for things you state us the most reliable
    in this fragile and unrational function named as "Life".
    (sorry if this is too personal)

    Your existence... How much you can rely to the fact that
    you will live tomorrow also?

    Your social self... Can you count the truth that your friends
    stay us your friends in days to come?

    F (i L i) P:
    - do you know what texts are those ? The Bible isn't just a big prophecy
    I am not good remembering names, but some of the
    gospel (I don't mean the ones left outside form bible)...

    Then there is also text whose "author" might not be the
    same as the person they're named after,
    example:
    some of the letters and the Book of Revelation (from christian
    sources, it is said that follower of St. John wrote it, but
    it was still named as the Apocalypse of St. John)

    F (i L i) P:
    - christianity has the Bible... and the Bible was a lot of prophecies that really came true... not all religions give you such things....
    Yes might be so, but you have also admit that some other religions
    can offer you prophecies come true...

    And Bible is a good example... When you compare it to
    "common" folklore, you notice a lot of similarities...

    Example the creation of world, nearly all legends prefer
    it as a work of some "superior being of life"...
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    My idea of God is a sort of complicated thing and I don't use to share it as it sitll is a work in progress and anyway it's highly mystical... :?

    Anyway I do believe in "my" God more than I believe in God-believers' God, and usually I haven't got the lesser sympathy for "foreigner mysticism"... specially unrequested foreigner mysticism. :wink:
    Haven't the slightest idea what the last part of this means. But I wonder if your impression of the "God-believers' God" might be a convenient fiction based on ignorance of the unfathomably diverse and complex beliefs of those you call "God-believers".
    Well, "God-Believer's God" is "the way that believers conceive God", and this concept is incompatible with how I conceive God. To me, God and the concept of God are different things.

    In a sense, there would be a "God", then a Man's concept called "God". Both never are coincident as God is plainly beyond our reach -it can't fit to our mind. Whereas the concept of God is quite another question.

    Some conceive a God which is part of their lifes.
    Other conceive a God which doesn't exists, in no way.
    And other conceive a God whose existence can't be denied nor demonstrated.

    All are expression of some trick of our essential neuronal programming -the same as we can identify what a triangle is even if we don't know it's called a triangle, we also think of the existence, unexistence or undemonstrability of a supernatural layer above our "matherial" view of the world around us.

    Wether God exists or not, God is something we conceive... if even it can't really be God.

    Our conception of God could be like the three-dimensional shadow of a four-dimensional space, a conceivable reflection of the unconceivable, but if you ask me, the unconceivable is plain unconceivable, and if we can conceive it, then it isn't really the real unconceivable... :wink:
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    I find the believe in a god pretty equal to the believe in NWO that many conspiracy wankers believes in.
     

  23. #22 Re: Why DON'T you believe in GOD ??? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it's just a simple question... anyone who has problems with religion and GOD should have an answer for this question... would you like to share the reasons that keep you back from believeing ?
    Isnt the idea of a "belief", somthing that you deem absolutely true, beyond
    reason and doubt and without any proof?
    I dont think its something you can question 'why' to.

    I dont believe in god, but I believe in the power of belief. Theres soo many things that are simply unknown, and things we have to accept. ie death. And we have to believe, or we'll go nuts.

    I believe that there is some big a$$ source of energy that powers us all, and I believe that when we die, our energy returns there, or maybe it just dissipates into the atmosphere like everything else. but apart from that I 'know' we all rot, no differently from roadkill.

    The one thing im sure of, where ever it is we go... we all go to the same place.......

    Pretty crap to know that Ophiolites gonna be there though .


    Godnammit Ophiolote, Dont edit my posts!.


    Edit: You posted three all but identical posts. That is against the rules. I extracted the only line that was any different in any of the three and inserted it into the post I left intact. The meaning of your post was not changed in anyway. Please leave this amendment intact.

    What will happen to me if I delete the above amendment ??
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Well, "God-Believer's God" is "the way that believers conceive God", and this concept is incompatible with how I conceive God. To me, God and the concept of God are different things.

    In a sense, there would be a "God", then a Man's concept called "God". Both never are coincident as God is plainly beyond our reach -it can't fit to our mind. Whereas the concept of God is quite another question.

    Some conceive a God which is part of their lifes.
    Other conceive a God which doesn't exists, in no way.
    And other conceive a God whose existence can't be denied nor demonstrated.

    All are expression of some trick of our essential neuronal programming -the same as we can identify what a triangle is even if we don't know it's called a triangle, we also think of the existence, unexistence or undemonstrability of a supernatural layer above our "matherial" view of the world around us.

    Wether God exists or not, God is something we conceive... if even it can't really be God.

    Our conception of God could be like the three-dimensional shadow of a four-dimensional space, a conceivable reflection of the unconceivable, but if you ask me, the unconceivable is plain unconceivable, and if we can conceive it, then it isn't really the real unconceivable... :wink:
    Ah yes, of course, a mystic, I should have caught that one without being hit over the head with it. "The Tao that can be explained is not the real Tao." Sometime I am too much in love with the sound of my own voice (metaphorically speaking) to remember the mystic teachings that made quite an impression on me when I took "Religions of China and Japan" in college. Although, to tell the truth that was a long time ago and I think I have forgotten, thanks for reminding me. I think I didn't remember it too well even when my father got into Lao Tsu and gave a sermon out of Lao Tsu's book, which is pretty strange, but I guess I had a lot on my mind at the time.

    Anyway, since all we have on the internet is words, we must somehow adapt our mysticism to their use. I think the point is to realize the ultimate inadequacy of words not to abandon the use of words in human communication, but to reach beyond them. The Zen and the Taoist still uses words to point the way to something beyond words. In the same way we can move human communication a step deeper to try keeping the words from getting in the way and to fathom what the writer is pointing too, what he is really trying to say.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    as you said... no man can really prove that God exist or doesn't .... I don't even know what made me start this thread...

    GOD... an illusion... mith... legend...
    what could a christian say to that? ... how can he show all he his life, soul, mind using just words?...

    you have just 1 life... just 1 chance...

    and HE WILL remember what YOUR choice was... you'll see...

    sooner then you might think...





    Thank you for your hospitality, and for replying...
    but I think this forum isn't where I should be...

    sorry...
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    - the fact that you were bord and have the change to receive eternal life in heavens, the fact that you lived to this day, that you have breath and food, ration and knowledge PROVES his LOVE... do you actually believe that you are an evolved creature from a cell? and that cell came from chemicals? just look at yourself, you can't even fully understand what you are, but you think you know how you came to existance?... GOD created you because of HIS love... and He doesn't have any debts to you... HE doesn't need to prove anything to you... YOU are the one that owe Him your life and need to prove that you can follow Him and believe in Him....
    You must not be using the same definition of “love” that everyone else uses.

    Imagine a parent who’s child is suffering from a horrible disease. The parent has a medication that would cure the child (or at least ease his suffering), but he refuses to administer it; instead, he just stand by and watches while his child dies. Would you consider this person to be a “loving” parent?

    What about a husband who stands by and watches while his wife is horribly disfigured in a fire, even though he could easily rescue her at no risk to himself? Would you consider this person to be a “loving” husband?

    Or how about a father who orders some of his children to rape, enslave, and murder some of his other children? Would that be “love”?
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    you have just 1 life... just 1 chance...

    and HE WILL remember what YOUR choice was... you'll see...
    You see, this is something else that I've always had a problem with. I don't decide what to believe. My beliefs are forced upon me by evidence and reason. I could no more "choose" to believe in god than I could choose to believe that the world was flat, or that there is a large undiscovered 10th planet out in the solar system somewhere. If there were a reason to believe in god, I would have no choice but to believe. If there isn't a reason, I can't believe. At best, I could be unsure.

    Christians always like to refer to people "choosing" to believe in god, as if they can simply decide to start believing anything at will, regardless of the evidence.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Houm...


    About believing in God, there it was that matrix whose name I can't recall now exactly -it was French, but it wasn't Voltaire, no matter how much my stubborn memory mixes monsieur V. with God... Maybe was Pascal's matrix?


    The matrix went, roughly:

    God may exist, or may not exist.
    I may believe in God, or may not believe in God.

    So:

    God exists, I don't believe in Him, I am punished. (-1)
    God exists, I believe in Him, I am rewarded. (+1)
    God doesn't exists, I believe in Him, I am not rewarded. (0)
    God doesn't exists, i don't believe in him, I am not rewarded. (0)

    Thus, the only way to win is to believe in God, with a net sum of +1, whereas not believing in God yields a net sum of -1.



    My version is: God doens't cares about the untranscendent, get over it.

    Yet: it is good to think about something to thank the positive twists of randomness; it is mean to think that negative twists are caused by any else than twists of randomness; it is dangerous to trust our actions to the twists of randomness; it is pointless to believe that we can control all twists of randomness.


    @mitchellmckain: Any time I should give a read to the Tao-Te-King, as it's not the first time I'm told I am a sort of taoist...
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    as you said... no man can really prove that God exist or doesn't .... I don't even know what made me start this thread...

    GOD... an illusion... mith... legend...
    what could a christian say to that? ... how can he show all he his life, soul, mind using just words?...

    you have just 1 life... just 1 chance...

    and HE WILL remember what YOUR choice was... you'll see...

    sooner then you might think...





    Thank you for your hospitality, and for replying...
    but I think this forum isn't where I should be...

    sorry...
    F(ili)P. I 'believe', this small section of the science forum is definitely where you should be. you have to remember, youre debating with scientific people about their 'beliefs'. i dont think you'll get far and nor will they, but maybe a common ground could be established ???. Filter out the bs and deal with the good stuff.


    What if I could strenghten the first things I said... about the Bible being the Word of GOD... could that classify as evidence?... every book has an author... and for the Bible it's GOD... and I can justify this...
    Im curous about this line, Please. Justify how the author of the bible happens to be god. Did he use a really big and almighty pen?
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    ... double post
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimis
    F(ili)P. I 'believe', this small section of the science forum is definitely where you should be. you have to remember, youre debating with scientific people about their 'beliefs'. i dont think you'll get far and nor will they, but maybe a common ground could be established ???. Filter out the bs and deal with the good stuff.
    Jimis, thank you, you're right... don't know what got into me last post...sorry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimis
    What if I could strenghten the first things I said... about the Bible being the Word of GOD... could that classify as evidence?... every book has an author... and for the Bible it's GOD... and I can justify this...
    Im curous about this line, Please. Justify how the author of the bible happens to be god. Did he use a really big and almighty pen?
    I said it before, but I'll say it again... it's just something that got me thinking... the book of Job was written in about 1900 BC... when you first read it it seems like a normal man writting his thoughts on paper... but if you read it again and again you will notice something pretty strange... there are mentioned a lot of things that I think couldn't have been known at that time... the roundness of earth, the weight of air, fingerprints, the fact that earth 'hangs' in space, the circuit of water in nature... it seems strange that man from 1900 BC had that knowledge, think about it..... and I don't think these can all be translatio errors.....
    just my thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    God doens't cares about the untranscendent, get over it.
    sorry... i don'tknow that word .."untranscendent"... could you give a synonym?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    You see, this is something else that I've always had a problem with. I don't decide what to believe. My beliefs are forced upon me by evidence and reason. I could no more "choose" to believe in god than I could choose to believe that the world was flat, or that there is a large undiscovered 10th planet out in the solar system somewhere. If there were a reason to believe in god, I would have no choice but to believe. If there isn't a reason, I can't believe. At best, I could be unsure.
    if we would have evidence for everything then the question "do you believe in God?" would be the same as "do you believe that 1+1=2?"... we would have a big list with TRUE statements and FALSE ones, and check that list everytime something shows up ..... it's called "belief" as in "faith" ... when someone comes and sais "I love you", you don't say "I'm gonna need evidence and scientific proof for that", you just have faith in her/him (this isn't the best example, but still..) ..... and that's where the choosing comes : you can say "I don't believe you" or you can say "I love you too"... all this being bassed on faith ... it is a choice, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Imagine a parent who’s child is suffering from a horrible disease. The parent has a medication that would cure the child (or at least ease his suffering), but he refuses to administer it; instead, he just stand by and watches while his child dies. Would you consider this person to be a “loving” parent?

    What about a husband who stands by and watches while his wife is horribly disfigured in a fire, even though he could easily rescue her at no risk to himself? Would you consider this person to be a “loving” husband?

    Or how about a father who orders some of his children to rape, enslave, and murder some of his other children? Would that be “love”?
    for the first two statements:
    christians always tend to believe that God HAS to help us and that helping us is the ONLY think He should do... I sometimes think like that too... (nobody is perfect, and nobody is sin-free)... but that ussually happenes only when we have bad days... when it's hard to get out of the trouble and think that "this is the time where God should help us"... about that sick child: what if he refuses to take his medicine?... he doesn't know how dangerous his sickness is and sais "oh no dad, i won't take the medicine because it tastes bad"... he thinks he can manage without just like he do sometimes... and sometimes that medicine could meen letting go to old habits , habits that you enjoy having but also that keep you away from God... do you understand what I'm trying to say? God offeres His medicine but you can get healed ONLY if you take it... if that sick kid refuses to take his parents advice and goes on his own he goes on his own risk... he will only be healed when he will accept the bad taste of the medicine...

    for the second statement:
    i don't know about raping or enslaving but killing yes...
    i'll use the same scenario as yours..... think about this... what if you had 2 sons ... and one would be very very sick and denying your medicine (just like above) ... and also his sickness would be very lethal and very contageous ... if you take no action the second son will also get sick and so you will lose both of them... but if you make that very hard decision to.... let him go.... your second son will live... and trust me there are such casses in the real world where someone was to make such a hard decision...
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Oh, I was just going to post explaining what F (i L i) P meant, and he posted in between my reading the previous post and pressing the Reply button! He's not really justifying it as the Word of God in the conventional religious sense, he's talking about apparently impossible descriptions of the world as it actually is in the book of Job.

    Fil, you're going to have to give me chapter and verse on that, particularly that weird fingerprints dealy. And believe me, no part of the Bible dates back to 1900 BC! I believe Job has been described as immediately post-Exilic (c. 400 BC), but it's certainly not unacceptable to date it anywhere back to 800 BC (Isaiah-ish era).

    Well done on dropping the excessively preachy tone, by the way...
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    God doens't cares about the untranscendent, get over it.
    sorry... i don'tknow that word .."untranscendent"... could you give a synonym?
    Well, maybe I poked the word out my pocket. "Untranscendent" is meant to mean "which is not trascendent"; namely, everything which we can grasp or coneive is not trascendent, so it is "untrascendent".

    The key concept is that existing things do exist because they can cease to exist; so a God that exists also can cease exist... so it is not a real God. Only a trascendent god can be real, but IMO by being trascendent it just doesn't cares of what is not trascendent. As takign care is also a known attribute of untranscendent things, then the trascendent God can't care... else would be a untrascendent God who cares.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    if we would have evidence for everything then the question "do you believe in God?" would be the same as "do you believe that 1+1=2?"... we would have a big list with TRUE statements and FALSE ones, and check that list everytime something shows up ..... it's called "belief" as in "faith" ... when someone comes and sais "I love you", you don't say "I'm gonna need evidence and scientific proof for that", you just have faith in her/him (this isn't the best example, but still..) ..... and that's where the choosing comes : you can say "I don't believe you" or you can say "I love you too"... all this being bassed on faith ... it is a choice, isn't it?
    If someone says they love you, you don't have to have absolute proof to believe them - but you still need good evidence. Normally that evidence would be your past experiences with the person. If a random stranger approached you and said that he loved you, you would likely be somewhat skeptical. Perhaps he really loves you, but you probably wouldn't really believe that he loved you until you got to know him a little better.

    Here's example; suppose someone walks up to you with a coin. He throws the coin as far away as he can, so that it lands where you can't see whether it's heads or tails. He then says "I will give you $1 million to believe that the coin landed "heads up". You would never be able to collect the money even though you would probably want to, because you don't actually know how the coin landed. Perhaps it landed heads up, but there's an equally good possibility that it landed tails up. At best, you could lie and say you believed it to have landed heads up, even though you would still secretly be aware that you really had no idea how the coin landed.

    The point of the above example is that you can't simply choose to believe something that you don't have good evidence to believe, even if you want to believe it or if it would be beneficial for you to believe it. Similarly, I can't simply "choose" to believe in god unless I have some convincing evidence to believe in him.


    for the first two statements:
    christians always tend to believe that God HAS to help us and that helping us is the ONLY think He should do... I sometimes think like that too... (nobody is perfect, and nobody is sin-free)... but that ussually happenes only when we have bad days... when it's hard to get out of the trouble and think that "this is the time where God should help us"
    I'm not saying that god has to help us; clearly an omnipotant being who created the entire universe could do anything he wanted. My point is that god's refusal to help people who suffer horriably is inconsistant with the idea that god loves.
    ... about that sick child: what if he refuses to take his medicine?... he doesn't know how dangerous his sickness is and sais "oh no dad, i won't take the medicine because it tastes bad"... he thinks he can manage without just like he do sometimes... and sometimes that medicine could meen letting go to old habits , habits that you enjoy having but also that keep you away from God... do you understand what I'm trying to say? God offeres His medicine but you can get healed ONLY if you take it... if that sick kid refuses to take his parents advice and goes on his own he goes on his own risk... he will only be healed when he will accept the bad taste of the medicine...
    Yes, I see what you are trying to say. But there are still serious problems with your explanation. First, although your explanation might explain why god doesn't help atheists or pagans, it doesn't explain why he refuses to help his own followers. Even devout christians routinely suffer horribly, despite begging god for help - so the explanation that god doesn't help people because we reject his help isn't adequate.

    Also, your explanation doesn't account for why god would refuse to help small children. Babies suffer from horrible diseases and die painful deaths all the time, but god doesn't appear to do anything about it. Since babies presumably don't even realize that god exists, it doesn't make sense to say that they are rejecting his help.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    If someone says they love you, you don't have to have absolute proof to believe them - but you still need good evidence. Normally that evidence would be your past experiences with the person. If a random stranger approached you and said that he loved you, you would likely be somewhat skeptical. Perhaps he really loves you, but you probably wouldn't really believe that he loved you until you got to know him a little better.
    This is sound, but
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Here's example; suppose someone walks up to you with a coin. He throws the coin as far away as he can, so that it lands where you can't see whether it's heads or tails. He then says "I will give you $1 million to believe that the coin landed "heads up". You would never be able to collect the money even though you would probably want to, because you don't actually know how the coin landed. Perhaps it landed heads up, but there's an equally good possibility that it landed tails up. At best, you could lie and say you believed it to have landed heads up, even though you would still secretly be aware that you really had no idea how the coin landed.

    The point of the above example is that you can't simply choose to believe something that you don't have good evidence to believe, even if you want to believe it or if it would be beneficial for you to believe it. Similarly, I can't simply "choose" to believe in god unless I have some convincing evidence to believe in him.
    this is not sound.

    In fact it is pure nonsense and shows a great ignorance about the majority of people in this world. I might say that what you say could be true about you, but in fact I don't think it is even true of you. We all choose to believe things all the time. The majority, in fact, will choose to believe the most ridiculous things simply because they cannot handle life without doing so. Facing reality and facing facts often takes an extra-ordinary degree of rationality but not neccessarily sanity.

    Someone points a gun at you and tells you to move into a dark alley, what do you do? He wants you do believe that everything will be OK as long as you do what the nice man with a gun tells you to. Most people actually choose to believe this ridiculous proposition. All evidence suggest that this man is not a nice man nor that he deserve any trust whatsoever. Consider the simple logic: if he would shoot you on the street then would he be more likely or less likely that he would shoot you in the dark alley? I say that it makes no sense what so-ever to do what a man pointing a gun at you tells you to do unless there is ample evidence that he is worthy of trust, like for example, a police uniform and request that that is consistent with police work. I have vowed never to do what a man with a gun pointed at me tells me to do, because I don't believe the ridiculous proposition. I accept that I will most like die and I will not help the guy who kills me with compliance. I think this makes me excessively rational but not neccessarily completely sane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Babies suffer from horrible diseases and die painful deaths all the time, but god doesn't appear to do anything about it.
    Ever seen a child screaming to get his own way. Maybe it is for a piece of candy, but sometimes it is even for something completely inappropriate or even dangerous. The child often act like he going to die if he doesn't get what he wants. Woe to the stupid parent who capitulates. The parent has a better perspective about what is good, and he should ignore the childs trivial suffering and act from that superior perspective, don't you think. Well I think that we are all such children with a very immature perspective about what is important, and with very little clue about what suffering we cause that is actually really devistating and unforgivable and what suffering is actually really very trivial.

    If I were in God's position I would be very careful about doing things which would make people feel even less responsible for their lives and other people by taking care of them myself. I would also be wary of doing anything that might condone their thinking that the trivialities of their brief spans in this life are more important than their eternal well being. Once I begin to interfere where do I draw the line? And maybe every time I have interfered in the past worse consequences have followed, and now I have made myself responsible for the misery of men and taken away the opportunity of men to be responsible for their own lives. The prime directive in Star Trek makes a lot sense and the greater the gap of power and knowledge the more sense it makes.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    In fact it is pure nonsense and shows a great ignorance about the majority of people in this world. I might say that what you say could be true about you, but in fact I don't think it is even true of you. We all choose to believe things all the time.
    Perhaps it is true that some people can simply decide to believe something regardless of the evidence, but I would argue that such people are irrational idiots whose opinions can probably be rejected out of hand. Anyone who can arbitrarily choose to believe anything is likely to lead a short, confused life as they bumble through the world randomly accepting and rejecting beliefs.

    Ever seen a child screaming to get his own way. Maybe it is for a piece of candy, but sometimes it is even for something completely inappropriate or even dangerous. The child often act like he going to die if he doesn't get what he wants.
    So are you dismissing all human suffering as a mere triviality? I don't think you can really compare something like a child dying of progeria to a child who is upset that he can't have candy.

    Consider the following exchange:

    Person 1: John loves puppies.

    Person 2: But yesterday John watched while a curious puppy wandered into a burning barn without doing anything! The puppy died, and John didn't do anything to try to save it.

    Person 1: Well, perhaps he had his reasons...

    Clearly person 2 has presented strong evidence that John does not love puppies. It's possible that John had a good reason for what he did, but in the absence of any evidence to that effect it's most reasonable to conclude that person 1's claim was false.

    Similarly, the fact that god doesn't do anything about people's suffering is strong evidence that god (if he exists) doesn't love people.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I looked over this thread twice and still haven't made note of the post where the Original Poster (OP) qualified his question, "Why DON'T you believe in GOD?" It was asked why should one be expected to believe in any supernatural entity (I'm paraphrasing). I take it a step further and ask, if one should choose to believe in the supernatural, why must it be your god? Why not a Maya god or a Sumerian one? Why not a Polynesian one those of antiquity aren't your thing?

    What evidence exists to give precedence of the Christian cults over Polynesian or Indonesian cults?

    The true question of this thread shouldn't be "Why DON'T you believe in GOD?", it should be "Why DO you believe in a god?"

    Not that anyone who is a believer is qualified to answer the question since their perspective is emic and therefore biased (though the imediate accusation of the believer is that the ettic perspective is also one of bias against that of the cult believer).
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Fil, you're going to have to give me chapter and verse on that, particularly that weird fingerprints dealy. And believe me, no part of the Bible dates back to 1900 BC! I believe Job has been described as immediately post-Exilic (c. 400 BC), but it's certainly not unacceptable to date it anywhere back to 800 BC (Isaiah-ish era).

    Well done on dropping the excessively preachy tone, by the way...
    thank you...
    even so, 400 BC is very very old for such knowledge
    here's what you asked for:

    - "He stretches out the north over empty space, He hangs the earth on nothing, He binds up the water in His thick clouds, yet the clouds are not broken under it." (Job 26:7-8 )... The one who wrote this verse must have had basic knowledge of the universe, space and atmosphere...I think it is obvious that that one couldn't have been man...

    - "For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist" (Job 36:27)... circuit of water in nature?... Evaporation, Condestation... Man couldn't have known these things at that time...

    - "He seales the hand of every man, that all men may know His work" (Job 37:7)... again... Fingerprints ? I don't think that could be posible...

    - "To establish a weight for wind, and apportion the waters by measure" (Job 28:25) How could some man have knowledge about the weight of air back then?...

    It just doesn't make sense if you say that man wrote the Bible if you consider these verses...


    (edited to correct some wrong chapter/verse I gave)
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    "He stretches out the north over empty space, He hangs the earth on nothing, He binds up the water in His thick clouds, yet the clouds are not broken under it." (Job 26:7-8)... The one who wrote this verse must have had basic knowledge of the universe, space and atmosphere...I think it is obvious that that one couldn't have been man...
    In 230 B.C. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the Earth, quite accurately as it turns out, by observing the angle of the sun at two distant points in Egypt, at mid-day. This was almost certainly just a duplication of work carried out by the Egyptians at an earlier time. So not only did this 'ancient' know that the Earth was an orb, suspended in space, but he was able to determine its size. And yes, he was a man.

    In Meteorologica written about 340 BC., Aristotle discussed the causes of many phenomena of the weather. While his explanations were not the most accurate, the understanding of these phenomena was much more detailed than that revealed in the passage from Job. Aristotle was also a man.

    I think I can say with confidence that any farmer standing in a parched field 5000 years ago, waiting for the rains, knew exactly what was contained in clouds. I think, perhaps, you underestimate the intelligence and knowledge of our ancestors.
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    "He seales the hand of every man, that all men may know His work" (Job 37:7)... again... Fingerprints ? I don't think that could be posible...
    You have completely misinterpreted this passage. It will be easier to understand its meaning if we look at it in context.

    Job 37:6 For he saith to the snow, Be thou [on] the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.
    Job 37:7 He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work.
    Job 37:8 Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places.

    Job 37 deals overall with God's control of the weather. In verses 6 - 8 Job is discussing the impact that severe weather has on humans and animals. Note in verse 8 that the beasts go into dens, retreating from the weather.
    In like manner God sealeth up the hand of man. Man's work is done by his hand, yet God has prevented this by the severity of the weather. Man is forced into idleness, just as are the beasts.
    Yet, according to Job, we differ from the beasts, for this enforced idleness is so that we may know his work, recognising his hand - which is not sealed - in the snow and the great rain.

    The verse, therefore, has nothing at all to do with fingerprints. What led you to this bizarre interpretation?


    "To establish a weight for wind, and apportion the waters by measure" (Job 27:25) How could some man have knowledge about the weight of air back then?.
    Any one who had been blown off their feet by a gust of wind would have no doubts about the solidity of air.
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    "He seales the hand of every man, that all men may know His work" (Job 37:7)... again... Fingerprints ? I don't think that could be posible...
    You have completely misinterpreted this passage. It will be easier to understand its meaning if we look at it in context.

    Job 37:6 For he saith to the snow, Be thou [on] the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.
    Job 37:7 He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work.
    Job 37:8 Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places.

    Job 37 deals overall with God's control of the weather. In verses 6 - 8 Job is discussing the impact that severe weather has on humans and animals. Note in verse 8 that the beasts go into dens, retreating from the weather.
    In like manner God sealeth up the hand of man. Man's work is done by his hand, yet God has prevented this by the severity of the weather. Man is forced into idleness, just as are the beasts.
    Yet, according to Job, we differ from the beasts, for this enforced idleness is so that we may know his work, recognising his hand - which is not sealed - in the snow and the great rain.

    The verse, therefore, has nothing at all to do with fingerprints. What led you to this bizarre interpretation?


    "To establish a weight for wind, and apportion the waters by measure" (Job 27:25) How could some man have knowledge about the weight of air back then?.
    Any one who had been blown off their feet by a gust of wind would have no doubts about the solidity of air.
    I think I took the meaning of "seal" as "signet"...

    solidity yes... but weight? those are two different properties... what answer would you have gotten for the question "do you want a kilogram of air?"
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    In 230 B.C. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the Earth, quite accurately as it turns out, by observing the angle of the sun at two distant points in Egypt, at mid-day. This was almost certainly just a duplication of work carried out by the Egyptians at an earlier time. So not only did this 'ancient' know that the Earth was an orb, suspended in space, but he was able to determine its size. And yes, he was a man.
    Not only that, but for an encore he went on to use geometry and astronomical observations to calculate the size of the moon, the distance between the earth and the moon, the size of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun and even the tilt of the earth's rotational axis - all without divine help.

    So no, 400ish B.C. was not "very very old for such knowledge "

    In Meteorologica written about 340 BC., Aristotle discussed the causes of many phenomena of the weather. While his explanations were not the most accurate, the understanding of these phenomena was much more detailed than that revealed in the passage from Job. Aristotle was also a man.
    I get so tired of christians bringing up the same couple of bible verses as evidence that the bible contains things that "people couldn't possibly have know" when there is plenty of evidence that lots of people did in fact know about weather and astronomy back then. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the water cycle. Since rain always seems to come down from clouds, it seems reasonable to assume that clouds are made of water. Since you can boil water and create a cloud of steam, it seems reasonable to assume that the clouds come from evaporated water. You don't have to have any sort of advanced scientific knowledge to notice that when you boil a pot of water in a small room, the room gets cloudy. And since we have plenty of ancient texts that talk about exactly this kind of thing, it's clear that people back then were thinking about it and trying to figure it out.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    all without divine help.
    that depends on who you are... in your case, not believing in God, you say that everything is "without divine help"... but in my case, believing in God, I say that everything IS with divine help, even knowledge, ...
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    But that is a matter of faith, not scientific proof. I have no objections to the use of faith. I do object to faulty attempts are delivering scientific proof. I hope you agree the examples you gave from Job do not constitute proof of divine knowledge. For my part I shall certainly allow that they might be a consequence of divine action, but maintain there is no evidence to that effect.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    all without divine help.
    that depends on who you are... in your case, not believing in God, you say that everything is "without divine help"... but in my case, believing in God, I say that everything IS with divine help, even knowledge, ...
    I see what you are saying. But you can't claim that the very primitive descriptions of astronomy or meteorology in Job are evidence that the bible was written by god, because there is plenty of evidence that such things were widely known back then. Indeed, ancient Greek texts have far more accurate descriptions than the ones in Job.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    solidity yes... but weight? those are two different properties... what answer would you have gotten for the question "do you want a kilogram of air?"
    Again, you are simply not giving ancient people enough credit. The ancient greeks (including Aristotle's 340 B.C. 'Meteorologica' that was already mentioned) referred to air as having mass.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    I'm not sure why there's all this talk of Eratosthenes. He measured the Earth's diameter, but yes that was roughly 170 years too late for the author of Job. But Job did not describe the earth as an "orb", that was a post hoc assumption made by Filip and Ophiolite! Job is based on Babylonian knowledge of astronomy, and as far as they were concerned the Earth was a flat disk. Evidently the author of Job did not have any truck with "turtles all the way down", and it does appear to be a more modern cosmological view. But that's all it is, a view of the status of Earth in space that coincidentally reflects "reality" (or rather, what our perception of reality currently is, which even as it is could not be held to be confirmed until 1961 when a human first saw the Earth from space). And no references to orbs or spheres.

    Anyone who got slapped in the face by a gust of wind might consider that it possessed "weight", even if there was no concept of measuring that weight by use of mercury.

    Ophiolite did an excellent exegesis of Job 37:6-8, but lets take Filip's interpretation seriously for a second: simply because "fingerprint" is a relatively modern word which is used in today's technological forensic sciences, does not mean that the knowledge that each of us possesses a unique signet might not have been evident to people of ancient times. It's not like you need a PET scanner to determine the truth of unique fingerprints, just your eyes and the ends of your fingers.
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    yes... I think I DO tend to underestimete man from the past... and yes... those are NOT "evidence"... those are just some things that got my atention when I read them... everyone was different opinions and different interpretations... I am sure that if I read a book and tell a friend to read the same book and then met the both of us and talk about it, we will have some very differnt opinions over that book and over the events related in it... we all see things in different ways, depending on our past experience with them... so in my case, when I read the Bible, I find it at a small scale as at a large scale, full of harmony, unity, knowledge, and above all truth... and I find all these to be the work of God...this is the way I see it...
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    But Job did not describe the earth as an "orb", that was a post hoc assumption made by Filip and Ophiolite!
    More of an ad hoc concession on my part, really. I thought the orb business was peripheral, and I don't like distractions when I'm on the job, so to speak. :wink:
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    yes... I think I DO tend to underestimete man from the past... and yes... those are NOT "evidence"... those are just some things that got my atention when I read them... everyone was different opinions and different interpretations... I am sure that if I read a book and tell a friend to read the same book and then met the both of us and talk about it, we will have some very differnt opinions over that book and over the events related in it... we all see things in different ways, depending on our past experience with them... so in my case, when I read the Bible, I find it at a small scale as at a large scale, full of harmony, unity, knowledge, and above all truth... and I find all these to be the work of God...this is the way I see it...
    Filip, although this is not the way discussions of this kind frequently go, please don't assume that continual raising of points about what the ancients knew or didn't know is necessarily any form of "getting" at you or your views. You have conceded that you may have originally overstated the case, and for my part I appreciate your having pointed to parts of Job that I had overlooked. (I have terrible difficulty in reading it through and getting all its poetic beauties, which beauties, and Job's "masterpiece" status, I am constantly reading about!)
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    You have conceded that you may have originally overstated the case, and for my part I appreciate your having pointed to parts of Job that I had overlooked. (I have terrible difficulty in reading it through and getting all its poetic beauties, which beauties, and Job's "masterpiece" status, I am constantly reading about!)
    so are you reading the whole bible?... or reading "about" it ?
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    One must do both if one is to truly appreciate its artistic value. Reading about the bible (or any work of early mythology) allows one to put the work into contexts that, in turn, allow for comparison and contrast.

    Only reading the bible by itself eliminates the understanding that the authors of many contemporary works had similar myths and stories. Indeed, many, if not most, of the biblical stories have literary analogs and origins in other cultures, consistent with the interactions that these cultures had with each other.
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    One must do both if one is to truly appreciate its artistic value. Reading about the bible (or any work of early mythology) allows one to put the work into contexts that, in turn, allow for comparison and contrast.

    Only reading the bible by itself eliminates the understanding that the authors of many contemporary works had similar myths and stories. Indeed, many, if not most, of the biblical stories have literary analogs and origins in other cultures, consistent with the interactions that these cultures had with each other.
    I see the Bible as too complex and the books from the Bilbe too connected one with another, for them to be just a simple bunch of "myths" that have similars in other cultures
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    How many examples would I need to give you to change your point of view? I'm guessing no amount would do that, since belief isn't something that is a function of objectivity and evidence when it comes to religious superstitions. But I could probably meet any reasonable number.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    yes you could... but that again depends on the way you look at things... you, looking at the Bible as a book full of "myths" that are similar to myths from different cultures, is pretty much the same as me, looking at two balls, one of iron and one of rubber, same color, same size, and saying that they are the same in every aspect...
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I'm talking about artifacts of human literature. I'm not sure how an analogy about "balls" would work with that.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    when you will have that "something" that makes you see all things the way a christian does, you'll know what I mean... words can't explain "it"...
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Again, the difference in your perspective and mine is emic versus ettic. And my ettic view of Christianity is tempered by my formerly (as a youth) emic one. I once shared your point of view. I've since educated myself on the vast body of literary works that existed contemporary to Christian mythology. Moreover, my studies in the myths of extant and extinct religious cults has revealed a perspective that I assert you will not have UNLESS you set aside your ethnocentric bias.

    Its a shame really.
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    "Shame" ???... NO... the shame is that this world si constantly driffting away from the truth... it took matters in it's own hands... it tries to explain things that are behyond understanding and for that it comes up with absolutely ridiculous expalnations... we all have the gift of life... life given to us bt GOD... this is not an acident that happened millions of years ago.... the fact that you have a resoning mind, you have knowledge, you have moral feelings, you care, you love, you LIVE... all these are NOT accidents... and if they are, then that would be the reason for us to be ashamed... Ashamed of us...that we are all accidents, and that we weren't meant to exist... in this case we are all a shame for "mother nature", aren't we?... oh... the shame !!!
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    ...that we are all accidents, and that we weren't meant to exist...
    We still could be. The only thing is that both sides of the argument require proof. Since this is not possible then an educated guess will do.

    Just as it seems impossible for you to accept that everything is an accident, it is just as hard for others to accept that God is responsible. Even if He did it, what's wrong with trying to figure out how? I hope that in the past no great minds have let a fear of delving into the mind of god prevent them from pursuing scientific discovery. My opinion is that an overzealous or over fearful belief in God may stifle imagination.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Simply saying a myth is true doesn't make it so. Nor does quantity of believers make a myth true. If either of these statements were fact, then the myths of Zeus and Apollo would be true. Or the myths of Maya gods who demand blood sacrifice at the altar of the king would be true. Millions of people once believed the later. Nearly 100% of their respective cultures believed these myths to be true.

    The refusal to look at one's own religion and worldview objectively, with the understanding that it is but one brief religion of many thousands in human history, it what is a shame. That so many people are hoodwinked by cult leaders in modern society is a shame.
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    ...that we are all accidents, and that we weren't meant to exist...
    We still could be. The only thing is that both sides of the argument require proof. Since this is not possible then an educated guess will do.

    Just as it seems impossible for you to accept that everything is an accident, it is just as hard for others to accept that God is responsible. Even if He did it, what's wrong with trying to figure out how? I hope that in the past no great minds have let a fear of delving into the mind of god prevent them from pursuing scientific discovery. My opinion is that an overzealous or over fearful belief in God may stifle imagination.
    I don't know about you, but I just don't trust anything bassed on guesses... EVEN if it is "educated", "informed", "supported", "whatever"... they ARE ALL GUESSES... true or false... go guess...

    I have no problem with finding out "how"... AS LONG AS GOD IS STILL IN THE PICTURE !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Simply saying a myth is true doesn't make it so. Nor does quantity of believers make a myth true. If either of these statements were fact, then the myths of Zeus and Apollo would be true. Or the myths of Maya gods who demand blood sacrifice at the altar of the king would be true. Millions of people once believed the later. Nearly 100% of their respective cultures believed these myths to be true.

    The refusal to look at one's own religion and worldview objectively, with the understanding that it is but one brief religion of many thousands in human history, it what is a shame. That so many people are hoodwinked by cult leaders in modern society is a shame.
    in that case ALL theories of man are also just "myths"... there are many who believe that man evolved from monkey, many who believe in Big -Bang... many SAY the these are true... but nobody knows for sure... so according to your own statement they result to be myths... wild, modern myths...

    hoodwinked???... excuse me but I thing you are the one hoodwinked over here... blindfolded by your own ego... by the overconfidence in human knowledge and in your own knowledge... man knows NOTHING... end of story...


    so there is no 100% "evidence" that God exists, and no 100% evidence He doesn't.... so it CAN be true or false... right? now imagine this:
    - It's FALSE... what happenes then? we're born, we live, we die... and it's over... we return to the "energy-source" or whatever...
    - It's TRUE... what happens then? we're born, we live, we die... BUT in this case it's never over... WE GET JUDGED: and from there there are only two ways to go: eternal life, or eternal fire...
    so in your case: just assume for 1 second that God exists and that the Bible is God's Word... and try to "analyze" you life, thoughts, mind, heart ... where would you end up after death... hmmmm... yes I know .. big question there... are you willing to risc all this just because you haven't had any 100% evidence... there won't be a second chance then...
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    If I was to analyze the pro-con God debate then there is definitely a more positive swing provided for those who believe in God. First, nobody wants to die, so immediately an offer of eternal life seems too good to be true. No god means lights out forever. The popular choice is obvious.

    Forget about god for a moment. Afterlife without supreme being. Again, the afterlife is the people's choice over lights out.

    Would people accept a god but no afterlife? Imagine that god never included eternal life as a post death scenario. Acceptable....no way. God and afterlife just belong together, it gives people hope.

    What's more important to us here, god or afterlife?
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    so there is no 100% "evidence" that God exists, and no 100% evidence He doesn't.... so it CAN be true or false... right? now imagine this:
    - It's FALSE... what happenes then? we're born, we live, we die... and it's over... we return to the "energy-source" or whatever...
    - It's TRUE... what happens then? we're born, we live, we die... BUT in this case it's never over... WE GET JUDGED: and from there there are only two ways to go: eternal life, or eternal fire...
    so in your case: just assume for 1 second that God exists and that the Bible is God's Word... and try to "analyze" you life, thoughts, mind, heart ... where would you end up after death... hmmmm... yes I know .. big question there... are you willing to risc all this just because you haven't had any 100% evidence... there won't be a second chance then...
    I hate this argument, I always have. It might get someone into a church out of fear but how is it going to instill an actual belief in God? You are basically playing on someone's selfish side to try and scare them into church. How noble.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    in that case ALL theories of man are also just "myths"... there are many who believe that man evolved from monkey, many who believe in Big -Bang... many SAY the these are true... but nobody knows for sure... so according to your own statement they result to be myths... wild, modern myths...
    These "beliefs" are tempered with evidence. Belief in gravity is supported by observation. Belief in evolutionary mechanisms is likewise supported by evidence. Belief that the moon orbits the Earth at a given distance at a given interval is supported by evidence. That man, along with monkey's, descended from a common ancestor is supported by evidence. Volumes of it (see or start another thread if you want to argue the point).

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    hoodwinked???... excuse me but I thing you are the one hoodwinked over here... blindfolded by your own ego... by the overconfidence in human knowledge and in your own knowledge... man knows NOTHING... end of story...
    I like the end of a story that gives us airplanes, spacecraft, advanced medicines, computers, etc. Man, it would appear, knows a lot. Those that refuse to progress out of Bronze Age literature and mythology have not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CORE BELIEFS. In otherwords, their beliefs constitute being HOODWINKED.

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    so there is no 100% "evidence" that God exists, and no 100% evidence He doesn't....
    There's no 100% evidence that Atun exists or not. Or Baal. Or Zeus. What of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    so it CAN be true or false... right? now imagine this:
    - It's FALSE... what happenes then? we're born, we live, we die... and it's over... we return to the "energy-source" or whatever...
    - It's TRUE... what happens then? we're born, we live, we die... BUT in this case it's never over... WE GET JUDGED: and from there there are only two ways to go: eternal life, or eternal fire...
    so in your case: just assume for 1 second that God exists and that the Bible is God's Word... and try to "analyze" you life, thoughts, mind, heart ... where would you end up after death... hmmmm... yes I know .. big question there... are you willing to risc all this just because you haven't had any 100% evidence... there won't be a second chance then...
    The logic of that argument is juvenile and uninformed. What if it your god isn't the right one and the correct god was Atun al along? What if your bible isn't the correct set of mythologies but the Egyptian Book of the Dead and The Instructions of Ptah-Hotep that are the real holy literature? Where does that leave you? I contend that there is more evidence to suggest that the Egyptian religion is the TRUE religion than is the Christian. You cannot prove me wrong. The Egyptian religion lasted longer. The Egyptian Gods interacted with mankind for a longer period. They promised immortality for the soul.

    I don't believe in either cult practice. But my contention is still valid, and to dismiss it is intellectual dishonesty. Living one's life as if there's an afterlife is foolish. Assuming that there is something more and that what you do in this life is secondary to what is to come is likewise foolish. I want no part of a god that would tolerate such ignorance and impetuous worshippers. I live my life as if it were the only one. I value each and every moment and value the lives of everyone I come in contact with, understanding that this is the only life they have as well. Life is precious. And that is the failing with religious zealots the world over: they assume that this life is but a temporary condition and that what they do here matters not as long as they do what their individual cult deems necessary to get to the next life. Any god that expects people to live their lives in such a way can kiss my ass, I want no part of whatever else it has in store.

    If there is a god, I'm confident it is NOT the anthropomorphic creation of man, but something that has yet to reveal itself. Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Quetzacoatal, Atun, these are all creations of man. If there's a god, worshipping them is blasphemous. Only the atheist has a hope being accepted by any real god.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    I found a reason why I don't want to believe in the God.

    Somehow our local priests statements about afterlife
    make life after death to sound horrible.
    Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris

    Carminis Iliaci libros consumpsit asellus. O Fatum Troiae! Aut ecus aut asinus!

    Vita regit Fortuna, non sapientia!
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    so there is no 100% "evidence" that God exists, and no 100% evidence He doesn't.... so it CAN be true or false... right? now imagine this:
    - It's FALSE... what happenes then? we're born, we live, we die... and it's over... we return to the "energy-source" or whatever...
    - It's TRUE... what happens then? we're born, we live, we die... BUT in this case it's never over... WE GET JUDGED: and from there there are only two ways to go: eternal life, or eternal fire...
    so in your case: just assume for 1 second that God exists and that the Bible is God's Word... and try to "analyze" you life, thoughts, mind, heart ... where would you end up after death... hmmmm... yes I know .. big question there... are you willing to risc all this just because you haven't had any 100% evidence... there won't be a second chance then...
    I hate this argument, I always have. It might get someone into a church out of fear but how is it going to instill an actual belief in God? You are basically playing on someone's selfish side to try and scare them into church. How noble.
    I agree. I like to call it intellectual blackmail.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain (in What I see in Christianity)
    There is however a superficial understanding of “Pauline Christianity” making it appear ridiculous in the extreme, which goes something like this. God designed and created man to worship him, so he condemns us to eternal damnation and suffering when we sin against Him. God gives reprieve only if we obey the teachings of Paul by accepting salvation through Jesus Christ. So God gives us this irresistible choice between eternal bliss in heaven and eternal suffering based simply on whether we believe in his son Jesus, so only the most foolish attitude of rebellion stands in the way our salvation.
    Before explaining what I believe to be the real message of Christianity we must first thoroughly explain the why the superficial explanation is so absurd. First of all the idea of a god that would create beings for the purpose of worshipping him does not inspire worship. The god described above sounds just like the worst tyrants in human history, insanely paranoid about the recognition of his own power and worth. Even his gesture of magnanimity in offering reprieve to anyone who believes in his son sounds like the self aggrandizing whim of a tyrant. Second, assuming the above impression is mistaken and that God is not insane but truly a loving creator as the Christians claims him to be, why would he send people to eternal suffering. As a punishment, eternal suffering makes no sense at all. The purpose of punishment is to modify behavior, so eternal suffering certainly doesn’t qualify. Is it to satisfy justice? If so, it would seem to be a justice completely beyond human comprehension. Justice as people have always understood it, is about balancing ones actions with the proper consequences. What could any man do in the few short years of his existence on earth, that justice would require that to balanced with an eternity of suffering? To make matters worse, we are not even talking about eternal suffering being deserved by the worse that man can do, but even the least evil. How does justice require a man, acknowledged by every man who ever met him to be a good person, to suffer eternally just to balance a single evil thought he had. Third, if we assume that somehow this second problem could be resolved, then what possible difference could believing in Jesus make? If it is a free gift as Christians claim then why would a loving God hesitate to distribute it to everyone. Why would the gift be restricted only to those who have been cowed by the threats of hellfire into doing whatever the evangelical Christians told them to do? Finally the whole thing reeks of what we might call intellectual blackmail. It is telling us that we have to believe or else suffer the direst of consequences. In fact, that seems to be the only sensible explanation for eternal suffering. Only a threat of such horrible proportions might make people submit to the Christian belief system.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    What's more important to us here, god or afterlife?
    afterlife is the gift offerd by God to ALL humans... all we have to do is ACCEPT IT... and we do that by BELIEVING... could you receive something if you don't believe it exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I hate this argument, I always have. It might get someone into a church out of fear but how is it going to instill an actual belief in God? You are basically playing on someone's selfish side to try and scare them into church. How noble.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I agree. I like to call it intellectual blackmail.
    blackmail??? FEAR of GOD is something that should be in the heart of everyone who believes in HIM... you should know that Mitchell...
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    I found a reason why I don't want to believe in the God.

    Somehow our local priests statements about afterlife
    make life after death to sound horrible.
    I don't know what your local priests told you about the afterlife... one thing I'm sure about: IT IS NOT (OR ANYWAY NEAR) HORRIBLE !!!
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    These "beliefs" are tempered with evidence. Belief in gravity is supported by observation. Belief in evolutionary mechanisms is likewise supported by evidence. Belief that the moon orbits the Earth at a given distance at a given interval is supported by evidence. That man, along with monkey's, descended from a common ancestor is supported by evidence. Volumes of it (see or start another thread if you want to argue the point).
    Science throws you away from God... MORE science brings you back to HIM... the evidence we have is not enough right now... enough to say this and that... we'll see what will happen when science goes deeper...
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I like the end of a story that gives us airplanes, spacecraft, advanced medicines, computers, etc. Man, it would appear, knows a lot. Those that refuse to progress out of Bronze Age literature and mythology have not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CORE BELIEFS. In otherwords, their beliefs constitute being HOODWINKED.
    I happen to know the worlds BIGEST "SUPER-HERO": he's just 4 years old and he is the brother of a friend of mine... and according to him, he is the strongest man to ever walk this planet... nobody can stand in his way... his fists are mortal and his kick is deadly... I was once his victim... but I survived..... that's how we (humans) talk about us... we are like little kids... we are sooooo smart (strong)... well.... GROW UP!!!... can you really put the complexity of the whole universe face to face with the knowledge of the smartest man??? it would be like the Planet vs. the Atom... oh yeah... really smart...
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I contend that there is more evidence to suggest that the Egyptian religion is the TRUE religion than is the Christian. You cannot prove me wrong. The Egyptian religion lasted longer. The Egyptian Gods interacted with mankind for a longer period. They promised immortality for the soul.
    the egyptian gods were CHANGED by the pharows !!!... pharows were gods... yup... now that proves egyptian religion is more trustworthy than christianity, doesn't it? .... now, I know that your answer to the following question will be "yes", but I'm still going to ask you: Have you heard of JESUS ?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I don't believe in either cult practice. But my contention is still valid, and to dismiss it is intellectual dishonesty. Living one's life as if there's an afterlife is foolish. Assuming that there is something more and that what you do in this life is secondary to what is to come is likewise foolish. I want no part of a god that would tolerate such ignorance and impetuous worshippers. I live my life as if it were the only one. I value each and every moment and value the lives of everyone I come in contact with, understanding that this is the only life they have as well. Life is precious. And that is the failing with religious zealots the world over: they assume that this life is but a temporary condition and that what they do here matters not as long as they do what their individual cult deems necessary to get to the next life. Any god that expects people to live their lives in such a way can kiss my ass, I want no part of whatever else it has in store.
    OK... this is very simple... living this life for living the afterlife is like sleeping for waking up.... you can't wake up, if you don't sleep... how can you get to a place (heaven) if you don't take the road to it (our life) ??
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Only the atheist has a hope being accepted by any real god.
    Now, that has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard... really... it's like saying :"Only those that DON'T take part at a race can win it"...
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    the egyptian gods were CHANGED by the pharows !!!... pharows were gods... yup... now that proves egyptian religion is more trustworthy than christianity, doesn't it? .... now, I know that your answer to the following question will be "yes", but I'm still going to ask you: Have you heard of JESUS ?
    Actually, they were pharaohs. And clearly you have no education in Egyptian religion, so it would be pointless to argue you point above, but I will say only that divine association with the pharaoh comes from the knowledge that the pharaoh represented the god Horus and was the flesh-and-blood essence of Horus on Earth. Your ethnocentric criticisms do not disprove the validity of Egyptian religion. It is every bit as valid as any Christian cult.

    Have I heard of Jesus? Which one? If you are educated in literature of the period, you know that there were several individuals that were referred to as "Jesus" at around the time of the mythical figure you believe had supernatural powers of walking on water, rising from the dead, etc. So "yes," I've "heard" of several Jesus's. I've seen no artifactual or epigraphica evidence beyond a few cult stories that support the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person, much less a supernatural embodiment of Christian gods.

    Ironically, the Jesus myth of Christianity is very similar to the Horus myth of Egyptian mythology. Both were sons of divinity. Horus was the son of the virgin Isis-Meri. Her husband was Osiris, who was killed and dismembered by Seth before the birth of Horus, making his "conception" a miracle. Isis found all the parts of Osiris and revived him and he became the god of the dead. Horus became the god of the living (hence, embodied in each pharaoh). Osiris was also called Seb or Jo-Seph. Ancient Egyptians celebrated Horus' birth at the winter solstice with a manger mock-up paraded through the streets. Herut tried to have Horus killed shortly after birth (as did Herod with Jesus). Ancient Egyptian texts tell of Anup the "baptizer" who imersed Horus in a ritual at age 30. Anup was beheaded. John the Baptist suffered an exact fate after baptizing Jesus at the same age. Horus was said to walk on water, cast out demons, and heal the sick/crippled. The death, burial and resurrection of Horus was celebrated and reinacted annually in Anu, an ancient Egyptian city for centuries.

    The texts of the Horus myth are dated to several centuries before the alleged Jesus. Clearly, the early Christians "borrowed" the story of Jesus from the earlier account of Horus and Meri (Jesus and Mary) and his father Jo-Seph (Joseph). This is in the tradition of the Jewish authors of the old testiment mythologies who "borrowed" then edited Near Eastern and Egyptian myths for the pentateuch


    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    OK... this is very simple... living this life for living the afterlife is like sleeping for waking up.... you can't wake up, if you don't sleep... how can you get to a place (heaven) if you don't take the road to it (our life) ??
    That's your unverified and un-evidenced belief based on an apparent lifetime of indoctrination and dogma. There is NO EVIDENCE that there is any life after death. We live, the synapses in our brains provide a consciousness, we die, the synapses lose the energy needed to fire and we're gone. There is no "waking up" because there is nothing to "wake-up" from.

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Only the atheist has a hope being accepted by any real god.
    Now, that has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard... really... it's like saying :"Only those that DON'T take part at a race can win it"...
    More unrelated analogies. We're talking about gods and deities, not races and winning. But your answer is consistent with the hoodwinked and brainwashed cult members of Christianity. Your perspective is the only one that is valid and all others are automatically invalid... because this is the will of the cult leadership and the dogma. I understand that and even expect it since successful cultures have mechanisms in place to prevent members from leaving and mechanisms to obtain new members. This is simply a matter of survival of the culture and probably a function of DNA, as is the propensity to believe in the first place.
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I agree. I like to call it intellectual blackmail.
    blackmail??? FEAR of GOD is something that should be in the heart of everyone who believes in HIM... you should know that Mitchell...
    Ah yes I know that fear of God, well, but I may think of it a bit differently.

    You seem to be thinking that it is the fear of the threat of eternal damnation and that it is this fear which will cow the unbeliever into accepting Christ as the savior. Whereas I think that the true fear that must drive one to accepting Christ as your personal savior is not a fear of God but a fear of yourself. It is coming to realize that evil lies in wait in your own heart and that left to yourself following your own inclinations you will most certainly walk the path to hell or create its immitation around you, yourself. Man is always his own worst enemy and it is trust in himself that will surely lead to damnation.

    No I think the proper fear of God is something quite different. It comes from the fact that nothing you do or think or believe will save you. It is only God. You cannot coerce Him, you cannot control Him, you can barely understand Him, and you certainly cannot know His mind. His knowledge and judgement of you is absolute and irrefutable. When you stand before Him what can you say? If you try to defend yourself, you will surely fail. How then can you not be afraid, especially if you have the tremendous cheek to say that you are saved.

    Ah! I bet you protest at what I say. Thinking, "but what about the Gospel? What about the good news, that we are saved by the free gift of grace?" It is a free gift indeed, but it is a gift for God to give and not yours to demand. It is not yours by any right, is it? Therefore how can we but accept that gift unless it full of the proper fear of God. We must accept the gift with fear and trembling, full of repentance and remorse -- a broken spirit. To accept this gift with triumph and pride seems very foolish to me in the extreme. Self-righteousness has no place in the heart of a true Christian (although it may be found there nevertheless, God help us)!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    F (i L i) P:
    I don't know what your local priests told you about the afterlife... one thing I'm sure about: IT IS NOT (OR ANYWAY NEAR) HORRIBLE !!!
    I can understand the Hell part, it doesn't sound a big deal
    but the Heaven. Yes the Heaven is the thing I fear...

    This is a undirect (and roughly translated) quote
    from one of our local priests:

    ---

    And after death your souls will finally be free and go to
    the Heaven, where all the barriers separating us,
    preventing us from understanding each other will be broken...

    ---

    Finally we are free of our hatred caused by out restricted
    mind, free of all restriction of our mind...

    ---

    Heaven is a place we all have one and only language,
    culture, religion and none of us is better than other,
    because in His eyes we all are equal...

    ---

    Place where is no pain and suffering and all, poor and rich,
    can live in supreme happiness...

    ---

    Wait for the day of the Second coming when on His mercy
    His son will return to lead us away from the tears of misery,
    this fallen Paradise know as the Earth...

    ---
    You might ask what is so horrible in this part and
    the answer is simple...

    According to our local priests words, all the things
    that matters, all the things that makes You to be You
    will be taken away and we all are forced to
    be a part of some strange grey mass where everyone
    is the same.
    According to their words Heaven is a end of ones Uniqueness.
    Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris

    Carminis Iliaci libros consumpsit asellus. O Fatum Troiae! Aut ecus aut asinus!

    Vita regit Fortuna, non sapientia!
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    F (i L i) P:

    And after death your souls will finally be free and go to
    the Heaven, where all the barriers separating us,
    preventing us from understanding each other will be broken...
    According to their words Heaven is a end of ones Uniqueness.
    Well I don't agree with their vision either. I do not think that our responsibilites in life can be escaped so easily. I do not think truth will be revealed at death, I think it will be even harder to find. I do not think the barriers between people built or accepted in life will vanish after death but that they will be even harder to overcome. I think it much more likely that you will find yourself alone, though it may take some time to realize the fact. I think the basic facts of life after death are miserable indeed.

    You see, I think that death is a bit like birth. Where we suddenly find ourselves in a much bigger world, where many things which we have taken for granted are no longer automatically supplied, but require our own developing abilities to obtain for ourselves. I mean for example, the common reality and connections with other people that are automatically supplied by the physical laws of space and time.

    And what abilities are required? Again I think it is really simple. It is the ability to make choices -- effective choices. Do we make choices for greater life or do we choose death. We may think that choosing life is obvious, but that is only true if we really understand what life is. For example, more than anything, I think life is responsibility. Do we choose to be alone or with other people? Again we mqy think it is obvious, but do e accept people for who they are and try to fit ourself into their lives, or do we try to fit them into our life? I am afraid, that the second is really choosing to be alone.

    I think life after death is our dreams come true. Sound nice? I don't think so. The question is, what are our dreams. Do we really think that we know what will bring us happiness, any more than child does? We may think so. But in my experience, people are so deluded, so full of self-deceptions, that the truth is they haven't a clue. I think that just given three wishes in life we are most likely to mess up our lives completely.

    I think the real difference between heaven and hell is a very simple one. It is all a matter of whether we manage to get help. Help from the one source, directly or indirectly, whose help will do us any good in the long run. We need help from the one source that knows us better than we know ourselves, who knows what choices will bring us happiness. Oh! I bet you are thinking, "just great, all I need is someone making choices for me." But, .... We are used to choosing favorite colors and ice cream flavors.... We are used to choices in small doses which we manage. We are use to making choices which have insignificant consequences. I think we have no idea of the enormity and scope of critical choices that face us after death and that when we do, it will make our life experience of choosing nearly insignificant. Also, I don't think it will be like a quiz we have to take. Everything we do will be choices without even realizing it. In life we are used to making choices all the time that have so little consequence, that I fear we are not really prepared to be faced with a situation where every choice we make every few seconds is a matter of our life and death?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    God help us !
    ... AMEN !...

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The texts of the Horus myth are dated to several centuries before the alleged Jesus. Clearly, the early Christians "borrowed" the story of Jesus from the earlier account of Horus and Meri (Jesus and Mary) and his father Jo-Seph (Joseph)
    sorry... but what's so "clear" about that?... If I get the same mark with my friend at school, does that make it "clear" that I copied from him?... I do't think so...

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    There is NO EVIDENCE that there is any life after death.
    Well... christians have a lot of 'evidence' for that... but you won't believe those... what you need in "scientific" evidence... well... probably nobody will ever give you that... but do you think that there wil be anymore evil or doubts about God, IF it would be proved? everyone would believe in afterlife and live their lifes with much more precausion... no more lies, no more sins... what would that mean? that the devil and its evil would be defeated.... now that's a new thing: man defeated the devil and all evil... Bang!!!... Big problem there...

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    More unrelated analogies. We're talking about gods and deities, not races and winning.
    ok... so you have a problem with examples... but please... Re-read what you said: "ONLY THE ATHEIST HAS A HOPE BEING ACCEPTED BY ANY REAL GOD"... ... so you don't believe... and if there would be a god, you still wouldn't believe.... but you would be accepted by that god ???... .... how's that?

    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    I can understand the Hell part, it doesn't sound a big deal
    hmmmm... so... BURNING for eternity isn't a big deal... ok... take a match... light it up... put it under your finger... feel anything?... but let's say you are a very strong guy... and you live even if you burned to ashes your finger... now... Hell... that's the place where not only the finger burns, but everything... and that fire lasts forever, not like the match... and the thing burns won't turn to ash, it will keep or burning and burning, and hurting and hurting.... that's what I would call a BIG deal... wouldn't you?
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    Well, F (i L i) P I understand what you mean
    but imagine for a while that I have syndrome
    that prevents me from feeling pain...
    Won't it feel same anymore?
    Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris

    Carminis Iliaci libros consumpsit asellus. O Fatum Troiae! Aut ecus aut asinus!

    Vita regit Fortuna, non sapientia!
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    sorry... but what's so "clear" about that?... If I get the same mark with my friend at school, does that make it "clear" that I copied from him?... I do't think so...
    If your task was an essay and the two essays used the same literal devices and were worded the same... yes. You would be considered a plagerist.

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    There is NO EVIDENCE that there is any life after death.
    Well... christians have a lot of 'evidence' for that... but you won't believe those...
    Indeed. I don't believe in evidence that cannot be verified. One cannot quote the source one is seeking to verify. Evidence needs to be independent, testable, and reproducible. The reality is, Christians have NO EVIDENCE for their beliefs, only more beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    ok... so you have a problem with examples... but please... Re-read what you said: "ONLY THE ATHEIST HAS A HOPE BEING ACCEPTED BY ANY REAL GOD"... so you don't believe... and if there would be a god, you still wouldn't believe.... but you would be accepted by that god ???.... how's that?
    Because I wouldn't have accepted some false god. If there is a god, it hasn't revealed itself and it CERTAINLY isn't the anthropomorphic blasphemy that man has created. Thus, if a god exists, the only people with a hope of being accepted by it are the ones that chose not to believe in the gods of man. You'll be damned. The atheist will have favor of the unrevealed god since the atheist hasn't made up a god or accepted a false one.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Because I wouldn't have accepted some false god. If there is a god, it hasn't revealed itself and it CERTAINLY isn't the anthropomorphic blasphemy that man has created. Thus, if a god exists, the only people with a hope of being accepted by it are the ones that chose not to believe in the gods of man. You'll be damned. The atheist will have favor of the unrevealed god since the atheist hasn't made up a god or accepted a false one.
    Interesting argument that supports Scott Peck's contention that the skeptic is more spiritually advanced than the institutionally religious.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    Well, F (i L i) P I understand what you mean
    but imagine for a while that I have syndrome
    that prevents me from feeling pain...
    Won't it feel same anymore?
    sorry, but I don't think I understand what you want to say? are you saying that you could be "immune" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Because I wouldn't have accepted some false god. If there is a god, it hasn't revealed itself and it CERTAINLY isn't the anthropomorphic blasphemy that man has created. Thus, if a god exists, the only people with a hope of being accepted by it are the ones that chose not to believe in the gods of man. You'll be damned. The atheist will have favor of the unrevealed god since the atheist hasn't made up a god or accepted a false one.
    In that case we both would be damned... you either believe, or you don't... there is no grey part for these things... only black or white...

    and about the "clear" origins of christianity... that is still a GUESS... and I think you konw my opinion about guesses...
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    F (i L i) P:
    sorry, but I don't think I understand what you want to say? are you saying that you could be "immune" ?
    I don't think it is immunity, some times in the newspapers
    there are headlines about child that has a syndrome
    (caused by a missing gene or duplicated gene or something like that)...

    Because this syndrome they can't feel pain, because
    their nerves won't react to the pain in any noticable way....

    According to the scientists this syndrome is rather rare but possible.
    Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris

    Carminis Iliaci libros consumpsit asellus. O Fatum Troiae! Aut ecus aut asinus!

    Vita regit Fortuna, non sapientia!
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by eternal
    F (i L i) P:
    sorry, but I don't think I understand what you want to say? are you saying that you could be "immune" ?
    I don't think it is immunity, some times in the newspapers
    there are headlines about child that has a syndrome
    (caused by a missing gene or duplicated gene or something like that)...

    Because this syndrome they can't feel pain, because
    their nerves won't react to the pain in any noticable way....

    According to the scientists this syndrome is rather rare but possible.
    oh... I see... so you say that if you would have this syndrome you wouldn't feel pain even in hell?... that sydrome won't matter at all... we won't be flesh and bones anymore... so no more syndrome... If someone is going to Hell then all he can do is try NOT to get there... change his ways, follow Christ, believe in salvation... but IF he ends up in hell NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING will save him from the eternal fire/pain/suffering... you can't cheat God...
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    oh... I see... so you say that if you would have this syndrome you wouldn't feel pain even in hell?... that sydrome won't matter at all... we won't be flesh and bones anymore... so no more syndrome...
    explain how you can feel pain without flesh, or is pain only in your mind, if the latter is the case could you explain that to the multitudes of people in hospital.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    If someone is going to Hell then all he can do is try NOT to get there... change his ways, follow Christ, believe in salvation... but IF he ends up in hell
    which if your right, means two thirds of the world 4.4 billion and another also 33,000 of the 34,000 different sects of christianity, that leaves about 650,000 people, so in total at the present time nearly six billion people will go to hell. there seems to be no hope for anybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING will save him from the eternal fire/pain/suffering...
    so we back to whether pains in the mind or physical.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    explain how you can feel pain without flesh, or is pain only in your mind, if the latter is the case could you explain that to the multitudes of people in hospital.
    Hell... in the Bible it appears as a "lake of fire"... but what do we really know about it? something close to nothing... What is SURE about it is that hell is a place of punishment... when we ask someone to describe hell we often get the same standard description: "Oh... it's a hot place where everything burns and people suffer and devils laugh"... but hell could be something else... it can be an infinite place of emptiness, desolation and regret where we would be all alone, it could be a crowded pit of "fire"... In any case pain will be one of the key components... but "pain" can be a lot different than the pain we know as physical pain... we can only understand pain if we reffer to matter... "my leg hurts" "my eye hurts"... we have PAIN "tied up" to MATTER... the pain from hell can be a pain that we couldn't understand as humans, like many other things we can't undertand... whatever shape pain might take in hell, it will be of constant presence.... we won't get used to it in time (I don't think there will even be "time"), and we won't be able to get away from it... it might even be a pain that has no source... it could be pain from the "inside" from the thought of rejecting Jesus, a constant regret of the way we lived our life...
    Whatever forms of pain are in hell, I'm sure it is something worse that anything we have seen on this earth...

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    which if your right, means two thirds of the world 4.4 billion and another also 33,000 of the 34,000 different sects of christianity, that leaves about 650,000 people, so in total at the present time nearly six billion people will go to hell. there seems to be no hope for anybody.
    I'm not God. I can't say: "you'll go to heaven' and you'll go to hell"... that is for Him to decide... But the Bible says clearly that anyone who rejects Jesus all his life, anyone who doesn't believe in Him, no matter how many good deeds he has done, will end up in hell... and yes, it is a terrifying thing when we try to do the math on these... but again: ONLY GOD is the mathematician in this case....
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Was Hell the focus of Christ's teachings? Hell no it wasn't. So why does it always seem to be the first card out of the Christian arsenal?
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Hell... in the Bible it appears as a "lake of fire"... but what do we really know about it? something close to nothing... What is SURE about it is that hell is a place of punishment...
    there is no evidence for a place called hell, so it is certainly not SURE, is it.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    when we ask someone to describe hell we often get the same standard description: "Oh... it's a hot place where everything burns and people suffer and devils laugh"... but hell could be something else...
    yes that is the common response because it what your indoctrinated with, however hell can be whatever you can imagine it to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it can be an infinite place of emptiness, desolation and regret where we would be all alone,
    yes can be whatever you imagination can conjure up, but if it existed it would certainly no be lonely, it would have a least 6 billion people in it and thats not including the ones that died before now, another possible 5 billion.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it could be a crowded pit of "fire"... In any case pain will be one of the key components... but "pain" can be a lot different than the pain we know as physical pain... we can only understand pain if we reffer to matter... "my leg hurts" "my eye hurts"... we have PAIN "tied up" to MATTER... the pain from hell can be a pain that we couldn't understand as humans, like many other things we can't undertand... whatever shape pain might take in hell, it will be of constant presence.... we won't get used to it in time (I don't think there will even be "time"), and we won't be able to get away from it... it might even be a pain that has no source... it could be pain from the "inside"
    Whatever forms of pain are in hell, I'm sure it is something worse that anything we have seen on this earth...
    wow you have a vivid imagination, I say imagination as you could'nt possibly know, you've never been there, never met anybody whos returned from there unless you imagined some had.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    from the thought of rejecting Jesus, a constant regret of the way we lived our life...
    I've no regrets in the way I lead my life infact, mine and I believe most atheist life's, are exemplary, we know this is the only life we have, and thus respect the right of other humans to live their life's, we could not deprive any human of that right.
    therefore we lead a far more virtuous life than any religious person ever could, we do good things because we wish to, not because a sky daddy told us to or suffer his wrath.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    I'm not God. I can't say: "you'll go to heaven' and you'll go to hell"... that is for Him to decide...
    nobody is, god is just an imaginary concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    But the Bible says clearly that anyone who rejects Jesus all his life, anyone who doesn't believe in Him, no matter how many good deeds he has done, will end up in hell... and yes, it is a terrifying thing when we try to do the math on these... but again: ONLY GOD is the mathematician in this case....
    the bible is just a book, it should no more be used to show you how to lead you life than the grimm fairy tales or easops fables or a thousand and one nights.
    they all contain moral guidence.

    ps and the bible is the least moral of them all.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Hell... in the Bible it appears as a "lake of fire"... but what do we really know about it? something close to nothing... What is SURE about it is that hell is a place of punishment...
    there is no evidence for a place called hell, so it is certainly not SURE, is it.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    when we ask someone to describe hell we often get the same standard description: "Oh... it's a hot place where everything burns and people suffer and devils laugh"... but hell could be something else...
    yes that is the common response because it what your indoctrinated with, however hell can be whatever you can imagine it to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it can be an infinite place of emptiness, desolation and regret where we would be all alone,
    yes can be whatever you imagination can conjure up, but if it existed it would certainly no be lonely, it would have a least 6 billion people in it and thats not including the ones that died before now, another possible 5 billion.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it could be a crowded pit of "fire"... In any case pain will be one of the key components... but "pain" can be a lot different than the pain we know as physical pain... we can only understand pain if we reffer to matter... "my leg hurts" "my eye hurts"... we have PAIN "tied up" to MATTER... the pain from hell can be a pain that we couldn't understand as humans, like many other things we can't undertand... whatever shape pain might take in hell, it will be of constant presence.... we won't get used to it in time (I don't think there will even be "time"), and we won't be able to get away from it... it might even be a pain that has no source... it could be pain from the "inside"
    Whatever forms of pain are in hell, I'm sure it is something worse that anything we have seen on this earth...
    wow you have a vivid imagination, I say imagination as you could'nt possibly know, you've never been there, never met anybody whos returned from there unless you imagined some had.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    from the thought of rejecting Jesus, a constant regret of the way we lived our life...
    I've no regrets in the way I lead my life infact, mine and I believe most atheist life's, are exemplary, we know this is the only life we have, and thus respect the right of other humans to live their life's, we could not deprive any human of that right.
    therefore we lead a far more virtuous life than any religious person ever could, we do good things because we wish to, not because a sky daddy told us to or suffer his wrath.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    I'm not God. I can't say: "you'll go to heaven' and you'll go to hell"... that is for Him to decide...
    nobody is, god is just an imaginary concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    But the Bible says clearly that anyone who rejects Jesus all his life, anyone who doesn't believe in Him, no matter how many good deeds he has done, will end up in hell... and yes, it is a terrifying thing when we try to do the math on these... but again: ONLY GOD is the mathematician in this case....
    the bible is just a book, it should no more be used to show you how to lead you life than the grimm fairy tales or easops fables or a thousand and one nights.
    they all contain moral guidence.

    ps and the bible is the least moral of them all.
    What I said in my previous post is "valid" IF you believe God exists... If you are coming with answers like "But God doesn't exist" or "The Bible is just a book" it means we're back to the problem of scientifically proving Gods existance... and in that case we probably wouldn't get to any satisfying conclusion... So what I said, I said it "assuming" that God exists... so I'm going to rephrase...

    -IF God exists, hell exists... IF hell exists, it exists to serve as a place of punishment... IF it is such a place then "pain", in whatever forms it might take, will be a constant key componet...
    -That is what hell would be... what it would look like is impossible to determine... so it can be anything... EVEN an infinite empiness, where we would be all alone... GOD is infinite so He can create anything Infinite... This may sound wierd: what if hell is an infinite place in the shape of a square, divided in an infinite number of small squares, each of these small squares has the edge equall to infinite, and each small square is occupied by one person... Hmmm... imposible?... even for an almighty God? ... In this case we would be alone in one of those small infinite squares... could be so, or anything else... we just CAN'T know... so yes, it is just our imagination that comes with so much cases... but no matter how vivid our imagination is every "imaginary hell" has PAIN... otherwise it wouldn't be hell...
    -IF God existed, and the Bible would be His Word, and you would live all your life denying Him, and you would end up in hell, then regreting your life would BE another constant "pain"...

    this is the case "IF"... if we would debate only the "YES, He exists" or "NO, He doesn't"... we wouldn't get anywhere... many have done it before us...

    you can't be 100% sure that candy is sweet untill you taste it...

    you can't know untill you live it...
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    What I said in my previous post is "valid" IF you believe God exists... If you are coming with answers like "But God doesn't exist" or "The Bible is just a book" it means we're back to the problem of scientifically proving Gods existance.. and in that case we probably wouldn't get to any satisfying conclusion... So what I said, I said it "assuming" that God exists... so I'm going to rephrase...
    agreed an impossiblity at the moment, but an irrational stance to thing a god did it scenario. is the right course of action.
    however on the subject of the bible, well this is just baseless, and there is no evidence for anything in it apart from a little geography, theres truth in all books, it add that sense of realism.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    -IF God exists, hell exists...
    how so what have you based that assumption on.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    -IF God existed, and the Bible would be His Word,
    that is a humongous step from the possiblity of a god existing, to have the arrogance to beleive that the bible would be the actual words of a god and not subject to alteration or invention by man.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    this is the case "IF"... if we would debate only the "YES, He exists" or "NO, He doesn't"... we wouldn't get anywhere... many have done it before us...
    I have'nt said a god does'nt exist, just that theres on evidence for one at the moment.
    but until such time as a god shows one instance of itself in reality, we have to take the rational path.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    you can't be 100% sure that candy is sweet untill you taste it...
    candys a reality thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    you can't know untill you live it...
    if you wish to live in the subjective world of your mind, thats you perogative.
    it is more rational and more dignified to live in reality.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    however on the subject of the bible, well this is just baseless, and there is no evidence for anything in it apart from a little geography, theres truth in all books, it add that sense of realism.
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    that is a humongous step from the possiblity of a god existing, to have the arrogance to beleive that the bible would be the actual words of a god and not subject to alteration or invention by man.
    The Bible was written in an interval of over 1500 years, by 40 people... These persons where very different one from another, they lived in very different places... Now... take 5 modern men, from the same city, that grew up in similar conditions, that speak the same language and have the same culture... put them in 5 diffrent rooms and ask each one of them to write something about some controversial topic... like the meaning of life... after they are finished compare what they wrote... I'm sure you will find some very different opinions and points of view... Now...back to the Bible: It was written by 40 persons (not 5), it was written in over 1500 years (not in the same generation), those who wrote it came from different places, spoke different languages, had different cultures, and lived in different times (not like in our case of 5 men with the same language/culture/age/place)... And still, the books of the Bibe are united,
    harmonized and talk about the same thing: God's plan to save man... Can such an unique/united/harmonized/linked book be the imagination of man? I seriously doubt it... not to mention the numerous prophecies that came true... you can't say that they are just coincidences...

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    -IF God exists, hell exists...
    how so what have you based that assumption on.
    I'm talking about the christian God... and about what the Bible says...

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    but until such time as a god shows one instance of itself in reality, we have to take the rational path.
    God shows instances of Him every day... it just depends if you look at them as from God or as being nothing more than coincidences, "accidents" of the "rational path" like all things that exist since the "Big Bang"... all accidents...


    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    candys a reality thing.
    so is God... it's just that there are a lot of people who say otherwise

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    if you wish to live in the subjective world of your mind, thats you perogative.
    it is more rational and more dignified to live in reality.
    Ah... reality... what is it? the sum of all things that man can see, touch, feel, the things he can understand, and the things for which he has a bag full of "evidence"... oh and the things he "guesses" about... well, do you have in this reality the concept of "life", "hope", "love"?... no... you only have a million year old accident... and that doesn't stop there... in your "reality" ALL things are accidents, living or non-living.... this is what you call reality?....
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    however on the subject of the bible, well this is just baseless, and there is no evidence for anything in it apart from a little geography, theres truth in all books, it add that sense of realism.
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    that is a humongous step from the possiblity of a god existing, to have the arrogance to beleive that the bible would be the actual words of a god and not subject to alteration or invention by man.
    The Bible was written in an interval of over 1500 years, by 40 people... These persons where very different one from another, they lived in very different places... Now... take 5 modern men, from the same city, that grew up in similar conditions, that speak the same language and have the same culture... put them in 5 diffrent rooms and ask each one of them to write something about some controversial topic... like the meaning of life... after they are finished compare what they wrote... I'm sure you will find some very different opinions and points of view... Now...back to the Bible: It was written by 40 persons (not 5), it was written in over 1500 years (not in the same generation), those who wrote it came from different places, spoke different languages, had different cultures, and lived in different times (not like in our case of 5 men with the same language/culture/age/place)... And still, the books of the Bibe are united,
    harmonized and talk about the same thing: God's plan to save man... Can such an unique/united/harmonized/linked book be the imagination of man? I seriously doubt it... not to mention the numerous prophecies that came true... you can't say that they are just coincidences...
    Outside the Bible are thousands upon thousands of documents written by various Christian theologians, priests and simple believers, and they are also all united in the same way. Well, they are all members of the same religion! It doesn't take a miracle of God to have a common outlook written by people who have a common outlook and culture! "The Creator God loves us and has a plan for us, no matter what crap he sends our way" is hardly an unnatural starting point for any religious view.

    That's the simple answer. The more complicated answer is basically, well, read the Bible with slightly more open eyes and perhaps you'll see a little more disagreement between the various writers than you're currently willing to admit. For example, if you split the Pentateuch into its component parts you can clearly see fundamental differences between the beliefs of the various authors: E was a Samarian priest, probably from Shiloh (like Jeremiah) who believed in the supremacy of Moses and the Mosaic priesthood, whereas P, a Jerusalem priest from fairly near Exilic times, promoted the Aaronid priests. There are clear contradictions as to exactly who God loves and who he doesn't, throughout the Bible. The God of Joshua wants all the enemies of Israel wiped out to the last man, woman, child, ox and sheep, but Jesus said "Love your enemy". Ezra was concerned to maintain the integrity of the people and forbade marrying out, but the book of Ruth tells us that a Moabitess was the ancestor of David. Job has God, the infinite, the illimitable and the unchangeable, but Moses argued with God and changed his mind all the time, and God also constantly withdrew and then re-applied his Covenant during the days of the Kings.

    If you wish to post specific prophecies that you believe the Bible has shown to be fulfilled, I will happily knock every one of them down, invariably as the result of "rewriting history" to match the prophecy, as with Isaiah 7:14.
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    If you wish to post specific prophecies that you believe the Bible has shown to be fulfilled, I will happily knock every one of them down, invariably as the result of "rewriting history" to match the prophecy, as with Isaiah 7:14.
    No... No, I don't want to post any specific prophecies because I know that you'll just come with some more "evidence" of yours... and I think I'm fairly full of such "evidence"... as if someone can "rewrite history" just like that... "Hey guys, let's change some history, nobody will notice"... sorry, I'll pass...
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Well, why are you making claims about the amazing prophecies of the Bible if you aren't willing to provide some examples for us? If there are so many, surely you can come up with at least a few that can't be easily knocked down.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well, why are you making claims about the amazing prophecies of the Bible if you aren't willing to provide some examples for us? If there are so many, surely you can come up with at least a few that can't be easily knocked down.
    Claims based on ancient history are all based on sand. Modern prophesy would not validate the Bible. Of course the rapture of the church like in "Left Behind" would do the trick, so I suppose we will just have to wait for that one and see. But, of course, that one will not help the atheists here (and other non-Christians), it will just prove them wrong or keep them waiting.

    No what the atheists here want is a nice testable proposition by which they can once and for all put the question of God or Christianity to test. But Christianity and religion are not sciences so they are not going to provide such a thing. Any religion which has done so in the past has simply revised itself with a "live and learn" approach.

    F(ili)p you ask them why they do not believe in God and respond by giving reasons why they should. Are these the reasons you believe in God? Ultimately it is a matter of choice. You have chosen your reasons and they have chosen theirs.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Ok... here's one...
    It is about the ancient city of Tyre...

    First, read chapter 26 in Ezekiel...
    The book of Ezekiel was written in about 592-570 B.C.

    Ok, this is what the the prophecy sais will happen to Tyre:
    a-Nebuchandezzar will destroy Tyre (verses 7-8 )
    b-Many nations will rise against Tyre (verse 3)
    c-Tyre will become as the top of a rock (verse 4)
    d-It will be a place where fishers will spread nets (verse 5)
    e-The walls/stones/timber/soil of Tyre will be thrown in water (verse 12)
    f-Tyre will never be rebuilt (verse 14)

    Let us now take a look at the history of Tyre:

    -Tyre was a city built on the sea shore...
    -Not long after Ezekiel wrote this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar began the to siege Tyre
    -When he finally got the gates of Tyre open, he saw that the city was almost empty... most ot the population of Tyre left in boats to a near island, almost 1 mile away, settling there...
    -Nebuchadnezzar conquered the city from the shore (prophecy A), but the part of Tyre from the island remained strong for a long time...
    -After that came Alexander the Great... he wanted to conquer both parts that formad Tyre, the one from shore and the one on the island...
    -He destroied the city from the shore and with the rubble he started to build a dam (~60 meters wide) to the city from the island (prophecy E)... at first the work was going well, but the depth of the sea was getting bigger, and the workers where getting closer to the Tyrian walls... finally the Tyrians managed to destroy the dam in a big raid... Alexander knew then that he nedded ships to conquer Tyre... so he ordered those under his power to build him ships... so Alexander began to have ships from a lot of different cities that where under his command (prophecy B)... Having this sea superiority, Alexander managed to complete the dam...
    -In 332 B.C. Alexander destroied the part of Tyre that was built on the island
    -Tyre recuperated in a way, but it never got back to what it once was... Most of the island was now empty, like a rock (prophecy C) where fishers would dry their nets (prophecy D)
    -Tyre continued to be rebuilt, but also it continued to be sieged by other nations (again prophecy B) untill it finally was completly destroied in 1291, and it never was rebuilt again (prophecy F)...

    This is the History of Tyre...


    Now let's take a look back at the prophecy:

    A- YES... Nebuchadnezzar destroied the Tyre built on land...
    B- YES... Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, the mussulmans...
    C- YES... Alexander used the part of Tyre from the shore to build the dam, leaving behind an "empty rock"...
    D- YES... Even today Tyre is a place where fishers spread their nets to dry...
    E- YES... Alexander used a lot of material from the old Tyre to build the dam, throwing different materials in water...
    F- YES... the mainland city of Tyre was never rebuilt, as the prophecy sais it...


    This is just one of the prophecies found in the Bible... think about it...
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ultimately it is a matter of choice. You have chosen your reasons and they have chosen theirs.
    <<And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned".>> Mark 16:15-16.
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ultimately it is a matter of choice. You have chosen your reasons and they have chosen theirs.
    <<And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned".>> Mark 16:15-16.
    Naturally I cannot argue with that. In fact, it is never too far from my mind in discussions like this because it is a command from Jesus with which I have particular difficulty.

    This reminds me of the book "The Greatest Salesman in the World." This is because my own experiences of being a salesman are nightmares. Aggressive sales is something which I cannot do. It uses manipulation and rhetoric as tools and I am alergic to these things. I cannot stand being manipulated myself and so I have a hard time doing the same to others. My personality is too empathic and focused on understanding other peoples points of view. I can try to explain my point of view, but hitting them over the head with it is difficult for me to do. Sometimes it is just obvious that there is no way to get from their way of thinking to mine and I am forced to accept that.

    I feel a "vocation" to bridge the gap between science and Christianity and that is the only response to Jesus' commandment which I can handle. I try to promote understanding so that people can make their choices free of misunderstanding and confusion. This is not necessarily the most successful way of spreading the Gospel. Sometimes it takes someone who is headstrong and is willing to look foolish or even rude. I have known and respected (even loved) such people but I am not such a person. You have chosen a difficult forum in which to follow this commandment. Good luck.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    Ok... here's one... It is about the ancient city of Tyre...

    -In 332 B.C. Alexander destroied the part of Tyre that was built on the island [...] it finally was completly destroied in 1291, and it never was rebuilt again (prophecy F)...

    The book of Ezekiel was written in about 592-570 B.C.

    This is just one of the prophecies found in the Bible... think about it...
    Even if Ezekiel was actually written prior to the destruction of Tyre, there are many problems with this so-called "prophecy."

    Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege (587-574 B. C.) of Tyre failed. This "prophecy" reminds me of modern chalatans and diviners like Sylvia Brown who make prediction after prediction based on educated guesses about events that are already unfolding. When she gets one right she announces it proves her ability to see the future. She gets most of them flat wrong.

    But Neb finally called off the siege after he was able to secure an annual tribute from the Tyrians to Babylon. He never sacked the city. Moreover, archaeological evidence suggests that the city has been continuously occupied from before Ezekiel's "prophecy" until now. Ezekiel predicted, in Sylvia Browne style, that the city would never be rebuilt -but there's a thriving city there now!

    Moreover, didn't the biblical "prophecy" include: "For thus says the Lord GOD: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon...."? That seems to imply that it would be our good friend Neb who would sack Tyre. Except he didn't.
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You have chosen a difficult forum in which to follow this commandment. Good luck.
    Thank you...
    God will decide...

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Even if Ezekiel was actually written prior to the destruction of Tyre, there are many problems with this so-called "prophecy."

    Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege (587-574 B. C.) of Tyre failed. This "prophecy" reminds me of modern chalatans and diviners like Sylvia Brown who make prediction after prediction based on educated guesses about events that are already unfolding. When she gets one right she announces it proves her ability to see the future. She gets most of them flat wrong.

    But Neb finally called off the siege after he was able to secure an annual tribute from the Tyrians to Babylon. He never sacked the city. Moreover, archaeological evidence suggests that the city has been continuously occupied from before Ezekiel's "prophecy" until now. Ezekiel predicted, in Sylvia Browne style, that the city would never be rebuilt -but there's a thriving city there now!

    Moreover, didn't the biblical "prophecy" include: "For thus says the Lord GOD: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon...."? That seems to imply that it would be our good friend Neb who would sack Tyre. Except he didn't.
    Neb is ONE of "the many nations" that will attack Tyre. Verses 7 to 11 say what he will do to Tyre... and so he did...
    -verse 7: Neb will attack Tyre
    -verse 8: Neb will siege Tyre
    -verse 9: Neb continued his siege
    -verse 10: Neb finally gets throgh the gates and into the city
    -verse 11: Tyrians left for the Island, but NOT all of them, some remained and had to face Neb... guess what happened with them...
    Interesting is the fact that these verses describe the siege of Neb, using "HE will do this", "HE will do that" HE=Neb... verse 12 is different... in verse 12 we read that "THEY will do this and that"... who is "they"? why not "he", Neb?... because HE is done siege... HE attacked, HE sieged, HE conquered the mainland...DONE.... but after HIM came THEY, the other nations, Alexander and those who followed him... Alexander would "lay the stones and timber and soil in the midst of the water"...
    The prophecy said that Tyre would become a place where fishers would lay their nets to dry... but doesn't that imply the fact that these men (fishers) had to have a place to live in? It is absolutely logic and normal to think that they had such "homes" as near to the fishing place as possible... These homes are what I think came to be the "thriving city" of today, NOT ANYWHERE NEAR to what Tyre was back then, the "Phoenician queen of the seas, and island city of unprecedented splendor"...

    and again... this is ONLY ONE of the prophecies of the Bible.. what are you going to do when faced with all of them? ASSUME that they are ALL the work of someone who "got it right"? the details provided in these prophecies say otherwise...
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Ezekiel's "prophecy" was written/proclaimed contemporaneous to the intent of Neb to seize the city. The "prophecy" states, very clearly, that Neb will sack the city. In 13 years, he couldn't. He finally arrived at a truce and Tyre paid a "tribute" each year to Babylon.

    The city remained. The people remained. Archaeological evidence recovered at Tyre is pretty clear about this.

    Face it, this prophecy is bullshit written by a bullshitter.
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Ezekiel's "prophecy" was written/proclaimed contemporaneous to the intent of Neb to seize the city. The "prophecy" states, very clearly, that Neb will sack the city. In 13 years, he couldn't. He finally arrived at a truce and Tyre paid a "tribute" each year to Babylon.

    The city remained. The people remained. Archaeological evidence recovered at Tyre is pretty clear about this.

    Face it, this prophecy is bullshit written by a bullshitter.
    26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
    26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
    26:9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
    26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
    26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

    This is what HE (Neb) will do... HE shall:
    -slay
    -make a fort against thee
    -cast a mount against thee
    -lift up the buckler against thee
    -set engines of war against thy walls
    -break down thy towers
    -shake thy walls
    -enter into thy gates
    -tread down all thy streets
    -slay thy people by the sword
    WHERE did you come up with "sack"?... Of course, the siege lasted 13 YEARS... what do you think they did in those 13 years? wait for the tyrians to open the gates and invite Neb in? Of course they inflicted damage to the walls, towers, whatever, untill they finally got past the gates... and what do you think happened then? "Hello Tyrians, all these 13 years I have been waiting for this moment to say that you have to pay tribute"..."Oh..Ok he will pay then. You can go home Neb"... Of course he began to "slay" some of them to make them fear... And all that happened ACCORDING to the prophecy... even if Tyre eventually accepted to pay tribute, how does that contradict with the prophecy? Neb did ALL what is written in Ezekiel... But, yes: He did NOT DETROY TYRE... but that's because it was NOT his 'job' it is not said that Neb "will destroy Tyre", it is only said about the damage he will inflict...... This task of destroing Tyre is for ALL those "many nations"... The "THEY" in the following verse:

    26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

    THEY shall be the ones to destroy Tyre and not Neb ALONE... and slowly Tyre became ruins... go see for yourself: today Tyre is what the Bible sais it would be ... a place for fishers to spred nets... Tyre was never rebuilt... YES.. it is so... go to the place where it was ... what do you see? ruins after ruins... the city that is currently there is NOT Tyre... it is called SOUR... Tyre is the sum of all the ruins, never to be rebuilt again...

    Now you face it: The prophecy IS fulfilled in every aspect... TRUTH is so bitter for those who try to hide it, isn't it?
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The "prophecy" is still bullshit. It was written like a Sylvia Browne prediction. It didn't come to pass the way it was written and now apologetics for the mythology of your cult make excuses for their god.

    What a pathetic god it must be if it needs semantic arguments about "whens" and "hows" to fulfill its prophecies.
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The "prophecy" is still bullshit. It was written like a Sylvia Browne prediction. It didn't come to pass the way it was written and now apologetics for the mythology of your cult make excuses for their god.

    What a pathetic god it must be if it needs semantic arguments about "whens" and "hows" to fulfill its prophecies.
    What is your problem??? Why are just saying "it didn't come to pass"??? That's all you say... Denying something so clear and so logic... re-read the posts above... EVERYTHING came to pass, as the prophecy sais it... Oh, and now you have the ability to see it the past? you can see Ezekiel while he was writting this prophecy? and I guess you knew his mind also, and saw that he is a Stlvia Brown type... they are ALL just coincidences, right?... I don't make excusses because I don't have to... God doesn't need excusses in His perfection... You just continue to deny something you know is true... Reading your post I can see you are getting to the point where you just close your eyes and say "bullshit" to everything YOU don't want to admit... you have no excusses this time, and denying this oevr and over again just makes you look ridiculous...
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The mythical nonsense in Ezekiel says:

    "I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken," declares the Lord GOD. (26:14)

    For thus says the Lord GOD, "When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you, (26:19)

    "I will bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again," declares the Lord GOD. (26:21)

    The mythical being you believe in was supposed to have completely and utterly obliterated Tyre using Neb. Neb's army was a multi-national one. Pulling the okey-doke by saying, Alexander destroyed it almost 2 thousand years later is bullshit. If it isn't, your god is incompetent if it took it THAT long to get a good smiting right.

    Tyre survived Neb. Neb failed. He ended up bargaining with Tyre, the residents were all-too happy to see the noisy guy leave and paid Babylon annually. If Tyre didn't survive, how do you explain these:

    "And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon..." (Mark 7:24)

    "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee..." (Mark 7i:31)

    "Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon..." (Acts 12:20) and (Acts 21:3, 7, Matt. 15:21, 3:8)

    Finally, your biblical pyschics probably wrote their "prophecies" after-the-fact anyway. There's no evidence that any biblical figure was able to "predict" anything beyond what anyone else can do simply by making some educated guesses.

    The bible is fun literature. Nothing more. Clinging to it as a source of factual knowledge about anything other than the lifestyles and language of an ancient people is superstion.
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    61
    once more I say this: the prophecy DOES NOT say the Neb will destroy Tyre... it only sais that Neb wil ATTACK, SIEGE, TERRORIZE, and finally ENTER Tyre... that is what he did.... so he made Tyre pay tribute to babylon... so what?... how does that contradict the prophecy... he did what it was writen he would do... the others where next (starting verse 12) end of story...

    God has no beggining and no end... for Him 1 day is like 1000 years and 1000 years is like 1 day... what could possibly be TO LONG for the infinite patience of God... your statment on this case is what I would call "bullshit"...and it is not "2 thousand" like you said, it's "2 hundred"... God said: "this and that will happen"... God did NOT say "this and that will happen in this amount of years"... what you said is just a desperate atempt to hide what Alexander did to Tyre... well you can't do that... and now, comparing what the prophecy sais in verse 12, with what Alexander did, we can only say that "yes, Alexander is the one who would throw Tyre in the seas"... the details prove it... "I will make you a bare rock"... so He did... Alexander "scraped" the mainland Tyre to use it for the dam he built...

    yet, Tyre survived... and it was found in other sources long after (like the verses you pointed out)... but does it say anywhere that Tyre would have been destroied by the time this verses appeared?... No it doesn't... Tyre survived and rebuilt and conquered again and rebuilt again... but it finally got to what it is today: RUINS !!! that's pretty much destroied...

    they wrote the prophecy after the fact ?... but what about what Alexander did? still "wrote after the fact"? ... be serious...

    Prophecies are NOT educated guesses made by man... they are visions of the future showed BY God TO man, using prophets... so yes: nobody can predict the future... except God...


    Please don't start again with "Neb had to do that"... he didn't, and you know it... why is it always so hard to accept something that we knew as false, that finally proved to be right... Yes... and you know it too... deep inside, it's sreaming isn't it?... but no... you just keep on denying... why?
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •