Is god real?

Posted by: SONOFGOD2013

Please post comments so people know how you think

Vote
3609 Total Votes
1

God is real

1721 votes
53 comments
2

God isnt real

1286 votes
39 comments
3

Don't know if god is real

602 votes
24 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T16:02:40.3377586-06:00
@krieg01, How do you know God does not exist?
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T16:17:03.5030959-06:00
@janetsanders733, how do you know unicorns don't exist. You can't disprove they exist either.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T16:22:28.7487356-06:00
So then you can't make the claim that they are real or not real.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T16:24:37.9683019-06:00
You are using an emotional appeal to try and win your argument. There is no correlation between Unicorns and Theism.
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T16:31:07.2975019-06:00
And all you did was dodge the question. Fine. Then how do you know that the Hindu god vishnu doesn't exist? Or the Greek God Zeus?
yay842 says2013-11-16T16:31:56.9367019-06:00
These are just opinions, God can be real, he may not be real. There are no facts whether he is real or not
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:34:11.5803019-06:00
God is everywhere you look, hint hint intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins slipped up on that.
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:36:21.0603019-06:00
What about the fibonacci sequence? I guess it's all a fairy tale in some peoples eyes. Or what about the chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea?
yay842 says2013-11-16T16:36:31.7307019-06:00
Oh really now? If you saw me, you'd see God, if you see a random hobo, you'd see God; if you look at your computer, you'd see God.
yay842 says2013-11-16T16:37:06.0195019-06:00
That doesnt relate to God at all
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:37:41.1315432-06:00
Don't take it from me. Go look it up yourself.
yay842 says2013-11-16T16:40:36.0086642-06:00
Too lazy, gimme link
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:40:51.3591626-06:00
And yes yay842. Did you know the water you drink has been drank and used by all of those who have gone before you and I?
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:42:49.4726706-06:00
And ok here I'll show you a couple after this comment.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T16:43:49.9013421-06:00
Because God proved himself through his son Jesus Christ. Therefore all these other God's are false Gods. Yay842, if you are agnostic, then you can not say whether God exists or not. If you say "We can't know", then you must prove how you know we can't know.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T16:46:08.1641406-06:00
Atheism and Agnosticism are 'default' positions, meaning that they can change. They are not based on actual fact. This is why I am not an Atheist or Agnostic.
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:56:57.2347131-06:00
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Intelligent_design http://www.Mathsisfun.Com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.Html You can actually find this sequence in many different types of flowers/plants. You can find it in other natural designs as well. It can even be found in natural mechanisms. Http://www.Understanding-creationism.Com/intelligent-design-theory.Html This points out the differences and similarities between intelligent design and creationism. It also provides example there of intelligent design and creationism.
Haroush says2013-11-16T16:57:45.4546222-06:00
My comment with the links are being moderated so you'll have to wait sorry :(
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T17:16:15.3031883-06:00
@janetsanders733, stories about a man who came back to life thousands of years ago can hardly be considered proof. And the position of theism is as subject to change as the position of atheism. Also theism is not based on fact, its based on faith. While atheism is based on evidence.
Haroush says2013-11-16T17:22:34.3987883-06:00
@potatopotatopotato, Actually intelligent design and creationism are based on evidence in support of G-d, not to mention in some instances the Biblical history.
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T17:23:41.8959347-06:00
Also I don't have to provide proof God doesn't exist. Because the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim that something exists.
Haroush says2013-11-16T17:25:59.2071347-06:00
Oh and what about the G-d particle? Ever hear about that? Not to mention, the chariots in the Red Sea where Moses crossed with Israelites.
Haroush says2013-11-16T17:29:29.2455347-06:00
Don't take the cowards way out potato head. You do have the burden of proof G-d don't exist.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T17:30:07.5485895-06:00
Theism is not default, Atheism and Agnosticism are default since they hold no water. Potatopotatopotato you said that you know God does not exist. So again what is proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T17:30:08.2611347-06:00
Theism is not default, Atheism and Agnosticism are default since they hold no water. Potatopotatopotato you said that you know God does not exist. So again what is proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T18:29:40.6416807-06:00
And how exactly does theism hold water? You said God exists where is your proof of that? My evidence lies with radiometric dating to prove that the Bible is incorrect about the age of the earth. My evidence lies with evolution which you can not only see signs of. But can be witnessed first hand, and has been witnessed first hand with diseases.
Haroush says2013-11-16T18:56:45.2808761-06:00
The age of the earth doesn't necessarily prove G-d doesn't exist. Evolution has had some major hurdles that haven't been jumped yet. In fact, there are many theories out there have even connected intelligent design with evolution. That is if evolution passes all it's tests. By the way, you ought to look up the difference between a traditional evolutionist and modern evolutionist. There is quite a difference. Besides if evolution is real who is to say this isn't intelligent design or creationism?
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T21:22:02.2881445-06:00
What you're implying is theistic evolution. For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs. He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process." God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground but man was made directly by God: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean.If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God. Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'" The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve. Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized.
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T21:26:26.5316779-06:00
And while knowing the age of the earth can't entirely disprove God. It does pretty much eliminate the views of young earth Christians
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T21:34:36.9253117-06:00
Theism holds water, because it is not claiming that evidence is insufficient. Atheism and Agnosticsm are both claiming that the evidence is insufficient, or not credible, until proven otherwise. Therefore it changes. Jesus proved to be God, that is how I know that Theism is true. @potatopotatopotato Don't try and shift the burden of proof. I asked you first. Second can you cite me a passage in scritpure where it explicitly says the earth is thousands of years old? Depends on what you mean by evolution. Evolution is an accordion term. We see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism. Things reproduce within Kinds, just like Genesis 1 says. If evolution is true then you and I are no more valuable then slime from billions of years ago. How do you even explain objective morality without God?
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-16T22:32:21.2542810-06:00
Firstly this is the third time you've said Jesus is proof without actually giving any insight as to how he might be considered proof. Making that entire argument as meaningless as my saying "Mike Tysons is proof that human ears taste delicious." Secondly I'm not shifting the burden of proof. I doesn't fall on me simply because you "asked first" it falls on the person or group who made the original claim. Which in this instance is the theists. An example would be :Billy says that there is a giant invisible undetectable peanut butter and jelly sandwich above his house. Timmy disagrees with Billy so Billy says to Timmy "prove that there isn't!" Does the burden of proof gall upon Timmy because Billy said to prove it first. No. It falls on Billy because he made the original claim. And lastly I don't have to explain objective morality because morality is subjective and greatly influenced by culture. If morality were objective then it would be morally appropriate to condone the killing of anyone who works on a Sabbath (exodus 31:15), the killing of adulterers (leviticus 20:10), and the killing of disobedient children (deuteronomy 21:18-22, proverbs 20:20,leviticus 20:9,exodus 21:15)
yay842 says2013-11-16T22:34:09.8900000-06:00
It would have been a lot more easier to read it along the way before reading everything above when you first see it
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T23:10:52.2980000-06:00
Because he proved himself through himself through his death and resurrection. The resurrection is based on historical fact. The empty tomb, post mortem appearances, origin of disciples belief, and Rapid spread of christianity within a hostile enviornment. That is funny how you took all those verses out of context. Read the context before arguing them.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T23:11:30.9623501-06:00
Oh morality is subjective and depends on culture? Hmm. So how would you react if you saw a baby being raped, and burned alive? Is that not evil?
DudeStop says2013-11-16T23:41:00.4887734-06:00
The biblical God cannot be true. If lust is bad, and God is all knowing then he should know what lust feels like. (wanting to be spanked by Johnny Depp for example, lol) If he knows what lust is then he is not pure. If he doesn't, then he isn't all knowing. Either he does know about every feeling meaning he is impure or he is not all knowing. If he is impure then he should go to hell based on his own rules. If he is not all knowing then he should not be judging us humans, on something he has literally no knowledge about!!
janetsanders733 says2013-11-16T23:52:44.7370965-06:00
"he biblical God cannot be true. If lust is bad, and God is all knowing then he should know what lust feels like. (wanting to be spanked by Johnny Depp for example, lol) If he knows what lust is then he is not pure. If he doesn't, then he isn't all knowing. Either he does know about every feeling meaning he is impure or he is not all knowing. If he is impure then he should go to hell based on his own rules. If he is not all knowing then he should not be judging us humans, on something he has literally no knowledge about!!" Your logic does not make since. You are confusing knowledge of sin, with doing sin. He can not sin, since it is against his nature. His nature is good. Bad is from Satan, since Satan's nature is evil. God gave man free will to choose him or rejcet him. Evil comes from an absence of Good. He has the right to judge, because he is just. If you sin that is your fault not his. Free will is responsbility sir, and with responsiblity comes consequences. If you murder someone and get punished for it in prison, that is not your parent's fault. The Good news is that God loved the world so much that he gave his son Jesus to Die for our sins, so if we believe in him you will have eternal life! C.S. Lewis put it best "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "your will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-17T00:04:14.3506965-06:00
Exodus 31:14-15 King James Version (KJV) 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be PUT TO DEATH : for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be PUT TO DEATH. Leviticus 20:9-11 King James Version (KJV) 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely PUT TO DEATH; he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be PUT TO DEATH. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be PUT TO DEATH; their blood shall be upon them. Deuteronomy 21:18-22 King James Version (KJV) 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be PUT TO DEATH, and thou hang him on a tree: Oh yeah its all completely out of context. Also you're implying that if I don't want to rape and burn a baby then morality must be objective, that's a false dichotomy. And yes I would consider that evil. Because it goes against my morals and the morals of my culture. And obviously the act is not morally wrong with the one commuting the act. If everyone were like him in society there would be no problem with it. There would be no laws against it. It would be accepted as commonplace and there would be no question of its morality in that culture.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T00:12:18.5434965-06:00
"Oh yeah its all completely out of context. Also you're implying that if I don't want to rape and burn a baby then morality must be objective, that's a false dichotomy. And yes I would consider that evil. Because it goes against my morals and the morals of my culture. And obviously the act is not morally wrong with the one commuting the act. If everyone were like him in society there would be no problem with it. There would be no laws against it. It would be accepted as commonplace and there would be no question of its morality in that culture." Society changes, Who cares about your morals? If atheism is true, then morality is just a preference. I could think punching you in the face is right. On atheism there is no way to justify good or evil. What makes your morality superior to mine, if God does not exist. Atheism fails to answer the value problem. Take atheists like Sam Harris who says thinks that human flourishing and moral value are the same. They are not. Science can only tell us the is not what ought to be. If society told you to rape someone you would do it? You seem to think that people that God judged were innocent. Are you saying that God can not judge sinners for their sins, yet in fact he wants all people to turn from their wicked ways and believe in him. That is why he sent his son Jesus to die for your sin and mine on that cross 2000 years ago.
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-17T00:37:27.4098760-06:00
Would I rape someone if society told me to? If I had no pre-exposure to today's society, yes absolutely there would be no reason to think of the act as "evil". Would you believe in God if you had never been told of religion? No. You also what makes my morality superior to yours? Absolutely nothing. In fact I never said or implied that mine is better. When you as the objective moralist implied that. Furthermore, the justification of good and evil is explained in the very definition of the words. Evil - something not morally acceptable. Good - something morally acceptable. Therefore there can be subjective morality and the concepts of good and evil
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T00:49:56.1608551-06:00
Everyone knows God exists, whether or not they believe in him. Your confusing moral semantics with moral ontology. I am asking your for the moral ontology or what is the bases of good and evil, not moral semantics, which is the definiton of good and evil. Hmm. So rape is not evil huh? Well since morality as you clam is "subjective" then you and I have no rights. So I can murder you if I want to. How bout I slit your throat?
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-17T01:31:03.9152197-06:00
The base of good and evil is morality. Because without morality there is no good or evil. And when did say I say rape wasn't evil. In fact I explicitly said earlier that I Do consider rape. And this has absolutely nothing to do with rights you have as much of a right to kill me regardless of morality. And why are some killings justified? Also you seem to think that the Bible isn't subject to change either. Which is false. In fact the Bible was changed relatively recently too. (and when I say relative to the creation of the Bible) it happened in 1855 when they removed the 14 books of apocrypha
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-17T01:32:29.0159120-06:00
I apologize for a typo I made. I said that I consider rape when what I meant to put was that I consider Rape evil
potatopotatopotato says2013-11-17T01:32:29.3689217-06:00
I apologize for a typo I made. I said that I consider rape when what I meant to put was that I consider Rape evil
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T02:12:26.9737582-06:00
Okay your going off topic here. It is okay do not worry about the typo. The apocrypha was forged, that is why it was removed. But stay on topic here. I am trying to get you to see the bigger picture here. If there is No Moral Law Giver(God) then there is no Moral law, if there is no moral law, then there is no such thing as good. If there is no such thing as good, then there is no such thing as evil. But, you are trying to disprove a moral law giver and not prove. On Atheism, there is no reason for hate, or love to be evil or good. There is no moral obligation if Atheism is true. It should not matter how or what you want to do in life. If Atheism is true, then why not live life like a Hitler, or a Mother Theresa? Who are you accountable to if God does not exist? What moral standard must you live by if God does not exist? On Atheism, morality is simply an illusion that has no basis, no moral foundation for good or evil. There is no such thing as "value" if God does not exist. You are nothing more than slime that has progressed from the ground; therefore, the only value you can have is "Self-value", which is subjective. The fact is objective moral values and duties do exist, and we as human beings have moral obligation fulfill, because God has created us with value and has given us a conscience to know right and wrong.
Haroush says2013-11-17T08:52:55.5907126-06:00
There is proof of Christ. That is the shroud and historical sites. Plus, recorded history from back then right in Jerusalem its self.
Haroush says2013-11-17T09:28:12.8383126-06:00
If I was never told of religion I would eventually question who created this place and eventually I would be asking G-d to show himself to me. Give me signs. Show me how to live. And I guarantee you just like he gave Moses 613 commandments the same would happen to me. That is if I was the only one asking and pleading to get to know G-d our Father. Have you ever seen Mount Sinai? Ever wondered why the tip of Mount Sinai is black? It's for a good reason. G-d made it that way. And like I said before, if the chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea isn't good enough for you I don't know what is. As far as Duality goes... Let me ask you a few questions. Why is there dark and light? Why is there water and fire? What about oil and gasoline? Or why is there a base, an acid, and a neutral when it comes to liquids? Why is there a food chain? Why is there diseases, viruses, cancers, and other types of illnesses, but there are antidotes for each one through mainly the tropical rainforest? Why is there a cop and a criminal? Why is there an old and new testament? Why is there love and hate? Why is there gravity and antigravity? Why is there a sun and a moon? Why is there such thing as symmetry? Why is it our eyes actually see things upside down and not right side up? Why does the topside of a tree mirror the bottom side of a tree? I could go on and on. All these things are evidence of duality, including good and evil no matter the perception. Hence there is always two sides to a story.
DudeStop says2013-11-17T11:28:35.0901743-06:00
No, okay Janet: He feels lust or he doesn't? If he does, he is bad. If he doesn't he is not all knowing. That's my point. Your response to that is telling me I am confusing knowledge of sin with doing sin, and that he can not sin. First of all, if he can not sin then he still doesn't know what lust feels like because lust is a sin I believe you are actually confused on what I meant. He FEELS lust, or he doesn't? The question is has he felt lust. And either way you answer, you disprove the existence God in the bible. I never said it is his fault If I "Sin". I said he should not be judging us if he doesn't know what sin even feels like. Or if he does, he should go to hell because he sinned, based upon his own rules. Definition of lust: A strong sexual desire for someone. So has God felt a strong sexual desire for someone? Yes or no.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T12:02:33.9497515-06:00
"No, okay Janet: He feels lust or he doesn't? If he does, he is bad. If he doesn't he is not all knowing. That's my point. Your response to that is telling me I am confusing knowledge of sin with doing sin, and that he can not sin. First of all, if he can not sin then he still doesn't know what lust feels like because lust is a sin I believe you are actually confused on what I meant. He FEELS lust, or he doesn't? The question is has he felt lust. And either way you answer, you disprove the existence God in the bible. I never said it is his fault If I "Sin". I said he should not be judging us if he doesn't know what sin even feels like. Or if he does, he should go to hell because he sinned, based upon his own rules. Definition of lust: A strong sexual desire for someone. So has God felt a strong sexual desire for someone? Yes or no." No, he can not feel lust. Doing sin, and knowledge of sin are two different things. God's standard of right and wrong is independent. This doesn't affect that he is all knowing, you have not disproved God's existence. He has the right to judge us, he gave us free will. If your parents tell you to clean your room, and you choose to not clean your room, then your parents have every right to punish you. You can not blame your parents for your actions. God's nature is good, which means his commands are good. If something is bad that comes from Satan, because Satan's nature is bad, therefore his desires and commandments are bad. God gave Adam and Eve the implications, and they had the responsibility to choose him or Satan. You have a choice Dudestop, to believe in Christ or reject him. And, God understands that. I am not going to heaven because of what I did, I am going to heaven because of what Christ did. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Your will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "your will be done."
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T12:02:36.2747326-06:00
"No, okay Janet: He feels lust or he doesn't? If he does, he is bad. If he doesn't he is not all knowing. That's my point. Your response to that is telling me I am confusing knowledge of sin with doing sin, and that he can not sin. First of all, if he can not sin then he still doesn't know what lust feels like because lust is a sin I believe you are actually confused on what I meant. He FEELS lust, or he doesn't? The question is has he felt lust. And either way you answer, you disprove the existence God in the bible. I never said it is his fault If I "Sin". I said he should not be judging us if he doesn't know what sin even feels like. Or if he does, he should go to hell because he sinned, based upon his own rules. Definition of lust: A strong sexual desire for someone. So has God felt a strong sexual desire for someone? Yes or no." No, he can not feel lust. Doing sin, and knowledge of sin are two different things. God's standard of right and wrong is independent. This doesn't affect that he is all knowing, you have not disproved God's existence. He has the right to judge us, he gave us free will. If your parents tell you to clean your room, and you choose to not clean your room, then your parents have every right to punish you. You can not blame your parents for your actions. God's nature is good, which means his commands are good. If something is bad that comes from Satan, because Satan's nature is bad, therefore his desires and commandments are bad. God gave Adam and Eve the implications, and they had the responsibility to choose him or Satan. You have a choice Dudestop, to believe in Christ or reject him. And, God understands that. I am not going to heaven because of what I did, I am going to heaven because of what Christ did. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Your will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "your will be done."
chengste says2013-11-17T13:06:58.8421147-06:00
To feel lust? Lust is a desire to have somthing that is not yours everything is Gods, so how would He feel lust? However He would know wht lust is
DudeStop says2013-11-17T13:25:58.4388432-06:00
He still doesn't know what lust feels like. Your cleaning a room story is false. I never said it was his fault I "sinned" just saying he should not judge someone if he has no idea what it would feel like to be in that situation. Let's say you sin and I am God. I shouldn't judge you in committing a "Sin" because I have no idea how you would feel and your feelings lead to your actions. In fact if I were in your position I might have done the same. Other reasons I will not accept the bible, but these are my beliefs not facts: Gay marriage should be allowed so that everybody can have equal rights, abortions should be allowed, yet again for equal rights, I don't believe lust should be a sin, and I believe in evolution. Keep in mind these things are my beliefs and many others would agree with me on things such as equality for all, and saying it is your body therefor your decision. These are not all of the reasons. I have. But one last thing I will share is that the bible contradicts itself: http://m.Youtube.Com/watch?V=RB3g6mXLEKk
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T13:47:42.4764360-06:00
Dudestop, you have a huge mistunderstanding of my analogy. My analogy is not false. You seem to not understand what Free will is. You have the choice to obey God or reject him. God has every right to judge you and I because we have sinned. We have fallen short of his standard. But, that is why he sent his son to die for you and I, so that if you believe in him we will have eternal life. It sounds like you don't think God is fair, because you don't like his standards of right and wrong. That doesn't make him wrong, nor does it disprove his existence just because you don't like his standard of morality. Gay rights? Nobody is born gay, you choose to be gay; therefore, it is not a "right." So you don't believe that Lust is a sin, do you believe that murder is a sin? The bible does not contradict itself.
DudeStop says2013-11-17T14:07:53.9377147-06:00
Yes murder is wrong. What about it? I still disagree with you on many levels,..
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:11:09.2551591-06:00
So murder is wrong, but lust is right?
Haroush says2013-11-17T14:30:02.9402822-06:00
Lust is right because it's "normal" right?
DudeStop says2013-11-17T14:35:42.8699323-06:00
Definition to murder: kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. Lust: very strong sexual desire. What do these have to do with each other? Lust is not a positive trait, or a negative one. We are born with it. We cannot help it. Just like how Gays cannot help there sexuality. You can feel a sexual desire for anybody.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:37:16.1735323-06:00
Lust, leads to pornography, adultery, and unfaithfulness in a relationship. If your father lusted after a woman, and he is married to your mother, would that not be bad?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:37:17.3554053-06:00
Lust, leads to pornography, adultery, and unfaithfulness in a relationship. If your father lusted after a woman, and he is married to your mother, would that not be bad?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:37:18.9659323-06:00
Lust, leads to pornography, adultery, and unfaithfulness in a relationship. If your father lusted after a woman, and he is married to your mother, would that not be bad?
Haroush says2013-11-17T14:41:37.1110053-06:00
Lol, Just like I thought it's "normal". Well, I'm here to tell you your brain can't comprehend what normal is.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:43:08.1838053-06:00
Lol
Haroush says2013-11-17T14:43:39.3719323-06:00
So, that means you can have a sexual desire for an animal and it would be "normal"?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:44:57.6371323-06:00
Yeah, cause that totally would not be beastiality in the Atheist worldview.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:46:15.7426053-06:00
On atheism, we are all just 'beasts', so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Haroush says2013-11-17T14:50:29.6987323-06:00
I know right? We are all animals. So there should be no law. Just complete anarchy. Oh wait! No no. We have to make some laws. Oh, really now? Yeah, laws that make sense. Who is to say what makes sense or what is "normal"? Therefore those who are religious have the right to live and believe the way they do and enforce their beliefs in their communities.
DudeStop says2013-11-17T14:54:37.3313284-06:00
Actually my parents are divorced because of those reasons. But other things contributed to that as well... It can lead to those things, true. But we are born with it. It's not like someone would want to love someone else. (It happens) Lust leads us relationship as well. When my dads relationship mom ended, a new began for both of them, helping other people find love. They obviously were not meant for each other if they do not love each other enough to stay together, therefore lust is right. It ends and starts relationships. But it is hard to love someone to the extent of having a kid when no lust for each other is present.
DudeStop says2013-11-17T14:57:12.4889284-06:00
Lol, I may be an atheist but I never said you were a beast. Are you trying to say because I believe in evolution I think you are a "beast?"
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T14:59:13.2173284-06:00
I am sorry Dudestop, I did not know that your parent's are divorced. I was just trying to show you an example of morality, and where we draw the line. Lust and love are not the same thing. Don't confuse the two. Love is what a real relationship is all about. Lust is a sin that is why it ruins relationships. Dudestop if God does not exist then where do we draw the line on morality?
Haroush says2013-11-17T15:09:36.9071323-06:00
Let's just ignore people. Shaking my head. If lust were to determine a relationship it would end it too... In divorce. Look some people don't just enter relationships because of sex. Some people put intellect and spiritual bonds first before having sex with someone. Yes, you have to lust for someone in order to be physically attracted to them. Though lust can be good or bad. It depends on how you look at it. To me, lusting ONLY for your one true love is righteous. Though wreckful lust is unhealthy, unethical, and is harmful to everyone who is around it. Never try to deny duality. Denial is the root to confusion.
Haroush says2013-11-17T15:12:34.3260515-06:00
Though it is fair to say lust is MOSTLY sinful.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T15:13:40.7351323-06:00
Well I would say, that if you are in a true relationship like marriage, then it would be love not lust. Lust is from a sinful desire against love. But, yes lust is sinful.
Haroush says2013-11-17T15:23:13.3182515-06:00
Yes. A true marriage is the result of love, not lust.
DudeStop says2013-11-17T17:39:21.9298363-06:00
"Look some people don't just enter relationships because of sex. Some people put intellect and spiritual bonds first before having sex with someone" Okay I never said lust is the only thing that determines a relationship. I mean to say that sex is how people have kids. If you do not feel any sexual desire for someone, how do you expect to have a child? I know it does not make or brake a relationship, but it is how humans have kids. Have you been in a middle school health classroom before? Do you know about the birds and the bees? If not, then Google it... K "Dude stop, if god does not exist then where do we draw the line in morality?" Um... Are you saying without the bible you wouldn't have any reasons to be moral? I don't think it's up to me to decide where we draw the line in morality, but I think equal rights for everyone (Hint hint, gay marriage,) is a good start to finding that line. "We are all animals. So there should be no law. Just complete anarchy. Oh wait! No no. We have to make some laws. Oh, really now? Yeah, laws that make sense. Who is to say what makes sense or what is "normal"? Therefore those who are religious have the right to live and believe the way they do and enforce their beliefs in their communities." False. No one said we shouldn't have any laws because there is no God. Is your "god" the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering? If it is, that says ALOT about your character.. "Who is to say what makes sense or what is "normal"?" Hmmm... How about VOTING? Have you ever heard of this concept? In fact you are commenting in a pole right now. Voting is what makes the majority of the people happy. So to answer your question it should be everybody I guess. I mean it says in the constitution that you have a right to your religious beliefs, so you may believe whatever you want. You do not, however have the right to ENFORCE your beliefs onto people. Definition of enforce: compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation). "Yes, you have to lust for someone in order to be physically attracted to them. Though lust can be good or bad." Pretty much what I meant to say.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-17T17:55:08.6154882-06:00
"Look some people don't just enter relationships because of sex. Some people put intellect and spiritual bonds first before having sex with someone" Okay I never said lust is the only thing that determines a relationship. I mean to say that sex is how people have kids. If you do not feel any sexual desire for someone, how do you expect to have a child? I know it does not make or brake a relationship, but it is how humans have kids. Have you been in a middle school health classroom before? Do you know about the birds and the bees? If not, then Google it... K "Dude stop, if god does not exist then where do we draw the line in morality?" Um... Are you saying without the bible you wouldn't have any reasons to be moral? I don't think it's up to me to decide where we draw the line in morality, but I think equal rights for everyone (Hint hint, gay marriage,) is a good start to finding that line. "We are all animals. So there should be no law. Just complete anarchy. Oh wait! No no. We have to make some laws. Oh, really now? Yeah, laws that make sense. Who is to say what makes sense or what is "normal"? Therefore those who are religious have the right to live and believe the way they do and enforce their beliefs in their communities." False. No one said we shouldn't have any laws because there is no God. Is your "god" the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering? If it is, that says ALOT about your character.. "Who is to say what makes sense or what is "normal"?" Hmmm... How about VOTING? Have you ever heard of this concept? In fact you are commenting in a pole right now. Voting is what makes the majority of the people happy. So to answer your question it should be everybody I guess. I mean it says in the constitution that you have a right to your religious beliefs, so you may believe whatever you want. You do not, however have the right to ENFORCE your beliefs onto people. Definition of enforce: compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation). "Yes, you have to lust for someone in order to be physically attracted to them. Though lust can be good or bad." Pretty much what I meant to say." Society does not determine right and wrong. Society changes. If Society told you to rape you would probably do it, because they told you to. But, you know in your heart that rape is wrong. Because the Bible says the Law is written on everyone's heart. That means that God has given everyone a moral conscience to know right and wrong. No, I did not say you must believe the bible in order to uphold moral values. Nor did I say you must believe in God to know that morality is objective. I said on atheism there are no grounds for morality to be objective. [1] If God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist. [2] Objective moral values and duties do exist. [3] Therefore God exists. You assume that Christianity is subjective, and you are one of those people who believes in Pluralism. You think that all religions are the same. Jesus is not one of many or one of the few Dudestop. Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. No one comes to the Father except through him. Jesus not only claimed to be God, but he proved it through his life, ministry, death, and most importantly his resurrection. That means everyone else is false.
Haroush says2013-11-18T11:29:25.3701761-06:00
I must say some of those comments above point towards lust being the main factor in a relationship. Also, if voting is a main way of telling what's "normal", then we have problems. In some countries they have declared beastiality and zoophilia as normal, if voting declares what is "normal". There is even some weird laws in some states of the U.S. Where it is illegal to throw ice cream on the side of the road. Though, is this "normal". Help me here! "Normal" is so many things. Lol
Haroush says2013-11-18T11:40:43.7068992-06:00
Forgive me of my punctuation, I'm not always on point with the punctuation.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T19:31:53.8078647-06:00
All I can say my brothers and sisters is love and worship The Lord. You will understand gods ways if you want to change or if your truly trying to change.
yay842 says2013-11-18T19:34:46.8742647-06:00
So far nothing has happened in centuries
yay842 says2013-11-18T19:36:10.5214647-06:00
When them blacks worship their masters/Lord, it took them North doods to fight for them
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T19:37:04.8250647-06:00
What?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T19:43:53.9194647-06:00
What are you talking about yay842
yay842 says2013-11-18T20:12:36.7131460-06:00
1. We aint yo sista/bro. 2. Slaves didnt worship their Lords for freedom. 3. Atheists can change, maybe even better
DudeStop says2013-11-18T21:01:28.2084646-06:00
I believe what he is trying to say is when African Americans asked for freedom, and prayed to The Lord he did not help them. You could technically argue The Lord was what ended up freeing them (Though it would be without evidence), but in reality they were slaves for generations. He is saying America freed them, not God. (Civil War)
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:03:26.3005153-06:00
Hey it's corruption that led to slavery but thank god that people figured out that it was wrong.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:05:35.1877153-06:00
Well, actually, in many places, the bible explicitly and specifically endorses at least some forms of slavery. I believe (I may be incorrect) that this holds true for both the new and old testaments.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:06:37.2964903-06:00
Ya dude you probably right. But only god knows.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:09:04.8759851-06:00
I thought there were more atheists on DDO
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:09:36.6704155-06:00
I'm not atheist.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:11:06.4374187-06:00
I'm an atheist. I think that this poll probably just doesn't have a lot of coverage, because it's only a few days old, and because over 9000 nearly identical polls already exist.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:12:07.8709153-06:00
Hey the world existing is enough proof that god is real( or at least to me it is)
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:14:55.5017306-06:00
Fair enough. I disagree, but really that's quite a deep philosophical question, anyway.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:16:01.0385909-06:00
I can't save you only god can do that. I think that one day you'll see the light my brother.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:17:33.9383774-06:00
You guys are brothers?!?!? Also, I'm pretty sure if I'm depressed and about to jump off a roof, God won't save me, it'll be that guy making out on the rooftop with his girlfriend who realizes that I'm about to jump and catch me at the last minute, that guy's gonna be my savior.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:19:54.5000384-06:00
Dude he's not my biological brother. But spiritual brother. In heaven we will all be brothers. Dude gods not gonna save you if you jump off a bridge. By the way you'll go to hell if you do that.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:20:21.2384384-06:00
Slavery in biblical times was based on the caste system. People chose to become slaves in order to a) support their family. B) to pay off a debt they owed. It was not based on racial slavery like 200 years ago.The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11)
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:20:24.9319947-06:00
Slavery in biblical times was based on the caste system. People chose to become slaves in order to a) support their family. B) to pay off a debt they owed. It was not based on racial slavery like 200 years ago.The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11)
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:22:01.2002118-06:00
1. I'm finally following one of them long religion topics. God, they are so long, am I right? 2. If I did jump off a bridge, I won't go to Hell, I would splat to the ground. 3. If I did jump off a bridge, God wouldn't save me, like you said, because I will have survived.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:22:18.2355210-06:00
Nice dude. Going back scripture, you must be knowledgable on this stuff. I've been a Christian since I was six but I've been you've been Christian for years.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:22:51.3857335-06:00
Yay842, When we say God saved you. We mean that Jesus who is God saved you from your sin by dying on the cross 2000+ years ago. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved from your sin and have eternal life.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:23:04.1154151-06:00
Foo, YOU CALLIN ME UH CHRISTIAN?!?!?!? AH HELL NO!
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:23:53.2869303-06:00
Yay you make no sense man. You would got to hell and splat on the ground. Your physical body would die but your soul would go to hell.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:25:11.9582346-06:00
Your the foo my brother. You're blinded by the world but you'll soon understand( or at least I think you will).
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:25:18.6680384-06:00
You're implying you don't believe in reincarnation, as I'm assuming. Since my soul goes to Hell (although it won't) my souul won't be transferred to the next generation as you're implying that I'm assuming, I'm I right?
DudeStop says2013-11-18T21:25:26.1543256-06:00
Haroush saysNovember 18 2013 11:29 AM "I must say some of those comments above point towards lust being the main factor in a relationship. Also, if voting is a main way of telling what's "normal", then we have problems. In some countries they have declared beastiality and zoophilia as normal, if voting declares what is "normal". There is even some weird laws in some states of the U.S. Where it is illegal to throw ice cream on the side of the road. Though, is this "normal". Help me here! "Normal" is so many things. Lol". But how do we decide: 1. If god is even real. 2 What religion to choose from. (And I believe you are a Christian?) 3. 84% Of the world have faith, and 1/3 of the world are Christians. While this is an impressive number for Christianity, 2/3 of the world would still be extremely unhappy and therefor rebel. If you can prove your religion is the correct one, while bearing the burden of proof, you should be able to get the entire world to convert to your religion. No Janetsanders733, I do not believe all religions are the same. You even say this with no knowledge or what I think about other religions, or God itself. Only Christianity. And no. Morals do not need a god to exist. Moral Can be naturally explained, just because we so not need morals to survive doesn't mean that evolution is false and Christianity is correct. You say one thing could be the cause of another, but multiple things are able to cause morality.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:25:56.0753174-06:00
Can Christians really understand the world?
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:26:05.7317793-06:00
@yay842(about the suicide comment): Of course, but certain arguments could be made that 'God', acting in mysterious ways, caused that to happen, and you to live. I don't see things like that, of course, but arguments *could* be made. And that would also have to mean that God specifically chose not to save all victims of successful suicide, as well. @SONOFGOD2013: I see what you mean, but, and really no offense intended here, your 'spiritual brothers' approach to the matter does really start to fall apart if you just say that certain people will go to hell, and thus not be your 'spiritual brother in heaven'. And @janetsanders, right, I think I see what you're saying. 'Consensual' Indentured servitude as opposed to full-on, violates-human-rights and free-will enslavement. Personally I think that's still at least *almost* as bad as the 'other' forms of slavery, but, of course, arguments could be made for it being more 'humane' than alternatives.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:26:26.3876384-06:00
One word dudestop: WHAT?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:27:37.6952384-06:00
Wait, wait, wait. Stop. Oh my God. Break time. This religion talk stuff is really tiring. Jesus Christ, this is a lot of effort.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:27:51.9996605-06:00
Ya there still my brothers but their in hell.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:28:18.9416384-06:00
They're*
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:28:36.2571442-06:00
Yay just catch you breath ok.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:29:58.0328384-06:00
And in your own belief system, is this 'hell' the same 'eternal torment' one of older scriptures, the 'eternal separation from god' one of newer scriptures, or something else?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:30:30.9640054-06:00
Your* also, *gasp* you guys/ preachers are like *gasp* friggin rappers. They preachin like they shootin'words at foos.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:31:09.8548054-06:00
All I know that hell has always been the same since god made it originally for the devil.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:32:02.9893440-06:00
What yay? I'm preaching to save you.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:32:48.9940389-06:00
Save me from what?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:33:14.7498040-06:00
From the devil and hell. What else would god save you from?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:33:16.0900054-06:00
From the devil and hell. What else would god save you from?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:36:42.2284054-06:00
1. I gladly welcome Hell, I will gladly be whipped like a slave for all the sins I have committed (ASSUMING HELL EXISTS!) 2. Can God save me from death? Or other stuff? NOPE! 3. Does God control our every action?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:37:09.3256054-06:00
@Jingram994"Personally I think that's still at least *almost* as bad as the 'other' forms of slavery, but, of course, arguments could be made for it being more 'humane' than alternatives." Well, if we go by that standard then all human beings would be slaves, since we all have to work, and make an income in order to support our family. Or, to pay off a debt.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:39:11.9595615-06:00
God could control everything but he gave us free will. Hell is way worse than whipping. If you were in hell you would wish you were dead. It's that bad.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:40:01.0839615-06:00
That's specifically to earn an income, though. To support ones-self in a world that simply does not have enough for everyone to have everything they need or want, in return for nothing. If nobody worked, society would collapse in on itself, as it would be entirely unable to support itself or the people making it up. This is different to indentured servitude.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:40:34.8244054-06:00
1. I suffered worse than death, death ain't no problem. I'd say to debo(how I pronouce devil) "CUM AT ME, BRO!" 2. How does God control everything but give us free will?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:41:18.9279615-06:00
Religious topics so nuts, I cant even follow what Jingram and janetsanders are talkin bout
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:41:33.0303615-06:00
Clearly you subscribe to the complex and ancient philosophy of YOLO, yay.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:42:02.2624054-06:00
No I said he could control everything but he gave us free will.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:43:13.3695615-06:00
Yes, and what happens when you don't work? No income, no house, you are poor, and out on the streets. How is debt bondage inhumane if its intent is to support one's self for income, or to pay off a debt?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:43:28.9695615-06:00
So you'r saying we make our own choices, but God controls everything? 1. I'd have a dope argument if you say we don't have free will. 2. How does God control everything?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:44:29.3883615-06:00
Jingram: yes I do, live life to the maximum because YOLO. Do as much as you can in this life, cuz you only get one chance.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T21:45:06.8127615-06:00
Is this now 3 Christians against 1 Atheist?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:45:26.2324054-06:00
No, well if you go to hell yes but if you go to heaven no.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:46:12.6736054-06:00
Is it? I was just talkin with SONOFGOD, I dunno wat janet and jingram r sayin. U TOO FOO! IDK watr u talkin bout with that longass paragraph
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:47:01.9875615-06:00
No, I'm an atheist as well. There's kind of, you know, several different conversations being carried on at once. On that note! @janetsanders: 'Paying off a debt' and 'working to support your own self, right now, with no prior obligation to do so' are different things. Nobody is 'obliged' to work, they are just extremely encouraged to do so, and naturally unable to meet many of their own needs and wants if they fail to do so.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:48:04.3696054-06:00
It's not really a battle. It's Christian's trying to "plant the seed" in people so god can save them.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:48:36.2898703-06:00
HAHA SUCK IT! 2v2. Me 'gainst SONOFGOD. Jingram vs dat one guy. AND DUDESTOP is just there watching
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:49:19.8609496-06:00
And I also meant that it wasnt a battle, its a gentlemen's philosophical formal talking.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:50:18.5641259-06:00
Where was I? O ye. GOD IS ILLEGITIMATE FOO! DIS BE LIK< AH HELL NO. GOD DON CONTROL EVRYTHING. If he did, he control what we do. Contradicts our free will
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:50:47.1400054-06:00
Same thing in biblical times. No body was obligated to work. You chose to work to a)support your family b) pay off a debt. If you chose not to, then you would be homeless. So my argument still stands.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:51:14.3308054-06:00
Yay: Y U NO Keep consistent level of grammar in sentences!?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:52:14.5312054-06:00
Cuz of free will b*tches! I cans do watever yay pleases!
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:52:19.2892054-06:00
No it doesn't do you even know what are free will is?
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:52:55.4812054-06:00
@janetsanders: Right, and what I'm trying to say is that a) is different to b), and that b) is, in my opinion, ethically wrong in a majority cases.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:53:09.2602846-06:00
Yea, we make our own choices
DudeStop says2013-11-18T21:53:43.7206846-06:00
I don't think I could enjoy Heaven when I know that Billions of people are burning for eternity, and the only thing they did wrong in life was having different religious beliefs than I. There are people who do not even know of Christianity, yet God will send them to eternal hell. And gay marriage: All these people, going to hell because of something they can't even control. Some Mentally ill people will not be able to ask for forgiveness for their sins, and will not even be able to accept Christ. So do they go to hell?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T21:54:12.2842846-06:00
Why is it wrong to pay off a debt?
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:54:20.8486846-06:00
That weird guy on the sidelines is right... What he say?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:54:28.9138846-06:00
It's a rude way to put it but yes we can do whatever we want but if we don't repent we will go to hell. And I promise you never been through anything near as bad as hell. Nobody on earth has.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:55:55.5832054-06:00
AHA! That is a contradiction. Since everything includes our will, and God controls everything... Then God controls our will meaning we don't have free will. But you said, I know what you said. WE don't have free will if God controls everything and that includes our will.
yay842 says2013-11-18T21:56:35.1604054-06:00
Also, describe Hell.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T21:56:38.5966846-06:00
I agree with DudeStop. And janetsanders: It is not wrong to pay off a debt, but it is wrong to be forced to work specifically to pay off a debt. I don't particularly like the idea of using prisoners as a labor force, for example, because of their 'debt' to society.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:56:52.9288054-06:00
My goodness you don't get it. God doesn't control our free will. Free will means its hit NOT CONTROLLED!!!!
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T21:57:22.5376054-06:00
I mean not controlled. Not hit not controlled.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:00:47.2252054-06:00
@jingram994: So how is it in-humane to make someone work for something they owe you? If you borrow a loan from a bank guess what will happen? You have got to pay it back like everybody else. Otherwise you would be muching and stealing money. As I said before, people chose to work or they would be homeless. It is very similar today.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:02:20.2834846-06:00
Hell, well I can't really describe because its never been there. But people who have claimed they have been there have said that its horrible. The devil can literally toy with you whenever they want. You always alone. ALWAYS. The loneliness is the worse part. You have constant pain. The pain is horrible. Worse than any pain you'll feel here. Physically and mentally. Well that's what people say who've been there.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:03:30.2764054-06:00
This seems like a paradox.. Lemme put it this way, simplified using math:..... Everything=[A,B], free will=C, God=D, noobs(humans)=E If C is a number between [A,B], and D is a function between [A,B], D has A through B, so it has C. E cant have C because D is greater than E.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:04:03.2860054-06:00
I have no idea what you said man.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:04:20.4970846-06:00
And can you give me people who has say have been there?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:04:51.1156054-06:00
You say people have been there and has told the story. How could they have described Hell?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:05:15.4204054-06:00
O thats right, its algebra 1. Never mind
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:06:36.0568054-06:00
Well they tried buts its perfectly evil literally. It's to horrible to describe it completely.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:07:40.1572054-06:00
Cam newton panthers spread, 3rd and 2. First down Panthers
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:07:49.7566233-06:00
You said, "Hell has never been there."
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:07:52.5904054-06:00
@janetsanders: Of course, but there is a difference between choosing to work, of your own accord, in an area that you choose, in order to pay back a debt, with money, whilst also using income from that work to support yourself, and paying off a debt *with work*, which is what indentured servitude is. @SONOFGOD: Again, not meaning to offend, but do you really imagine that any human could possibly commit any crime that would genuinely warrant an unspecified period(potentially eternity) of what amounts to 'pure torture'?
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:08:21.7524284-06:00
Just some Arguments and the refutals of the arguments for God: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" If something can be proved without evidence then It may be dismissed without evidence as well. "Nothing cannot come out of nothing. Everything has a cause and effect. Therefor, something has to have created everything. Also, this will be grouped with the intelligent design arguments.) This applies to God as well. If you are going to argue that us flawed humans would need to be "Intelligently designed" , then it is not improbable to say that a perfectly formed, all powerful, all knowing, pure, god needed to be "intelligently designed" as well. In fact- It would be more probable to say that god would've needed an intelligent designer. Humans die. Gods do not die. Gods require a higher level of intelligence than humans to design, Therefor they need a creator as well. (Assuming they're real, and do not use only magic) What is God's creator? Another god? Gods God?! Then the new god needs a creator as well. You will keep going up a list of creators, never actually finding the divine creator, (which is supposed to be the first god, but whatever) When the real creator of this "God," is humans. We used to be scared if things we could not explain, and we decided to create story books to explain the un-explainable. This makes since, because different places around the world made different explanations for how the earth came to be, and as every religion that is not yours points out, your religion does not meet logic. You also say this for the other religions to. Weird... People who were raised in a family that worshipped a certain God think all the other ones are fairy tales... But let us say God doesn't need a creator. (I mean c'mon, it's god.) Well that would mean that something can indeed come out of nothing. The question is: Flawed universe, or an all powerful, all mighty, pure, immortal god did? Well... I would say something that relates to science is more likely than something that relies on magic to exist. Or, something that is flawed has more of a chance of accidentally being created than something perfect does.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:08:46.8217891-06:00
@janetsanders: Forgot to insert 'involuntarily'. Should have read '...And paying off a debt involuntarily *with work*...'
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:09:16.4931793-06:00
No they go and come back. I think it's to warn us about the horror about hell.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:11:06.2550077-06:00
God uses people as examples to warm u about hell and to repent so we won't have to face hell. And the people who god to hell temporally are probably horrible people but most change there ways after returning.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:13:26.6238077-06:00
What about people who are already dead, and go to hell? Or is reincarnation a part of the process for people who end up going to hell, in your belief system? Or, again, do you honestly think that anyone could possibly warrant an eternal, torturous punishment for, at most, a large number of finite crimes?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:13:30.5082077-06:00
Ah, so all those random hobos who tell us about Hell is true? So you mustve heard some of these stories. DESCRIBE DEM B****!
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:16:05.3548000-06:00
First no need for language. And what part do you want me to describe?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:16:40.7190077-06:00
1. NO NEED FOR LANGUAGE? We all be using it right now. ALso its my favorite word, and any other word that starts with a B because of the way I enunciate the B like in banana or booboo. 2. DESCRIBE EVRYTHING!! Every tiny excruciating detail, or at least as in specifics as much as you can
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:16:52.2474077-06:00
And boobs
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:19:28.4824000-06:00
" Of course, but there is a difference between choosing to work, of your own accord, in an area that you choose, in order to pay back a debt, with money, whilst also using income from that work to support yourself, and paying off a debt *with work*, which is what indentured servitude" No, I think your confusing Indentured Servitude vs. Debt Bondage. The Bible supports Debt Bondage not Indentured Servitude. Frequently, “slavery” in Bible times was much more of an employer/employee relationship than an owner/slave situation. People had the choice to work in order to pay of their debt, or they became homeless. "Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself." Leviticus 25:47-49 Would it be fair for a society to allow a person who had accumulated a huge amount of debt to sell his labor to another person to pay that debt? Yes, it would. However, God—aware that abuse might arise in any situation—even regulated debt slavery, and provided for the rights and privileges of the slave to be guarded.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:21:02.6752000-06:00
Well there was this guy who use to beat his son all the time. He got into a bar fight and a guy cut him really bad. He had a clinical death so he he went to hell for a few minutes came back and when he recovered. He changed his ways a devoted his life to Jesus Christ. Even though it was a few minutes he said it felt like days. He said that it was horrible and he said he couldn't even describe the horror. The was part was the loneliness he said but he was so relieved that he came back.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:24:12.6674830-06:00
@Dudestop "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" That statment does not apply to atheism/agnosticsm. In order for Atheism to be true you would have to be God, you would need infinte knowledge, be all knowing, and all powerful to know that God does not exist. Second If God is God, then he is not created. If something begins to exist then it has a cause. God did not began to exist, therefore he does not have a cause. Your argument fails.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:24:16.8951101-06:00
Indentured servitude and debt bondage are essentially two different 'levels' of the same core thing, which is what I disagree with. I disagree that it is fair to allow a person to essentially 'sell' himself, or in the case of indentured servitude *be sold*, or his labor to pay off a debt, as opposed to working to support himself, the same way most others do, and simply using some of what he earns from that regular labor to pay off his debt over time. People should pay off their debts, but it is not fair to have them work specifically to do so, with no form of recompense for the labor aside from the debt being cleared.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:25:06.5500000-06:00
1. WHAT. THE. !@#$ 2. There's no logical proof he went to Hell 3. He could be lying or drunk (he was in a bar) 4.To whom are you referring to? A man without a name can simply be made up jus to be lik a boss
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:26:18.8872000-06:00
Well he's on a DVD I watched that I have but I give the name when I see again. You refuse to believe so from this point on only god can help you my brother.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:27:12.6136000-06:00
Man going out for a few minutes and claiming their was a hell proves that a place where people burn forever exists. Logic disconnected here. (Plus he couldn't even describe it..............)
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:27:31.3180000-06:00
What DVD? Is it a legitimate business? Also, I'm not your brother because my bros are hos (dem foos) unless ur a ho?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:28:07.6816000-06:00
DudeStop: exactly.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:28:23.2660000-06:00
Ya because its perfect. We aren't perfect. Heaven is perfectly good and hell is perfectly evil. It's as simple as that my brother.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:28:31.3156000-06:00
Also @janetsanders: Atheism is any lack of positive theistic belief. This is why atheism is the 'default' position. It is not itself a positive belief that 'No god exists', or 'God does not exist', although certain forms of it can be. Agnosticism itself is not a form of belief, either. One must *also* be atheist or theist for the 'agnostic' to have any meaning with regards to religious belief. And why is God the only one allowed to blatantly flout any and all rules of reality and logic? Why, given that line of reasoning, can the universe not just be eternal and uncreated?
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:28:54.8101308-06:00
Yay: Why not just do a google search on your own? You clearly have the internet to spare, if you're here.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:29:40.7824000-06:00
Dude jingram and janetsanders you guys both have swag. Why don't you guys have a debate. It would be epic.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:29:52.5613308-06:00
"Indentured servitude and debt bondage are essentially two different 'levels' of the same core thing, which is what I disagree with. I disagree that it is fair to allow a person to essentially 'sell' himself, or in the case of indentured servitude *be sold*, or his labor to pay off a debt, as opposed to working to support himself, the same way most others do, and simply using some of what he earns from that regular labor to pay off his debt over time. People should pay off their debts, but it is not fair to have them work specifically to do so, with no form of recompense for the labor aside from the debt being cleared." So if someone chooses to sell themselves or in other words "chooses" to work in order to pay off the debt they owe to the Government/society it is wrong? How is it not fair to repay a debt by choosing to work Not being forced to work but choosing? Why would they be re-compensated when their the ones that owe money? That makes no sense. If you borrow money from the bank, then you owe them money for that loan. You have the choice to work to pay it off or not pay it off. If you don't pay it off then you know the consequences of your actions.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:29:53.7304000-06:00
I see, avoiding the topic. Also, if we aren't perfect, how can e be in Heaven if it is perfectly good?
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:31:57.6724000-06:00
Jingram would win... Atheists have better arguments.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:32:30.5737308-06:00
Because after we die and if you die forgiven then god will make is forget everything and we will be reborn. We won't know any evil only goodness. Ian's we will be perfect. I wasn't avoiding the topic. I just see that janetsanders and jingram always have long paragraphs.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:32:49.0120000-06:00
I googled "old fart comes back from Hell to describe his experience." First was a picture of Hell. And I say, "Hell Yeah! Looks awesome!" Its ok sonofgod, if hell/heaven existed, you either failed your job, or I relieved you of your duty to guide me to heaven
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:34:02.4880000-06:00
Contrary to wat Jingram thinks that I have a lotta Internet free time, I wasnt payin attention. Since DudeStop was the spectator, DudeStop.. Wat were dey arguing bout?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:34:40.9576000-06:00
Yay what's you real age.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:34:58.8820000-06:00
Yea cuz ur arguing with a BOSS whos too lazy too read long paragraphs. Anyhoo, summarize plox?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:35:22.9528000-06:00
You wanna know my real age?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:36:01.8757308-06:00
Mi granpapa y mi granmama y mi granfarts are all old farts. SO SUCK IT! Also, I'll tell you my real age only once. So you ready to get your mind blown?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:36:11.8276000-06:00
What you are really weird ( no offense) because nobody Is an old fart.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:36:29.0032000-06:00
@janetsanders: Yes, but in the case of, in your own example, a bank loan being paid off, you will be working the same regular way that most others do, and will be choosing to put some of what you earn from this work toward paying off your debt. This is perfectly fine. It would not be fine if, for example, you instead chose to take over the janitorial position at the bank for three months to pay off that debt instead, without being compensated in any way for that labor, that you will need to perform on top of the work that goes toward paying for your own expenses of living.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:37:41.5441308-06:00
Ok tell me and I think it's messed up you call your grandparents old farts.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:39:26.8911024-06:00
1. I dont call my grandparents old farts 2. I call my ancient WW2 fighter English teacher an old fart(not to his face TEEHEE!) 3. OK, I will tell you my real age ONCE only. Are you ready to get your mind blown? ONLY ONCE. This is confidential information. You cannot tell anyone who's too dumb too look here. You ready?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:41:12.9544000-06:00
Ok, I first wanna say please don't or make up nonsense.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:42:21.3604000-06:00
" "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" That statment does not apply to atheism/agnosticsm. In order for Atheism to be true you would have to be God, you would need infinte knowledge, be all knowing, and all powerful to know that God does not exist. Second If God is God, then he is not created. If something begins to exist then it has a cause. God did not began to exist, therefore he does not have a cause. Your argument fails." Janet if you had looked at it more carefully you might have seen that I was arguing that if something can be proven without evidence then it can be dismissed without evidence. You obviously do not know what an atheist is, or an agnostic. Atheist means we do not believe in God. And agnostic means we can not prove god. You do not have any proof of god, agnostic. I CANNOT DISPROVE GOD. But I can say it is more logical that he doesn't exist. Do you even realize what I was saying? I was listing arguments, then refuting them. My question: Where did God come from?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:42:54.8248353-06:00
@Jingram Why would you be compensated for paying off a debt? Second you assume that you won't have enough money to support yourself from paying off a debt you owe. People back then knew how to handle money. They knew how much they needed to put aside to support themselves, and to pay off. This really does not disprove my argument. Biblical slavery was not inhumane. Everyone is a slave to something.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:43:27.4914447-06:00
Its true, im not making it up
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:43:34.0096000-06:00
This ain't made up. Imma tell you my real age. You ready? My real age is................. My real age
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:43:55.9304270-06:00
It's true but you didn't answer.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:44:27.0028000-06:00
What
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:44:29.7328000-06:00
There's the nonsense (no offense).
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:45:25.3468000-06:00
Its not nonsense! Its true!
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:46:04.0036000-06:00
Thanks sonofgod2013 maybe in the future. I am already doing 2 debates right now. Plus I am in college so I got a bunch of typing.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:46:10.7272000-06:00
You asked what my real age is. "What is my real age?" My real age is my real age. It is a true answer and the one that you're looking for. GOODNIGHT!
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:46:42.2420539-06:00
My real age is from 8-100
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:46:53.2060000-06:00
I bet your a little kid (no offense again). Goodnight.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:47:29.4604000-06:00
Im not a real kid. You wanna a real answer? Like a number(s)?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:48:01.4404000-06:00
@Dudestop: You are assuming that God began to exist. God did not began to exist; therefore, he does not have a cause. If something begans to exist, then it must have a cause. If God was created, then he would not be God. He would be a creation. You are just asking an illogical question that would result in an infinite loop of: Who created God? Again your argument fails.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:48:05.3120539-06:00
Nice one janetsanders.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:48:11.9264539-06:00
Are you younger than 18, yay? Because what you just did is really immature. Also, @janetsanders: That's part of my point. You *wouldn't* be compensated in any way for the work that you're choosing to do. Having that work pay off a previously held debt is not 'compensation'. If someone 'owes you', it really isn't fair to have them work, without any form of compensation, in order to have that debt be paid off. And my point with the 'supporting themselves' argument was more to do with time than anything else. People are still going to need to support themselves, and they are still going to need to perform legitimate work to do that. It's a much better idea to have them simply give a portion of the money they earn from this legitimate work over to pay off their debt than it is to have them work an entirely different job, without pay, just to wipe away the debt. They'd run themselves ragged, unless both their 'jobs' were very sedentary or extraordinarily easy.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:48:21.1616539-06:00
Wow, they still be arguing. Me n me son just gettin personal. Speaking of which how ol are you? You're an old fart cuz ur 2013 years old?
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:49:23.9800000-06:00
Yay842 is 8 years old...
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:50:04.4648539-06:00
And I just realized that I am approximately 1- 87 years older than DudeStop
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:50:06.5680000-06:00
So God was just there
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:50:25.3660000-06:00
I expected you to say that. I knew you would assume 8 years old if I ranged the numbers from 8-100. And I have a mastermind, so I could have said 17-100, or 1-100, or 99-1-00
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:51:41.0416000-06:00
Yep it's unexplainable. God could explain but we wouldn't understand. We aren't perfect. We are imperfect. He was there before the beginning.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T22:51:57.2656000-06:00
Also @janetsanders: If God did not 'begin to exist', then God does not exist. That's kind of just how things work. You *could* state that he was 'created' ex nihilo, if you really want to try using that argument, but stating that God can just 'always have existed', but the universe can't, means that you're backing your argument into a corner, and it's incredibly easy to just say that what you are saying is nonsensical and thus incorrect.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:51:57.4060000-06:00
I'm sticking with what I said
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:52:07.3432000-06:00
Jingram994 So what does that have to do with Biblical Slavery? It doesn't disprove it was humane. So again my argument still stands. You choose to work or you can choose to not work.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:52:33.8164000-06:00
I just realize that ur both 13 YEARS OLD. HAHAHA! Ok ill tell you my real age. Im 22
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:53:28.9000000-06:00
Janet he did post a point and then he posted another one...
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:54:10.4428000-06:00
We're still more mature than you that's for sure.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:54:33.0968539-06:00
Ok you got me. Dis be a website that has my permanent info on. Http://wWw.SWfcabin.CoM/swf-files/1306266804.Swf
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:54:35.3276539-06:00
If a god can "Just exist" then a universe can as well! Which makes more since: A magic all knowing all powerful god came out of nothing, or an extremely flawed earth did? Humans die... God's do not. They are only based on magic, and ancient books with no fact.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:54:52.4408539-06:00
Naw foo dis be how me be not in rel life. I be lik dis here.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:55:50.5664539-06:00
I bet you even more immature in real life hahahananana!!! (No I'm just kidding)
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:55:52.5632539-06:00
Im a rel gentleman, im supa dupa mature outside the magic screen ya seen here. I don actually talk bout farts an YOLO. But if u were here
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:56:45.9779222-06:00
"theism is any lack of positive theistic belief. This is why atheism is the 'default' position. It is not itself a positive belief that 'No god exists', or 'God does not exist', although certain forms of it can be. Agnosticism itself is not a form of belief, either. One must *also* be atheist or theist for the 'agnostic' to have any meaning with regards to religious belief. And why is God the only one allowed to blatantly flout any and all rules of reality and logic? Why, given that line of reasoning, can the universe not just be eternal and uncreated?" Yes, atheism is the default position. But, no matter how you section Atheism or Agnosticsm you are making a truth claim. You are affirming that your position 'a lack of belief in God', is correct. So my question Is Atheism true, and on What evidence? Because God is independent, therfore his commands are good. Without him there would be no such thing as 'logic'. Everything would be subjective. Just becaue you don't like his rules doesn't make them wrong. Second you are assuming the Multi-Verse Hypothesis is correct. Even if there were a multi-verse, you still would have the problem of asking how did the first universe in a multi-verse begin to exist? A universe is not eternal it has matter and energy. Matter and energy are not eternal.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:57:10.6416803-06:00
But if I was there what?
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:57:27.4117878-06:00
Not if im poor, single, rundown, crap life, why I believe in YOLO, why i do bs here
DudeStop says2013-11-18T22:57:40.8712000-06:00
Oh... I would've expected a 22 year old to have better things to do.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T22:59:16.3784863-06:00
Dude were typing its not like I'm giving you a lie detector test. So how would I know your a pathological lier.
yay842 says2013-11-18T22:59:19.3696000-06:00
2 months ago, when I revealed my true age. Also Im a pathological liar. I also covered that somehwere in the forums
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T22:59:58.8220000-06:00
Dudestop, A universe is not eternal. It is made up of material things. That means it had a beggining. Your argument fails again.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T23:01:06.6352000-06:00
Gods universe is eternal. I mean heaven.
yay842 says2013-11-18T23:01:43.5339770-06:00
Well ive never gotten this far in a religion topic. See this never again....
DudeStop says2013-11-18T23:02:03.7936000-06:00
What about simultaneous causation?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T23:04:20.0440000-06:00
You can't handle in that's why.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T23:04:53.2299770-06:00
God is magical. The god you speak of has no way of being real unless by some force of magic. We all know magic is not even real. Simultaneous causation is saying a can cause b, b can cause c, and finally, c can cause a. Why except a God over simultaneous causation?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:05:25.0336000-06:00
Cause and effect can't exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling!
DudeStop says2013-11-18T23:07:33.2079770-06:00
A chandelier does not equal simultaneous causation. Your analogy is false.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T23:10:05.6199770-06:00
@janetsanders: "Yes, atheism is the default position. But, no matter how you section Atheism or Agnosticsm you are making a truth claim. You are affirming that your position 'a lack of belief in God', is correct. So my question Is Atheism true, and on What evidence? Because God is independent, therfore his commands are good. Without him there would be no such thing as 'logic'. Everything would be subjective. Just becaue you don't like his rules doesn't make them wrong. Second you are assuming the Multi-Verse Hypothesis is correct. Even if there were a multi-verse, you still would have the problem of asking how did the first universe in a multi-verse begin to exist? A universe is not eternal it has matter and energy. Matter and energy are not eternal." *IF* God is not 'material', and he still exists, that means that God is nothing more than a mind. From what we know in reality, a mind cannot exist without a substrate. Matter precedes mind, in other words. It is infinitely more likely that matter came first, then mind. If mind can exist without matter, then matter can exist without a mind to create it (it can; we already know this). It does not follow logically that 'God' is the 'best' answer for causation of the universe, unless one is willing to arbitrarily state that he is somehow exempt from the same rules that not only the physical universe, but *everything* else, is also subject to. This is a bad argument. As well, like I said, atheism is any and all lack of positive theistic belief. A lack of a claim, or in many cases a refutation of theism's own positive claim. Burden of proof does not exist in the lack of a positive claim to apply it to. Atheism has no burden of proof, or indeed any requirement for any sort of 'argument against god'. Theism is making the positive claim that 'God exists'. BoP is on theism. As well, how does the existence, or lack thereof, of an arbitrary supernatural being, have any impact whatsoever on what constitutes 'morality' or 'logic'? Why are God's commands 'good'? How are they any different to my own 'commands'? Or those of the US Government?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:10:32.3380000-06:00
If all causation isn't in the end simultaneous. Imagine C and E are the cause and the effect. If C were to vanish before the time at which E is produced, would E nevertheless come into being?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-18T23:16:04.2592000-06:00
I woke up In a new Bugatti. Ya ya ya. That's my song right there boy.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:24:52.4819001-06:00
God is not mind, God is spirit. A sequence of mental events, thoughts passing in succession, is sufficient to generate a before/after sequence and, hence, time. If God has a stream of consciousness, then there would exist time prior to the beginning of the universe. So what's the problem? How could time come into existence with no causal conditions whatsoever. That is truly bizarre. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? How could they begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? Your right, Theism is making a positive claim. The reason why Atheists/Agnostics shift the burden of proof, is because they know it is very hard to prove an absolute negative, so they hold a positive view. The Burden of Proof is always on both sides of an argument. Imagine we were both Lawyers. I was the Prosecution, and you where the defense. Let's just say your defending your client, who was in prison for murdering someone. The Judge says, alright Jingram. Can you please give us proof that your client is innocent of murder. You would then say, "Well Judge, I don't have to give proof." "The Prosecution just has to show that my client is guilty." That is shifting the burden of proof. You would have to give proof that your client is not guilty of murder, just like I would have to give proof that your client is guilty of murder.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T23:35:31.6782232-06:00
It doesn't matter. Why should I assume god is real a over simultaneous causation? Just because all causation is not simultaneous does not mean that simultaneous causation is not simultaneous. If I say simultaneous causation, I mean simultaneously they cause each other.
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T23:38:13.9962232-06:00
"God is not mind, God is spirit. A sequence of mental events, thoughts passing in succession, is sufficient to generate a before/after sequence and, hence, time. If God has a stream of consciousness, then there would exist time prior to the beginning of the universe. So what's the problem? How could time come into existence with no causal conditions whatsoever. That is truly bizarre. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? How could they begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? Your right, Theism is making a positive claim. The reason why Atheists/Agnostics shift the burden of proof, is because they know it is very hard to prove an absolute negative, so they hold a positive view." Please explain the difference between mind and 'spirit'. If my mind does not exist, then I do not exist. My mind cannot exist without my body, or at least my brain. And 'time' exists as a causal 'fourth dimension', independent of minds. Minds evolved in the presence of time; time does not exist because it makes things easier for minds. Time is an aspect of the universe. Sequences of events still occur in the complete absence of any sort of mind to 'sort' them into sequence. And as stated, any and all lack of theistic belief is some form of atheism. Lacking positive belief is not the same as holding 'positive disbelief', which isn't actually a real thing. How does refuting someone else's positive claim magically mean that you have to 'disprove' their claim, rather than demanding they provide proof for their own claim, then rightfully saying that they're wrong when they fail to provide any? Imagine it like this; "I have an invisible, silent pet dragon in my garage. This dragon produces no smell, and is incredibly good at sneaking around. If you don't believe that I have this pet dragon, eventually he'll kill you and make it look like an accident." "No you don't. Stop being stupid." Refuting a claim requires no 'proof'. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "The Burden of Proof is always on both sides of an argument. Imagine we were both Lawyers. I was the Prosecution, and you where the defense. Let's just say your defending your client, who was in prison for murdering someone. The Judge says, alright Jingram. Can you please give us proof that your client is innocent of murder. You would then say, "Well Judge, I don't have to give proof." "The Prosecution just has to show that my client is guilty." That is shifting the burden of proof. You would have to give proof that your client is not guilty of murder, just like I would have to give proof that your client is guilty of murder." Nope. Logical burden of proof is slightly different to legal burden of proof. Also, 'innocent until proven guilty'. The positive claimant always has burden of proof, and the one refuting this claim has none. The prosecution must prove that the man committed murder. If they fail, then the defendant wins, even if they did nothing whatsoever to 'prove' innocence. Theism is making the positive claim that God exists. Atheism is not believing, or refuting, this claim. Unless you, the 'prosecutor', can 'prove' 'God' exists, then the 'defendant' wins, even if he does nothing at all.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:38:57.2550232-06:00
God never began to exist and so doesn't need a cause. How could time come into existence with no causal conditions whatsoever. That is truly bizarre. Why did time and the universe begin to exist at all? How could they begin to exist in the absence of any causal conditions? Aren't they admitting what you first denied, namely, that causation is applicable outside of space and time after all?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:50:39.5247922-06:00
"Nope. Logical burden of proof is slightly different to legal burden of proof. Also, 'innocent until proven guilty'. The positive claimant always has burden of proof, and the one refuting this claim has none. The prosecution must prove that the man committed murder. If they fail, then the defendant wins, even if they did nothing whatsoever to 'prove' innocence. Theism is making the positive claim that God exists. Atheism is not believing, or refuting, this claim. Unless you, the 'prosecutor', can 'prove' 'God' exists, then the 'defendant' wins, even if he does nothing at all." That is not necessarily true. If the Prosecutor has already given evidence, then the Defense must counter the Prosecution. They can't just say "Oh judge the prosecution has not given any proof". They must first prove their defendant is not guilty, then they can make that case. Second you could be wrong. Even If your client is guilty and the prosecution fails to provide evidence that he/she is guilty, that does not mean that your client is innocent. It is possible that your client can get away with murder. Even if you could disprove every religion in the world (Hypothetically speaking), that still doesn't prove atheism true. Deism could be true. You would have to disprove Deism or maybe even Agnosticism.
DudeStop says2013-11-18T23:55:35.6296780-06:00
I'm not sure if any atheist thinks they can prove god to be fake, just that god is probably not real.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-18T23:57:34.7042644-06:00
How strong do you think the case for atheism is?
Jingram994 says2013-11-18T23:58:58.7603932-06:00
No, I am aware of the fact that the defendant must accept or counter evidence presented in the case. What I am saying is that burden of proof to actually give any evidence at all is on the prosecutor. If they fail to give any evidence at all, the defendant is well within their job description and rights to sit back and do absolutely nothing until the case ends. You can 'disprove' guilt, within a reasonable doubt, but you can't 'prove' that someone *didn't* do something. If the prosecution does not provide evidence, they lose the case. If the defendant does not provide evidence, then as long as the prosecution has not provided their own solid evidence, it doesn't matter. They still did their job, and they almost certainly still won that case. Like I said, atheism is a *lack of* belief. It is not a 'negative belief', which is nonsensical and impossible, or a 'disbelief'. If theism cannot prove it's own claim that 'God exists', then atheism has absolutely no need to do anything. Burden of proof does not exist in the lack of a positive claim, and atheism is nothing more than either not holding a belief in the positive claim of theism, or refuting such a claim. You do not need 'proof' to say that someone is wrong when they themselves have provided no real evidence for their own claim.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:01:10.6045463-06:00
As aworld view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T00:02:28.4173463-06:00
I woke up in a new Bugatti ya I woke up in a new Bugatti ya. Love that song man.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:07:55.2855255-06:00
Asdfsdfnk
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:08:16.3300604-06:00
I feel like slapping somebody today slap slap
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T00:09:24.1627767-06:00
What is asdfsdfnk?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:10:28.9148694-06:00
Oh I was just testing the submit button. For some reason it said my comment needed a moderator or something.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T00:12:18.0368694-06:00
Oh ya that happened to me when I tried to post something.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:13:15.7840462-06:00
I think we did a good job in defending the bible and God's existence.
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T00:13:19.9753352-06:00
Weak atheism: I do not hold any belief in a god or gods. Strong atheism: I believe that god/gods do/does not exist. They are two variations of the same thing. If you hold a positive belief in god(s), you are theist. If you do not, you are an atheist. You can be an agnostic or gnostic (a)theist, which is another dimension. A gnostic theist *knows* that God exists. An agnostic theist does not know, or claim to know, that god exists, but still believes that he does. An agnostic atheist simply does not hold any belief in god, and does not know or claim to know whether or not he exists. Both weak and strong atheism are in here somewhere, though some extreme forms of strong atheism cross over into gnostic atheism, which is the lack of belief in god, coupled with the 'knowledge' that no god exists. So, to sum up, there exists agnostic and gnostic theism, which comes in as many different forms as there are religions. There exists agnostic and gnostic strong atheism, and agnostic weak atheism. This atheism can be explicit, as in the case of knowing of god(s) and not believing in any of them, or implicit, in which case one has just never given the issue of theism any real amount of thought whatsoever. Theism is always explicit, however, as one cannot hold a belief in something that one has never given even the barest amount of thought to. And yeah, sometimes you just trip the 'moderator alert' without actually having any real, identifiable reason for this. It should come through in an hour or two. Or it might just never show up. I always copy my comments before I submit them, just in case that happens, so then I can paste them into wordpad and edit them until it works.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:18:15.6824694-06:00
(Thanks for the info about the moderator button!) So the question now is, how strong do you think the case for atheism is? If the atheist continues to believe (1) without any justification, then he simply “takes it by faith” and is just as irrational as people who believe theism just by faith. If a person has no justification for (1), he should be at worst an agnostic, someone who says, “I don’t know whether (1) is true or not.”
yay842 says2013-11-19T00:23:38.8676694-06:00
I come back 30 minutes later... -.-
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:25:42.4975442-06:00
@yay842HAHAHAHAH! You have been sleeping. Btw your picture looks funny, and painful at the same time
yay842 says2013-11-19T00:26:26.3874386-06:00
Umm no I was watching Youtue
yay842 says2013-11-19T00:26:33.8842565-06:00
Youtube
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:27:28.3280694-06:00
Oh.
yay842 says2013-11-19T00:28:00.2924694-06:00
This yall lowlives been doing for da ho' time?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T00:29:20.6792694-06:00
Yes
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T01:11:29.0893525-06:00
Right, but at a basic level that person is going to lean toward 'believing' (1) or not believing it, in which case he then leans toward theism instead. Agnosticism isn't actually it's own form of belief; it's purely a position on knowledge of a given topic. Being absolutely ambivalent and completely unsure about the existence of god(s) will still leave you to 'lean' toward (1) or away from it to some degree. Even if your theistic/atheistic 'lean' is near-zero, it still exists, and I don't really think that it can be actually zero. If someone has never given any thought to the situation, and doesn't appear to be sure or have any real leaning at all, then basically they would be a 'weak implicit agnostic atheist'. Just personally, I am a 'weak(or medium-strength/intermediate, if that makes sense) explicit agnostic atheist'. 'Explicit agnostic atheism'(of whatever strength, though likely weak as well) is, I'm pretty sure, the most common form of atheism, though I could very well be wrong. I imagine it as sort of like a spectrum; extreme gnostic theism on one end, extreme gnostic explicit atheism on the other. There is a middle point, and this middle point is literally just a crossing-over point; there isn't a position 'in between' the two, there are only points extremely close to the middle on either side. You must either hold positive theistic belief, or not hold it. You can't be 'in between' holding that belief or not. If you've never given the issue of religion any thought at all, you won't hold this belief; that's why (a very weak, implicit form of) atheism is the 'default' position. And just two 'asides'. 1. Belief isn't really a 'choice' as such. You believe what you believe as a result of your way of thinking and looking at things, and the information you have, and how reliable you find that information. You can't actually believe something, and also arbitrarily yet genuinely change that belief. 2. No matter how the issue is worded, atheism is still the 'defendant'. Until and unless theism gets a serious, solid argument, backed up with either real-world, physical evidence or serious logical 'legitimacy', going for it, atheism just doesn't *need* any arguments for it. A refutation of a claim with no evidence is always 'stronger' than the claim itself that has no evidence.
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T01:13:05.1541525-06:00
Comment was moderated. Should be here in a bit.
Haroush says2013-11-19T08:41:32.8385040-06:00
Yay842 sounds like someone that'd like to be in jail.. Lol and wow! I have missed so much!
DudeStop says2013-11-19T12:03:00.7981360-06:00
This argument is so long...
DudeStop says2013-11-19T12:03:07.0849360-06:00
This argument is so long...
Haroush says2013-11-19T16:16:25.5783083-06:00
Definitely is...
yay842 says2013-11-19T20:43:33.4208818-06:00
Ive been in jail. And this argument is too long. And religion poll topics have the longest arguments ever
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:44:58.1401171-06:00
Yay your a lowlife.
yay842 says2013-11-19T20:45:33.0529171-06:00
No, I live on the mountains, I probably have a higher life than you
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:46:21.4172818-06:00
Not funny man. Not funny.
yay842 says2013-11-19T20:46:56.3881171-06:00
Truth not always be funny
DudeStop says2013-11-19T20:48:12.0836818-06:00
If the bible is true, then God is all powerful, all knowing, and pure. If God is all powerful, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is all knowing, then God knows when and where evil exists. God is supposedly morally perfect, so then God would want to to eliminate all evil. WE KNOW THAT EVIL EXISTS... And God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil meaning God is not all powerful, or God doesn't know when/where evil exists meaning God is not all knowing, or God is not pure and doesn't want to destroy all evil. The Christian god cannot exist. Also Youtube Bible contradictions if you want to see more.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:48:16.9465171-06:00
You immature and need to change(or at least I think so)
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:49:53.3545171-06:00
Dudestop god does things for a reason. Reasons we will never understand on earth. We're not perfect. He could destroy evil and he will soon(but I don't or no on else knows when).
yay842 says2013-11-19T20:50:02.0125171-06:00
Didnt we go through this already?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:50:35.2406583-06:00
Ya but to me it's seems you'll never learn without god.
DudeStop says2013-11-19T20:58:18.1280818-06:00
Sonofgod~I'm immature? Or yay842 is? I mean I'm 13 so I shouldn't be expected to be fully mature yet. It also seems you have not done an adequate job at refuting my latest argument. Why can't god just destroy all evil right now? Why wait? And please do not say that he works in mysterious ways...
yay842 says2013-11-19T20:59:17.9696818-06:00
Hey, I have feelings, you know? Goddamn ur both immature
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T20:59:45.6884402-06:00
Your not immature. Yay is. Like I told you we don't understand. So you and I will never understand why he doesn't destroy evil.
yay842 says2013-11-19T21:00:41.0528402-06:00
You cant possibly know that without knowing me in real life
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T21:00:42.0512402-06:00
Excuse me. I'm not the o e saying ridiculous stuff all the time. Dude stop never says anything dumb like you.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-19T21:01:14.6732818-06:00
Well I know on here you are. So...
DudeStop says2013-11-19T21:11:01.9654809-06:00
I would say yay is immature, his claim that he is not immature is false, for if he was mature he would be able to hang out with a friend or have better things to do than attempt to annoy two 13 year olds. Son of god~ That is why I don't believe in God. When someone says: "we don't understand. So you and I will never understand why he doesn't destroy evil" I know it is not anymore probable than a Flying Spaghetti Monster in my garage. I have no reason to believe in something when they would simply say- No humans can understand. It is simpler to not believe in god and accept the contradictions than try to make up rules. The reason you cannot understand is because it is false... Do you know of all the other ways a universe could come to be?
yay842 says2013-11-19T21:13:30.2304187-06:00
1. False 2. Multitasking is possible 3. I do hang out with friends and I do have better things to do 4. Attempt would be incorrect as it was a great success! 5. You could not know for sure, as the Internet can be a way to be anonymous and irrelevant to personality in real life
DudeStop says2013-11-19T21:24:22.3442693-06:00
My friend was laughing at this... I don't really care though. If. I were you I'd go over to You- Tube and troll, much better results.
Haroush says2013-11-19T22:45:58.3026000-06:00
Actually the reason he doesn't just destroy all the evil right now is because he is trying to save all of those stuck in their evil ways before doing so. Why? We as humans aren't responsible for evil existing, Lucifer is. Oh, and by the way, you have to be at the least somewhat immature to end up in jail. Not saying you don't have potential to be a better person, but maybe you ought to listen more to what your elders have to say. 9 times out of 10, we fail ourselves when we simply don't pay heed to our elder's advice while growing up. Besides, who is to say evil isn't being destroyed right now as we speak? It even states in the bible, many will not pay heed to his signs and wonders. It even states how good will become bad and bad will become good. It is all very clear that is what is happening right now. Of course some of you will beg to differ, though that's a given. Our G-d is better than that and is a holy judge.
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T22:54:36.8466000-06:00
"We as humans aren't responsible for evil existing, Lucifer is." God created Lucifer. He brought him up, if that's what you do with angels. He had absolute control over both the 'nature' and 'nurture' parts of Lucifer's development. He is Omniscient. He knew exactly how this situation would turn out, and decided to do things so that evil was created. God created evil. "Actually the reason he doesn't just destroy all the evil right now is because he is trying to save all of those stuck in their evil ways before doing so." Destroying 'evil' does not necessitate destroying evildoers. Nor does committing 'evil' necessitate eternal punishment. Why does he not simply stop all acts of evil the moment they are attempted, or before they are? Why does God allow people to be murdered and raped, both of which violate the free will of the victim, and then use that same thing that is being violated by his inaction to justify doing nothing? If I could stop all poverty, warfare and suffering on the continent of Africa by doing something as trivial as, say, just going out of my house and checking my mail at the post office at some point during the day (ridiculous, I know, but we're assuming I have unconscious absolute power here), would my choosing to not do so, and allowing such things to continue, be a bad thing to do in and of itself? Yes, it would. In choosing to do nothing and thus allowing 'evil' to flourish, despite having absolute power, and absolute knowledge and awareness of evil, and when and where it is committed, he is himself committing a bad act.
DudeStop says2013-11-19T23:03:49.0839788-06:00
Hmmm... I thought you were going to say God gave us free will... Let me see. "the reason he doesn't just destroy all the evil right now is because he is trying to save all of those stuck in their evil ways before doing so. Why? We as humans aren't responsible for evil existing, Lucifer is. " 1. So if this God destroys lucifer, all evil would cease to exist... Meaning he would not need to save us from our evil ways. 2. God can't save us from our "Evil Ways" If God doesn't destroy the source of all evil. Lucifer would continue to poison us. 3. It's like trying to kill all the clones of Yay842 while a new one is created every 5 seconds, but you want to destroy the clones before you destroy the cloning machine. It's illogical: Why wait to destroy the source? And what if I switch evil with pain and suffering? Then what?
yay842 says2013-11-19T23:05:51.8586000-06:00
You know Im still following this?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T23:05:57.8178000-06:00
Wait a minute JIngram 994, you assume there is such a thing as evil correct?
yay842 says2013-11-19T23:06:20.4690000-06:00
That is incorrect
Haroush says2013-11-19T23:11:36.8994000-06:00
You are forgetting something here.. G-d gave us all free will and so was Lucifer the leader of rebellion. Later known as Satan. No, committing evil doesn't necessitate eternal punishment, but can lead yourself into eternal punishment by not accepting the messiah and holding onto sin, instead of righteousness.
Haroush says2013-11-19T23:17:14.2182000-06:00
Hence this is the reason evil exists.
Haroush says2013-11-19T23:17:33.3126000-06:00
Satan
Haroush says2013-11-19T23:19:52.9482000-06:00
The transformation from Lucifer to Satan, along with all the 2/3 of G-d's angles that rebelled against their own creator.
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T23:28:04.9887413-06:00
"You are forgetting something here.. G-d gave us all free will and so was Lucifer the leader of rebellion. Later known as Satan." So God is entirely unaware of what coercion is? Or how his own actions affect the world/people around him? If he *knew* ahead of time exactly what the outcome of Lucifer's life would end up being, given his own interactions with him, and continued to go on exactly as he did, then *he* is ultimately responsible for the occurrence of evil. You can have free will without evil, it just required being smart about how you apply things. For example, overt coercion, violation of freedom by force and similar occurrences happen all the time in reality. Is not rape an inherent infringement on the free will of the victim? Given this, why does it happen, if God is aware of it, powerful enough to prevent it without harming anyone, and if he really does value free will as much as is stated by his believers? If God really did value free will, as opposed to the 'free will' of certain individuals, that use their own free will to place the free will of others in an inescapable stranglehold, then things like rape simply wouldn't happen. Clearly, in reality, if he does exist, the 'free will' of rapists is much more important to him than the free will, and actual physical and psychological health, of their victims. "No, committing evil doesn't necessitate eternal punishment, but can lead yourself into eternal punishment by not accepting the messiah and holding onto sin, instead of righteousness." Why is that necessary? Is he so incapable of empathy and fair consideration that he is completely unable to 'forgive' people unless they 'accept' his 'Son' as their 'savior', despite this being, in reality, at best an extremely dubious and absolutely unproven idea? Despite the fact that there is significant and ongoing debate as to whether or not this person even existed? That such a person actually being the literal 'son of God' even if he did exist, is a completely ridiculous theory? Really? That sounds more like narcissism than forgiveness to me. No offense.
DudeStop says2013-11-19T23:47:54.0385481-06:00
If*
DudeStop says2013-11-19T23:48:31.4001981-06:00
Haroush, why do you say: "G-d"? Of it's not to personal....
janetsanders733 says2013-11-19T23:59:24.0376945-06:00
Texans are better than the Cowboys
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-20T00:00:13.9318243-06:00
"I woke up a in new Bugatti ya, I woke in a new Bugatti ya". That song is awesome.
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:17:34.0482507-06:00
You totally misunderstand free will. Free will puts all responsibility on you. Just like our Father is self-sufficient, he intended everything else to be too, according to his word. Instead, like I said before rebellion took place because of Lucifer's pride. Then, you had the 2/3 of G-d's angels rebel against him as well. Did G-d intend for this to happen? No. Why do you think he separated his seed from Satan's seed? The reason he knows all is because he created all. Did he think 2/3 of his angels would rebel against him? Obviously not . Why do you think mercy reigns over us? I guess it's just a coincidence right? Why do you think our G-d is a G-d of emotions? Why do you think humans have emotions? The only one here who is narcissistic is YOU. To believe you are so intelligent that you have the answers for all of us, is ridiculous. And to think man is man's own G-d is ridiculous. I guess the Native Americans predicting white men coming to the shores of North America was a coincidence, right? How could you believe you are so high that nothing below or above this earth is above you? May G-d have mercy on your soul. Trust me there is more to you than just your physical body and this earth and anything that holds physical attributes. Why do you think there is such thing as dark matter? Why is there a place in which gravity doesn't exist period? Space doesn't count either. Though it exists somewhere in space. I'll tell you that.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:21:11.7619901-06:00
Ha Ha! I know someone who made a vine, with that song. But, they said I woke up in a new golf cart. They work at a country club
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:21:17.9488778-06:00
You wouldn't understand if I told you.
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:22:26.1760676-06:00
^ @Dudestop about me saying G-d
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:23:16.7655943-06:00
God did not began to exist. God is eternal, meaning he has always existed. He is the beginning and the end.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:24:34.8435943-06:00
If God began to exist, then he would have a cause,thus making him a creation, and not a creator.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:26:34.4330108-06:00
@Dudestop Texans are better than Cowboys
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:26:54.6039943-06:00
Yup
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:27:21.4359943-06:00
@ G-d always existed.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:29:12.8667943-06:00
I still don't know why they put Matt Schaub in, for Case Keenum.
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:29:17.9211943-06:00
Well of course. Though we are discussing everything he created.
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:30:33.7837819-06:00
I don't follow sports at all.
Haroush says2013-11-20T00:31:18.3129380-06:00
I used to, but I'm different now.
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T00:31:51.2392605-06:00
@Haroush: "You totally misunderstand free will. Free will puts all responsibility on you. Just like our Father is self-sufficient, he intended everything else to be too, according to his word. Instead, like I said before rebellion took place because of Lucifer's pride. Then, you had the 2/3 of G-d's angels rebel against him as well. Did G-d intend for this to happen? No." That's extremely at odds with a God who is described as Omniscient and Omnipotent. If he didn't intend for it to happen, it simply wouldn't have happened. He knew ahead of time, *exactly* what was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent it from happening. "The reason he knows all is because he created all. Did he think 2/3 of his angels would rebel against him? Obviously not . Why do you think mercy reigns over us? I guess it's just a coincidence right? Why do you think our G-d is a G-d of emotions?" Did he? Didn't he? Does it? Is it? Is he? Those are all rhetorical questions. What sort of answer are you expecting me to give here? As well, if he 'did(n't) think 2/3 of his angels would rebel against him', then he is either not Omniscient, as he is consistently described as being, or is an extremely naive moron despite this. "Why do you think humans have emotions?" Because that's how our brains and hormonal systems evolved to work. That's... Kind of it, really. There was never any 'need' for this to be the case, and the universe would continue on just fine if it weren't. "The only one here who is narcissistic is YOU. To believe you are so intelligent that you have the answers for all of us, is ridiculous. And to think man is man's own G-d is ridiculous." Am I? How so? Because I effortlessly poke holes in inconsistent and logically nonsensical statements? And where did I state that 'man is man's own God'? "I guess the Native Americans predicting white men coming to the shores of North America was a coincidence, right? How could you believe you are so high that nothing below or above this earth is above you?" Did they? Do you think you could provide a link to evidence for that? Because Aztecs mistaking the conquistadors for various of their gods is not 'predicting white men coming to the shores of North America'. And how exactly do I 'believe (I) am so high that nothing below or above this earth is above (me)'? Where did I state this? "May G-d have mercy on your soul. Trust me there is more to you than just your physical body and this earth and anything that holds physical attributes. Why do you think there is such thing as dark matter? Why is there a place in which gravity doesn't exist period? Space doesn't count either. Though it exists somewhere in space. I'll tell you that." Prove that such a thing as the 'soul' exists. Prove that there really is more to a person than their physical body. How is dark matter at all related to this? It's a naturally occurring 'substance', near as we can tell. And gravity exists everywhere, it simply gets a lot weaker the further from the object exerting the gravitational pull becomes. It never stops altogether. And @janetsanders: If God has no beginning, why is this not an acceptable argument for the physical universe, including it's structure before the big bang? I direct you to my much earlier statement; "*IF* God is not 'material', and he still exists, that means that God is nothing more than a mind. From what we know in reality, a mind cannot exist without a substrate. Matter precedes mind, in other words. It is infinitely more likely that matter came first, then mind. If mind can exist without matter, then matter can exist without a mind to create it (it can; we already know this). It does not follow logically that 'God' is the 'best' answer for causation of the universe, unless one is willing to arbitrarily state that he is somehow exempt from the same rules that not only the physical universe, but *everything* else, is also subject to. This is a bad argument."
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:35:33.9091705-06:00
@Jingram995 @Haroush @ Dudestop @ Yay842https://www.Google.Com/search?Q=funny+matt+schaub+meme&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=71eMUtWuNufX2QXty4DwDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=funny+matt+schaub+pick+six&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=cjyisdHgJaAlzM%3A%3BJPXE1L4CSrgVmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcdn.Ksk.Uproxx.Com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F10%252Fschaubburger-450x600.Jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkissingsuzykolber.Uproxx.Com%252F2013%252F10%252Fmatt-schaub-mockery-now-burger-form.Html%3B450%3B600a
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T00:38:38.8835174-06:00
Huh. Not bad. That's actually pretty funny.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T00:43:59.1515174-06:00
Are you familiar with the nfl jingram994?
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T00:49:33.9120755-06:00
Only a tiny bit. I actually live in Australia, so I don't specifically keep up with it.
yay842 says2013-11-20T00:51:37.7899695-06:00
I didnt realize I was still a part of this
yay842 says2013-11-20T00:52:02.3158268-06:00
But wat hapened to da religion talk?
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T00:52:43.2935297-06:00
I think something to do with the NFL sidetracked it momentarily.
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:02:04.6145488-06:00
"That's extremely at odds with a God who is described as Omniscient and Omnipotent. If he didn't intend for it to happen, it simply wouldn't have happened. He knew ahead of time, *exactly* what was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent it from happening." How do you know? You weren't there. Just like you don't know that gravity doesn't exist everywhere and that everything doesn't have physical attributes. My questions are far from rhetorical and furthermore you are very disrespectful. "Because that's how our brains and hormonal systems evolved to work. That's... Kind of it, really. There was never any 'need' for this to be the case, and the universe would continue on just fine if it weren't." According to you. It's odd how scientist say one thing one day and something else the other. "Am I? How so? Because I effortlessly poke holes in inconsistent and logically nonsensical statements? And where did I state that 'man is man's own God'?" That's the difference between you and I, I am and you am I. Atheism is the belief that man is man's own G-d. What did you think it was? "Did they? Do you think you could provide a link to evidence for that? Because Aztecs mistaking the conquistadors for various of their gods is not 'predicting white men coming to the shores of North America'. And how exactly do I 'believe (I) am so high that nothing below or above this earth is above (me)'? Where did I state this?" You didn't state this, your attitude did. They weren't Aztecs, they were Hopi Indians. By the way, did you know native americans are related to the Jews? "Prove that such a thing as the 'soul' exists. Prove that there really is more to a person than their physical body. How is dark matter at all related to this? It's a naturally occurring 'substance', near as we can tell. And gravity exists everywhere, it simply gets a lot weaker the further from the object exerting the gravitational pull becomes. It never stops altogether." It is your job to prove that a soul doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Dark matter is not a naturally occurring substance just because scientist discovered it.
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:07:36.6479751-06:00
This is the First Sign: We are told of the coming of the white-skinned men, like Pahana, but not living like Pahana men who took the land that was not theirs. And men who struck their enemies with thunder.
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:07:39.0815907-06:00
This is the First Sign: We are told of the coming of the white-skinned men, like Pahana, but not living like Pahana men who took the land that was not theirs. And men who struck their enemies with thunder.
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:08:04.1821516-06:00
Http://www.Welcomehome.Org/rainbow/prophecy/hopi1.Html
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:09:23.8641065-06:00
Www welcomehome org rainbow prophecy/hopi1.Html
Haroush says2013-11-20T01:13:53.5765636-06:00
Ever wonder how "normal" is normal? I guess these psychologist and psychiatrist really know everything about the human brain despite the fact so many are being over and misdiagnosed with things they don't have.
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T01:17:09.4436618-06:00
"How do you know? You weren't there. Just like you don't know that gravity doesn't exist everywhere and that everything doesn't have physical attributes. My questions are far from rhetorical and furthermore you are very disrespectful." So? The biblical God is consistently described as being Omniscient. If he is not so, his description in the bible is entirely incorrect. By definition, the biblical God did know what would happen ahead of time. And we do know that every object exerts gravitational pull, and that this force only ever weakens with distance; it never entirely dissipates. And while we don't 'know' that 'everything' only has physical attributes, from what we can currently tell this is in fact the case, and if you claim otherwise it is *you* who needs to back that idea up. And I only ever made legitimate arguments with information that I had, and your own statements, to go on. I apologize If I appear disrespectful, but it is you who began throwing insults ("The only one here who is narcissistic is YOU."), and I am not going to 'mince words' and risk damaging my argument because you don't like the way I'm wording things. "According to you. It's odd how scientist say one thing one day and something else the other." According to all legitimate science. And please give me an example of how 'scientists'(very broad, wouldn't you agree?) do this. " That's the difference between you and I, I am and you am I. Atheism is the belief that man is man's own G-d. What did you think it was?" Funny that. I was under the assumption that atheism was a lack of positive theistic belief, or a refutation of the positive claim of theism. Because, you know, that's what atheism *actually* is. What you just described is nothing of the sort. Atheism implies nothing further with regards to philosophy, sir. "You didn't state this, your attitude did. They weren't Aztecs, they were Hopi Indians. By the way, did you know native americans are related to the Jews?" Right. Inference on your part. That's your own idea of who I am getting in the way of the actual ideas I'm actually putting forth here. And again, could you provide a link to that? And did you know that *every human is related to every other human*? Wait, just got that. A touch vague, wouldn't you say? This doesn't 'prove' that they actually *knew* that European humans would come to North America, does it? " It is your job to prove that a soul doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Dark matter is not a naturally occurring substance just because scientist discovered it." Umm... No, it isn't. You are claiming that a non-material object, that to date is completely undetected/undetectable, exists. *YOU* have to prove that it exists; I do not have to 'disprove' your ridiculous claim just because you don't care to provide evidence for your own ideas. And, if something exists in nature, it is natural. Unless dark matter is specifically engineered and put there by intelligent beings, it is 'natural'. "Ever wonder how "normal" is normal? I guess these psychologist and psychiatrist really know everything about the human brain despite the fact so many are being over and misdiagnosed with things they don't have." What? What are you even trying to say here? That has nothing to do with the science of psychology, it has to do with individual psychologists being idiots, or just trying to wring money out of their patients. What's your point?
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T01:19:43.2973636-06:00
Am I the only one who's getting sick of the way the poll comment section always just puts everything together into a huge mass of text, instead of using paragraphs, like I wrote it in?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T01:31:30.5189222-06:00
No. I space my paragraphs to. It really "irks" me when this ddo.Org won't cooperate with my paragraphs.
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T01:33:15.2633648-06:00
Yeah, I figured that some people would be getting annoyed with it. As in, everyone who uses more that thirty words worth of material in their posts. I get that the poll section is 'new', but it's not *that* new. They should have done something about it by now; every other section formats properly.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T01:39:36.3716867-06:00
I wish DDO.Org, would let us have like double debates. 2 vs. 2.
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T01:45:01.8050851-06:00
Maybe, but that could end with one side losing despite one of the two on that side being completely brilliant. Or one side winning despite having all of the 'weight' being pulled by only one of the two; it probably wouldn't really be an entirely 'fair' way of doing debates online.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T01:47:52.0907820-06:00
Yeah, I guess so. That would be cool if instead of typing, we could do like a video/or voice debate, that automatically enter's the words for you.
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T01:56:30.3344864-06:00
Well, yeah. Then you'd have to improvise and answer immediately, instead of going away to research for hours before answering. The voice recognition would have to be top-notch, though, or you'd risk it picking up incorrect words too often, in which case it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T01:59:35.8808864-06:00
True true.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-20T02:04:17.5643329-06:00
Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=w4k5NwDcucc This suit is NOT Black!
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:12:19.0277071-06:00
There is not enough good scientific evidence to say that god is real. This does not however mean that he isn't real. The same way that if we find out a glass is not full we cannot say that it is empty, there could very well be something in between. Ultimately there just isn't any proof either way to make a solid claim about the existence of god. In my personal opinion with the data we have I would find the chances for a god as described in the bible to be real very slim. And even if this god existed I do not find him morally just and would do anything I can to stand in his way and to defy him where he crosses my moral judgement. For when you frighten people to follow you by saying you will give them eternal suffering otherwise then you're not on my list of good guys. I'd rather break under his 'holy' might than bow under his rule. What gives him the right to decide our future and what is right or wrong anyways. Just because I am a father does not give me right to have full control of my son.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T14:13:34.9841071-06:00
Do you think your moral judgment is better than God's?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:23:50.6319085-06:00
Ones moral judgement can only be judged by outsiders and not by oneself. One can of course think himself as always right, but this is most of the time not the case. Therefore I am not one to claim that my moral judgement is perfect, nor can they be ever. Morals are a very subjective thing, so better is just a matter of perspective. It is more about whether or not one agrees with another mans moral judgement, and I personally most certainly do not agree with many of the moral choices and rules god has put up in the bible when taken literally. But of course most of the time the rules in the bible are not taken literally and interpreted in a million different ways, leaving whether or not I agree with your moral judgement up for debate. Ultimately at the core of every form of moral judgement is a goal, for most people the goal of their moral judgement is to protect themselves and their loved ones and so they fill in good and evil with things that serve this goal. I personally try to build my moral judgement around what actions let the least amount of suffering into the world, sending all who don't believe in a certain faith to burn for eternity...Nope that doesn't really respond to my moral judgement, therefore I disagree with the morals god puts up for us. But as explained before disagree does not mean I think my way of moral judging is better.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T14:27:12.1374811-06:00
Have you ever lied before?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:32:19.0222316-06:00
Of course I have. Are you perhaps going in the direction about whether or not lying is morally just. If you want the answer. For me that question has to be answered on a case by case basis. With one simple question: which action brings the least amount of suffering into the world (very important to consider the long term, amount of data available and risks all have to be factors in my judgement). When answered I pick the option that follows my moral code in the best way. Or is there perhaps another reason why you asked this question, because I am quite intrigued why you did.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T14:33:01.6301071-06:00
So what do we call someone who lies?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:39:12.3641071-06:00
Since I am quite confident you already know the answer to this question I ask you to stop fooling around and get to the point. Perhaps you want to get back on topic, which I of course respect. And in the question of whether or not god exists with the parties being divided in yes or no both groups are liars. For neither has good evidence to prove their point and are therefore claiming something which they cannot hold up. But then again, are they truly lies. When one lies he or she is most of the time aware of it. Perhaps lying is not about what is true or not but about being aware that one is lying. That might be the crucial difference between telling a false fact and lying, ones own true conviction.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T14:48:43.4179066-06:00
Okay fair enough here is my point. You and I have all sinned. We have broken God's moral law(The Ten Commandments). The moral law is written on everyone's own heart(Romans 2:15). We as human beings have all lied, stolen, cheated, murdered, committed adultery, dishonored our parents, etc. When we stand before God on judgement day, God is going to have to do the right thing and judge us, for who we are as sinners. But, the good news is that God loved the world so much that he sent his Son Jesus Christ 2,000+ years ago to die on the cross for our sin. He was buried and raised to life by God on the third day, so that if you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior you will have eternal life. I am not going to heaven because of what I did. I am sinner just like you. I am not good enough. I am only going to heaven because of what Christ did for me, by trusting in him as my Lord and Savior.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:54:08.4161838-06:00
Good for you, but I personally think you are assuming way too much as true without enough solid evidence. And am also of opinion that even if one were to acquire infinite power then that power would still give no grasp over subjective things like what is good and evil. And am therefore of opinion it is not possible for god to decide these kind of things for every living thing ever. It even says so in your comment: it's not THE moral law, it's god's moral law. And he thinks he has the right to judge us just because we didn't follow HIS law. Why do you think he has this almighty right, is it just the power he possesses or perhaps because he created us?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T14:59:29.3177547-06:00
Oh yes, little thing to add. Why does he have to judge us, what would be the goal? The only thing it accomplishes is bring more suffering into the world. You mentioned it's the right thing to do, is there perhaps some other higher force that decides for god what is right and not right? Again want to stress the point what is the goal of this action.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T15:01:24.1497530-06:00
Yes because God is independent. Therefore, his moral standard is objective. God is not contingent, he is not limited by some outside force. His moral standard of right and wrong is not dependent. Jesus's resurrection is based on historical fact, not fiction. If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as moral good or moral evil. Murder, rape, torture, child absue is an illusion. But, we know that morality is objective based on personal experience. We can know thorugh our five senses. On atheism, there is no such thing as a justification for moral good or evil. When a Lion kills a Zebra it is not committing "murder". When a male shark copulates with a female shark, it is not committing "rape". Why is it that when human beings kill one another it is considered "murder". Or for example, when a man forces a woman into sex it is considered "rape"?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:12:21.6907414-06:00
What has happened in the past is always up for debate since it are one of the most difficult things to prove, especially when it has to go through the filter of the human mind and it's surroundings. If you really assume the evidence we have currently is enough solid proof for the Resurrection of jesus then many other mythical things in for instance china and roman times would also have to be assumed undeniable truths. Again you just say he is, without following it up with because good explanation. Sorry that just doesn't do it for me, not very convincing if you just randomly spout facts without backing them up with evidence. I could go say the moon is going to fall tomorrow, and that I had a divine intervention just a few minutes ago. All truths according to the way you're thinking it seems. When a man kills a pig for food, then that is indeed not considered "murder". But when a lion kills the lion cubs of another father (they always do when they get the chance) then that is considered murder. So your definition of murder is based on whether an animal kills the same species, and many do. And when any animal forces another animal to sex we still actually call that rape.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:12:55.2156778-06:00
Double post sorry.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:21:45.0696630-06:00
Example of animals raping: http://www.Liveleak.Com/view?I=dce_1288651885 . I got this one out of memory, give me a little time and I can get you a whole laundry list of animals that rape.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:22:27.0024630-06:00
Just to help the discussion. My definition of rape would be: sexual intercourse where one party is forced into it.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T15:22:28.5644009-06:00
There is no such thing as morality in the animal kingdom. Animals don't have a moral standard of right and wrong, we do. I think your missing the point here. If atheism is true, then your moral preference is no different than my moral preference. I could for example say "I think murder is fun and good". But, you as an atheist can not say that is evil. Your moral prefence is no different then mine. Here below are four main facts about Jesus resurrection. These are historicall facts thare majority scholars(Christian/Atheist) agree upon, and have been proven objectively. FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons: 1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. 2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John. FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal. 2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T15:22:30.5300009-06:00
There is no such thing as morality in the animal kingdom. Animals don't have a moral standard of right and wrong, we do. I think your missing the point here. If atheism is true, then your moral preference is no different than my moral preference. I could for example say "I think murder is fun and good". But, you as an atheist can not say that is evil. Your moral prefence is no different then mine. Here below are four main facts about Jesus resurrection. These are historicall facts thare majority scholars(Christian/Atheist) agree upon, and have been proven objectively. FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons: 1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. 2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John. FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal. 2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!
chengste says2013-11-23T15:22:36.7524630-06:00
What has happened in the past is not always up for debate, we know of things that happened for sure in the past. Especially when we find evidence in several areas than we can be assured it happened. Or do you dis-agree with that?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:29:36.8468009-06:00
Most certainly do not disagree with that, atmospheric data for example can be very easily and accurately measured in soil samples. And some of the more recent events (think 200 years ago) are recorded in many forms of data. My point was that with the artifacts we find we can of course see human migration patterns and culture evolve but we cannot say with much certainty about what is written down actually happened. For instance a lot of writing found in the Egyptian pyramids elude to mythical events, yet these things are written down as facts. Since these people were highly religious and had little scientific understanding of the world around them the writing about short events (week/day) had to go through a heavy filter that can blur the truth.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:33:42.6092009-06:00
We only have a moral standard because we thought it up. I can indeed not say that murder is morally evil. I can only say that I think murder is morally evil. You seem to say that if atheism is true the world might be a horrible cruel and lonely place with perhaps nothing after death, and no might force to look after you. But just because you don't want this to be false changes nothing. What we want must not affect the facts of life.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T15:42:30.9480630-06:00
No, these four facts I mentioned are based on the historical criteria that all historians/scholars used to verify an event in history or a document. There is no way the apostles/disciples of Jesus would preach he is risen if the tomb had not been empty. The Roman and Jewish authorities could have immediatley refuted Christianity by going to the tomb and showing the body. Second a woman's testimony in the Jewish culture was considered worthless, and not trustworthy. So if our moral standard is thought up, then there is no such thing as good or evil. Morality would just be subjective. I am not saying atheists can't uphold moral values. I am asking is on what basis or moral foundation is something morally good or morally evil. Why is morality objective? Where did it come from? 1. If God exists, then objectvie moral values and duties exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. 3. Therfore, God exists.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T15:54:37.2266984-06:00
A body missing does not mean it has walked away on it's own. So that's not enough proof something divine has happened. And yes, I am claiming there is indeed no such thing as a set in stone definition of evil and good. I had that whole comment about that I am indeed of opinion that morality is subjective. I and I alone judge actions depending on whether or not they bring suffering in the world and judge morality depending on that. I am not claiming that something like objective morality exists or that it has to be judged depending on the amount of suffering actions bring. So to answer the rest of the questions in my opinion: Morality isn't objective, it came from people wanting to establish base rules with others so they can protect their interests (no stealing for instance, prisoners dilemma shows that this is indeed in everyone's benefit. Having morals in a society helps greatly when you want to uphold this benefit.) morals were just a necessity when our societies became greater and more complex, something animals don't have to struggle with. If god exists I do not think moral values and duties exist since then you first have to answer the question where god came from and why his power gives him the right to decide this kind of subjective matter, like I said before I see morality as a subjective matter so look at this very differently than you do.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T16:14:07.6817702-06:00
That is not what I said. There are 3 other main facts to the empty tomb. The post-mortem apperances of Jesus or in other words Jesus appeared on various occasions to various groups and his disciples. He ate with them, comforted them, and was with them in the 40 days after his resurrection. The Origin of disciples of belief. How did the disciples believe that Jesus was risen. They were sad that their leader was dead, and were scared becaue of the Roman and Jewish authorities were on High alert trying to get rid of Christianity. What caused them to preach that Jesus was risen, and then be mayrtred not just for believing Jesus was risen, but they died for seeing Jesus risen. There is no motive to make this up. If they knew it was a lie, then why die for it? Why not come clean when they are threatened with death? When you add up these four facts, the most logical conclusion is that Jesus was risen like he said he would. You still are having trouble answering the "value problem". You said that morality came from people wanting to establish their interests. The problem is you are confusing well being with moral values. Of course Science can tell us what is "beneficial" to a society to thrive in. However, Science can tell us what is "beneficial" to bacteria thriving in. Bacteria need warm, dark, damp space to thrive in. This does not mean they have "Value". Science can tell us the is, not what ought to be. So again, you have to explain the basis for our "value" as human beings. If evolution is true then your moral preference is no different than my moral preference. Morality would be "neutral". God was not created. Your argument is logically in-coherent. If something begans to exist then it must have a cause. God did not began to exist; therfore, he does not have a cause. God would not be God, he would be a creation. As I said before God's existence is Independent of you and I. He is not bound or constricted to anything. He does not depend on anything so his power is from himself.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T16:36:49.7976933-06:00
When one only has eye witnesses to rely on ones point is't very strong. When those eye witnesses lived 2000 years ago things get even worse. Since people nowadays are still claiming that Elvis lives I can't see how them claiming they saw Jesus must be the truth. Not to mention the amount of people that claim with all the conviction they have that they have been abducted by aliens. I am not saying they're lying, it makes a lot more sense that they simply convinced themselves of a false truth. Having what they want influence the world around them significantly. And if they knew it was the truth, why not lie about it to save their lives. And most of the time coming clean after claiming a prophet of another faith rose again (in that time) doesn't change the sentence much. Again you are heavily relying on eye witnesses here. I'm not saying morality is neutral, I am saying that without man morality would't exist at all. There is no true value of human life apart from the intrinsic value we give it. You claim my argument is logically incoherent then after that make a statement without evidence...Sorry but what? The very basic of a logical argument is reasoning, and reasoning requires cause and effect if you claim something as true yet give no evidence whatsoever then there is no reason to assume that truth as logical. Why did god not began to exist, how do you know this so sure, perhaps god lied to you and there is something above him. But no, god cannot lie...Well ok, so why can god not lie. Why is he not bound or constricted by anything...Because he's god? Ok sorry but that's one of the most obvious red herrings i've ever seen.
chengste says2013-11-23T16:44:42.0728372-06:00
So then what do you know about Alexander the Great?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T16:54:49.0232164-06:00
I know that in current day he is believed to have been a king of Persia. He is also said to have had an elephant, this seems to be in the realm of possibility looking at the reach of his empire. But one has to be careful with assumptions about his life, Alexander the great was part of many legends so it is also not far fetched to say that the imagination of man might have affected what is written down about him in the time he lived and after his death.
chengste says2013-11-23T16:59:01.1076630-06:00
You avoided the question what do you know? Not what others say but you?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T17:05:18.0192630-06:00
I started my answer with: I know. I don't see how that's avoiding the question. And that's exactly it: I only know that which others say and have gathered about him. The same way you only know English because somebody else taught you what the words mean.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T17:05:52.3477260-06:00
It's not that you know truly independently. You now only know what they know.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T17:26:46.2670626-06:00
You can't compare Elvis to the eyewitnesses of Jesus. First off we know elvis is buried today in his casket. It is not like people who claim to have seen bigfoot. Second there is archaeological evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus. The Garden Tomb and the Church of the Holy Sepulchure are two possible tombs that could be Jesus's tomb. No real historian/scholar whether Christian or skeptic disagrees with these four facts. They are not disputed. We can be certain of the facts. You can not dismiss these 4 historical facts, you might as well deny that anyone else in history existed. They meet the Histoircal Criteria that we use for any other event or document in history. I showed you that they eyewitnesses after Jesus resurrection is not the only thing that verifies his resurrection. The empty tomb is a historical fact, the post mortem appearances are historical fact, they happened at different times on different ocasions to different people that we can affirm through the Historical criteria. The origin of disciples belief is historical fact, and the rapid spread of christianity within the first century is based on the historical facts. Jesus did not claim to be a prophet, he claimed to be the Son of God. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25). I am not sure you know how ancient history works. When you look at these four main facts, the most logical conclusion is that Jesus had risen from the grave like he said he would. The Stolen body hypothesis is false no motive for his followers to steal the body. The Swoon hypothesis, which says that Jesus was not really dead is false. Jesus was beaten to-an-inch of his life. Plus he was crucified. How on earth could he escape from the tomb? The tomb was sealed shut by a sealing stone that Jewish tombs used. The hallucination hypothesis fails why? Because Hallucinations don't happen to multiple groups of people. Hallucinations only happen within a person's mind. I mean the only logical conclusion is that Jesus had risen like he said he would, thus proving he is the one true God. "Sorry but what? The very basic of a logical argument is reasoning, and reasoning requires cause and effect if you claim something as true yet give no evidence whatsoever then there is no reason to assume that truth as logical. Why did god not began to exist, how do you know this so sure, perhaps god lied to you and there is something above him. But no, god cannot lie...Well ok, so why can god not lie. Why is he not bound or constricted by anything...Because he's god? Ok sorry but that's one of the most obvious red herrings i've ever seen." I don't think you read my argument. No problem I will go ahead and state it again. I am going to begin with the Kalam Cosmological argument and then use the Ontological Argument for God's existence. Follow closely so you don't get lost, because this can be a little confusing. Kalam Cosmological argument. 1. Whatever begans to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therfore, the Universe has a cause. *We know the universe is not eternal through Science. The Universe had a beginning. Therfore, it had a cause. Things don't just pop out of nothing. That would be magic. The universe is also running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have already run out of energy by now. Also the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a beginning. Then you had Thomas Hubble who found the red shift, which proved the Universe was expanding, and came into existence from a single point in a finite past. Alexander Vilenkin a physicist says "Any Universe which has, on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in past, but must have an absolute beginning. Ontological argument 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. God is concieved as the greatest maximally great being. Therfore, since he is the greatest being conceivable that means he is eternal. If he is eternal then he did not began to exist. Therfore, he does not have a cause. As I said before this means God is Independent, and does not depend on anyone or anything else to exist. If that were the case he would not be God ,and be a creation like us.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T17:50:19.9054806-06:00
The universe is not running out of energy, all energy is preserved and I don't know where you got this fact. Just because something is possible does not make it true. Simply because when something is possible to be true you are at the same time also saying it is possible to be not true. And even if there was some maximally great being, why would this being be the god as described in the bible, there are most certainly many other forms of religion with different gods. Not to mention the huge amount of sub factions in Christianity itself (once again hinting to the subjectivity of morals). So let's put down your facts and analyze them: 1. Jesus was buried in a thomb 2. The thomb was empty 3. People saw jesus after thomb was empty 4. His most devoted followers kept on claiming he was still alive. Now I have seen you keep on claiming everyone believes these facts, but you haven't yet come with a source to back up this claim. Because all the other evidence you have been giving me are supposed eye witnesses from people that lived 2000 years ago. There are no true historical certainties, only things that are more likely than others. Now if this is truly so widely accepted you should have no trouble giving me your sources.
chengste says2013-11-23T18:07:59.8225088-06:00
So then do you believe he lives?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:09:57.5962806-06:00
Who
chengste says2013-11-23T18:10:48.0154806-06:00
By the way people will sometimes die for something they believe but is a lie. Having typed that, nobody would die for something the know is a lie
chengste says2013-11-23T18:11:43.3095016-06:00
Typo sorry do you believe Alexander the great lived?
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:13:37.8764319-06:00
Wow. Big argument.
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:13:50.8244319-06:00
Who's winning
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:15:59.4226806-06:00
I do not see any evidence for him to be alive today. And I think there is enough evidence to say that there was a person which we base our Alexander the great of. Since they of course didn't have English in that time I don't know what he was named then. But I do not believe he lived, because if I believe I remove any uncertainty about his existence, which I do affirm can exist. Removing uncertainty and having black and white vision hinders logical progress.
chengste says2013-11-23T18:18:27.4198806-06:00
Still trying to get a feel for you and what/who you are. If I am reading you correctly, unless you yourself have physically touched or expierenced something then you would not call it proven real to you. Am I correct?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:19:35.8964319-06:00
People could very well have good reasons to die for a lie if they think they achieve good by doing so. If they know telling the lie and dying has great benefits for their loved ones I do not see any reason why the possibility of them lying is out of the question.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:20:58.9582806-06:00
And if they believe something to be true then that truth is not a lie, it is not the truth, but not a lie either. Something is only a lie when it is told by someone who is consciously aware that what he is telling is contradictory with his own knowledge of the world.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:24:44.1212319-06:00
To first answer Dudestop's question. There is no real winner, merely a difference in view of the world, each has their merits and disadvantages.
chengste says2013-11-23T18:28:19.4792319-06:00
I would agree if they believe something to be true that later turned out to be a lie they may die for that, but to die for a lie and have those you love die for the same lie, that it is to big a stretch.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:28:47.8868319-06:00
I would never call something fully proven. I'm more of a fan of the thought that we never really can reach the full truth but only get to a subjective consensus about what is real or not, and that the best way to get closest to the full truth is through the scientific method. Physically feeling or touching something does help a statements credibility. But I would still be experiencing the world through my 5 senses and the brain that processes the information, and if I know one thing then it is that our senses can be very deceiving and that our brain is far from perfect at processing the data objectively.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:29:46.6364319-06:00
@Muffingking There is no reason to die for something you know is not true. They were all threatened and beaten to death. For what? If they knew it was a lie and they were being beaten they would admit it. Then, Christianity could be refuted and not true. It seems to me you don't believe in absoulte truth when it comes to history. You seem to think that all religions are the same and that is not true. I have given you objective evidence for Jesus's resurrection. Jesus not only claimed to be God, but proved through the evidence. You go where the evidence leads you. You can't deny these facts because of your atheism. These facts are historically objectively, irrefutable. I don't know how much more evidence you would need to prove Jesus resurrection true. I mean the evidence is overwhelming.
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:30:37.6796319-06:00
I think that what he is trying to say is, if something can be asserted without evidence then it can be dismissed without it as well.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:31:54.1894806-06:00
Dude just stop, don't say things are irrefutable without showing a source to back it up. Just a link that's all i'm asking.
chengste says2013-11-23T18:32:05.3048319-06:00
Than I must ask what is truth?
chengste says2013-11-23T18:32:18.6190806-06:00
Than I must ask what is truth?
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:37:02.9758806-06:00
Well the full truth is the full truth, that what is real. Maybe the full truth doesn't even exist. That is also a possibility. It doesn't matter, since we see the world through the senses we have and the brain that processes it (not to mention our limited lifespan). We will never be able to reach the full truth, just try to get as close as possible. And perhaps we lack the senses to do so, in the same way that it is easier to fool a blind man about what is in front of him than a man that does still have his eyes. Then again the man with no eyes might get closer to the truth than the man who has eyes that deceive him.
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:37:23.2172319-06:00
Even if Jesus's resurrection was true, there was several different people who could do similar things that he did, I could give examples if you wanted me to. So therefor, god decided the way to prove he existed is to have someone do things that others have already done... This proves god's existence how? Why would he choose such an illogical way? And by the way, a man coming back to life does not prove AT ALL that a universe was created by a wizard.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:38:20.0012319-06:00
Please list these people
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:39:28.1732319-06:00
@MuffinkingPM Is the statement" We will never be able to reach the full truth" fully true or fully false?
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:40:57.1630806-06:00
Yeah Janet, give me a sec to find the exact names of them.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-23T18:41:26.9204319-06:00
Well, would love to chat a little more. But I also have to sleep a little bit. So go have fun. And Janet do give me those sources. That doesn't mean just saying it's irrefutable but also having the links to back it up.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:41:43.0976319-06:00
Okay, take your time.
DudeStop says2013-11-23T18:43:03.5386806-06:00
And when I said: " Who could do" I really meant to have said: "Who did"
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:43:18.3586806-06:00
@MuffinKingPM I though I sent them, It should have gone through. I think what happened was it said something like "comment waitng for moderator approval". If it doesn't show up eventually then I will send them again.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:46:02.1058939-06:00
@DudeStop: Take your time.
chengste says2013-11-23T18:46:13.3750806-06:00
@janet if you think I am in the way I will back out
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T18:59:07.3846806-06:00
@chengste How are you in the way? You are fine.
chengste says2013-11-23T19:00:22.3738806-06:00
Just making sure I would not want to interfer
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T19:01:50.6386806-06:00
No your good.
DudeStop says2013-11-23T19:21:42.0090012-06:00
1. Attis 2. Horus 3. Asclepius 4. Ananda 5. Krishna 6. Eleazar And they all miraculously healed the sick. Miracle definition: Something that cannot be explained by scientific laws...
chengste says2013-11-23T19:26:14.0883708-06:00
Howerver you still forget did they raise the dead?
chengste says2013-11-23T19:26:16.3506012-06:00
Howerver you still forget did they raise the dead?
Haroush says2013-11-23T20:04:38.3528474-06:00
. Attis 2. Horus 3. Asclepius 4. Ananda 5. Krishna 6. Eleazar And they all miraculously healed the sick. Miracle definition: Something that cannot be explained by scientific laws... And where is the proof that they did? We have proof Christ was resurrected and that is the shroud of turin. And you know it's funny you try to match up to everything G-d did just like the egyptian Pharaoh. The egyptian Pharaoh tried to do everything G-d could do, but guess what? His magicians couldn't match up. There is such thing as black magic. Though that black magic couldn't split the Red Sea like Moses did through the power of G-d. Do me a favor.... Explain how it can rain frogs, fish, birds, and other things? Explain why there is certain comets that revolve around the sun and earth every once in a while that cause pestilences?
Haroush says2013-11-23T20:09:08.1398506-06:00
@Janet, They won't show up if they said that. I've done been through that a million times.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:18:38.0559705-06:00
Oh okay.
chengste says2013-11-23T20:23:13.3335705-06:00
Dudestop by the way the way another thing they did not do was command demons and the elements
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:24:35.1198365-06:00
@chengste None of these pagan myths have any connection to Christianity. This has been abandoned by all historians/scholars who realized this in the mid to late 20th century.
chengste says2013-11-23T20:25:52.4540475-06:00
I do understand, even with their myths they still fall far short of Jesus my Lord and Savioui
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:29:50.4490936-06:00
There are no traces of dying and rising cults in the first century. Second the Jews knew this and found them abhorrent. People who press these myths that have been refuted for over hundreds of years need to give BoP.
chengste says2013-11-23T20:31:11.5690936-06:00
Many of the things I see discussed here have been refuted for a long time, people do like to live in the past and only accept what they like
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:33:51.1882936-06:00
That is what we call Hearsay. I find it ironic that some not all atheists claim that Christians believe in Hearsay. Yet, the ones who say that bring up these stupid myths that have been refuted, and I find that to be Hearsay.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:33:55.0570936-06:00
That is what we call Hearsay. I find it ironic that some not all atheists claim that Christians believe in Hearsay. Yet, the ones who say that bring up these stupid myths that have been refuted, and I find that to be Hearsay.
chengste says2013-11-23T20:35:35.9266936-06:00
I tend to agree, I find it just as odd that the faith needed to be an athiest is far superior than what is needed to be a Christian.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:39:00.0774365-06:00
That is because Atheism can never be proven. It has no truth foundation.
chengste says2013-11-23T20:44:04.0278365-06:00
Even Einstein, who they attempt to say was an athiest but he never was, talks about the lack of foundation athiesm has
Haroush says2013-11-23T20:45:13.6818365-06:00
Well this goes along with the fact people always were religious, but they weren't always atheist.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:46:54.8010365-06:00
As a view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then they are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction they want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T20:47:49.1046365-06:00
*If they don't think (1)
DudeStop says2013-11-23T21:15:10.2714365-06:00
Whoa ok. One argument at a time folks... Tired/Busy now, but I'll look at every one of them when I have time. Aka tomorrow. "That the faith needed to be an atheist is far superior than what is needed to be a Christian" Wow. You want your god to take personal responsibility for the huge number of collapsing stars and imploding galaxies and destroyed universes and failed solar systems that have left us in this tiny corner, on the one planet on this petty solar system that can support life on some of its surface for some of the time. You want a creator who filled this earth with species, 99% of which are now extinct already. I will say more tomorrow.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T21:17:10.8906365-06:00
This is a red herring, what does this have to do with God's existence?
DudeStop says2013-11-23T21:19:31.3335583-06:00
Well as I said I will say more on it tomorrow
janetsanders733 says2013-11-23T21:20:44.5292275-06:00
Okay, catch you later.
Haroush says2013-11-23T21:50:48.9367122-06:00
At least we are nice enough to have some respect.... Unlike some people.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T00:23:22.8371260-06:00
"That is because Atheism can never be proven. It has no truth foundation." Atheism is not a positive claim. It's either a lack of belief, or a refutation of, the positive claim of theism. It neither 'requires' 'proof' (which as stated is impossible, because you can't prove a universal negative; this does not mean that theism doesn't still hold BoP, though), nor a 'truth foundation', because as stated it is not a claim unto itself. "Well this goes along with the fact people always were religious, but they weren't always atheist." How so? People always held direct positive belief in god(s), even before this idea could possibly have been formulated so as to actually sound reasonable to some people? I can pretty much guarantee you that the first time someone tried to claim that thunder happened because of a 'Man in The Sky', the guy next to him said 'Bulls**t'. Atheism is the default position; until and unless you are either taught/convinced otherwise, or unless something extraordinary happens in your own life to convince you that a 'higher' being *must* exist, you are implicitly atheist. If theism never existed, everyone would be atheist simply by implicit definition.
yay842 says2013-11-24T00:35:48.0829478-06:00
This is never going to end, is it?
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-24T00:42:14.2059101-06:00
God is never ending. He is eternal.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T00:43:40.4900632-06:00
The argument's pretty long as well.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:01:07.6665848-06:00
@Jingram994 Again you are confusing the definition of atheism as a Worldview. What you want to define is the justification. As a view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then they are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction they want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. So the question now is, how strong do you think the case for atheism is?
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T01:14:11.1683401-06:00
Right; that again. As I stated some time ago, atheism isn't 'just' the view that 'there is no god'; it's further 'subdivided' into a simple lack of belief in god(s) ('weak' atheism) and the actual rejection and refutation of any and all claims that a god exists ('strong' atheism). The terms you used to differentiate are more in line with how 'sure' a given individual is in either one of those two positions, not the positions themselves. 'Weak' atheism is not, necessarily, 'true or false' as it specifies only lack of *belief* in god(s), not god(s) actually not existing. 'Strong' atheism, as it rejects any and all claims of god(s) existing, can be correctly stated to be 'true or false', inasmuch as it would be 'incorrect' if a god did exist. So, of course, as there exists no actual 'evidence' for the existence of god(s), as opposed to third-hand accounts, such as the bible, and circumstantial evidence that could potentially be construed to providing evidence for such, for eg. The existence of Jesus Christ, the case for 'weak' atheism is very strong, at least 'mildly' stronger than the case for any specific instance of theism. Inasmuch as theism is a positive claim, and 'strong' atheism merely a refutation of this claim, and as theism has not to date provided sufficient evidence to have 'proven' itself, 'strong' atheism has about as much strength as any given form of theism, but should be considered to have a slightly higher 'score', as points are not deducted from atheism for failing to meet BoP, as it has none.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:32:20.7680599-06:00
Well, The whole New Testament is first hand and second hand accounts not third hand eyewitnesses. Jesus existence is indisputable. I mean no real serious historian/scholar denies his existence.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-24T01:33:12.4979915-06:00
Exactly!!!!
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-24T01:33:16.5653671-06:00
Exactly!!!!
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T01:34:26.1928639-06:00
Oh. Well, discounting the fact that the book itself is further distancing, as opposed to actually being 'told' second-hand, it's mostly just second-hand recounts, then. And there actually is significant debate over whether or not Jesus ever did actually exist. I think he probably did, but still.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:50:45.8745029-06:00
That's not necessarily true. Matthew and John were First hand eyewitnesses to Jesus life, since they were in the inner 12. Mark was a follower of Peter who was in the inner 12. James the brother of Jesus was a skeptic before Jesus resurrection, he was not part of the inner 12, but again a skeptic before the resurrection. Also Paul was a skeptic he was a pharisee, who did not believe Christ till after the resurrection. Luke followed Paul, and also met the other apostles and recorded their events. I mean we have manuscript evidence, over 20,000 copies. 5,000 in Greek alone. The majority are from early 2nd century while the minority are from 4th century at most. This means that the original manuscripts were written in the 1st century, which then places the orignal writings at the 1st century. This means the apostles/disciples were alive to write their gospels. Can you cite me a historian who says that Jesus doesn't exist? I mean no actual real historian/scholar today actually doubts Jesus existence. The only 2 are Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Both though have very weak arguments that are not credible at all. In fact they use old arguments. Robert Price still assumes the Pagan myths are linked to Jesus, when that has been refuted by historical evidence. All historians abandoned this position in the 20th century. And, Richard Carrier uses poor arguments that would make his credibility look weak as a historian. We can be 100% certain that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed. Just like Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:50:47.4836636-06:00
That's not necessarily true. Matthew and John were First hand eyewitnesses to Jesus life, since they were in the inner 12. Mark was a follower of Peter who was in the inner 12. James the brother of Jesus was a skeptic before Jesus resurrection, he was not part of the inner 12, but again a skeptic before the resurrection. Also Paul was a skeptic he was a pharisee, who did not believe Christ till after the resurrection. Luke followed Paul, and also met the other apostles and recorded their events. I mean we have manuscript evidence, over 20,000 copies. 5,000 in Greek alone. The majority are from early 2nd century while the minority are from 4th century at most. This means that the original manuscripts were written in the 1st century, which then places the orignal writings at the 1st century. This means the apostles/disciples were alive to write their gospels. Can you cite me a historian who says that Jesus doesn't exist? I mean no actual real historian/scholar today actually doubts Jesus existence. The only 2 are Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Both though have very weak arguments that are not credible at all. In fact they use old arguments. Robert Price still assumes the Pagan myths are linked to Jesus, when that has been refuted by historical evidence. All historians abandoned this position in the 20th century. And, Richard Carrier uses poor arguments that would make his credibility look weak as a historian. We can be 100% certain that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed. Just like Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:50:48.2457181-06:00
That's not necessarily true. Matthew and John were First hand eyewitnesses to Jesus life, since they were in the inner 12. Mark was a follower of Peter who was in the inner 12. James the brother of Jesus was a skeptic before Jesus resurrection, he was not part of the inner 12, but again a skeptic before the resurrection. Also Paul was a skeptic he was a pharisee, who did not believe Christ till after the resurrection. Luke followed Paul, and also met the other apostles and recorded their events. I mean we have manuscript evidence, over 20,000 copies. 5,000 in Greek alone. The majority are from early 2nd century while the minority are from 4th century at most. This means that the original manuscripts were written in the 1st century, which then places the orignal writings at the 1st century. This means the apostles/disciples were alive to write their gospels. Can you cite me a historian who says that Jesus doesn't exist? I mean no actual real historian/scholar today actually doubts Jesus existence. The only 2 are Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Both though have very weak arguments that are not credible at all. In fact they use old arguments. Robert Price still assumes the Pagan myths are linked to Jesus, when that has been refuted by historical evidence. All historians abandoned this position in the 20th century. And, Richard Carrier uses poor arguments that would make his credibility look weak as a historian. We can be 100% certain that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed. Just like Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T01:51:17.6207064-06:00
Sorry for the double comment :)
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T03:02:45.6326018-06:00
Posted comment. Moderated. Should be up in a bit. I'll do it again without the links; that's probably why it got moderated.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T03:03:42.6951281-06:00
Like I said, I do think that Jesus Christ, as a man, at the very least as a 'seed' for the biblical Jesus, did exist. And like I said, there is debate on whether or not this man did in fact exist; to extrapolate, there is further debate as to what capacity this man is the exact same, and has the same personal history, as the biblical Jesus. For example, claiming that Jesus' mother was absolutely a virgin, and that he is the literal son of God, does not follow logically from a man called Jesus having existed, and having roughly the same 'story' as the biblical Jesus. Jesus Christ having existed does not 'prove' Christianity, any more than Charles Darwin having existed 'proves' evolution. The mythology/scientific evidence, in both cases, is separate from the individuals involved. There were 3 links here, but they're pretty much on top of the list of google results for "arguments about existence of Jesus", so it's not really that important.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-24T03:20:13.0155793-06:00
My brother just admit that god is real : )
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T03:43:52.3847799-06:00
In all honesty, I can't, because coming from me, right now, that would simply be a lie. I don't believe that God exists, and I can't seem to find any 'evidence' that can actually convince me otherwise. You believe in God; you do not 'know' that he exists. You *think* that he does, because that's the conclusion you've come to with the evidence and mindset you have. And that's fine; but I don't, and I'm inclined to believe that a majority of arguments for the existence of God are flawed and incorrect. Even if I ever was convinced that God probably did exist, there is nothing that could convince me, beyond a single shadow of a doubt, that such a being absolutely, definitely exists, because by definition that sort of absolute, complete *certainty* is impossible when we're talking about this theoretical being. To me, logically, the idea that this being exists does not seem to make sense, for numerous reasons and on several levels. Coupled with the complete lack of any and all hard evidence that proves this being exists, rather than proving that superfluous events/people that a given religious book says happened/existed, and I find it impossible to believe that God does in fact actually exist.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-24T04:45:06.2677569-06:00
You don't get it do you? When you truly have a relationship with god you know he exists, you actually know him personally. I don't know what he looks like but I talk to him. I don't literally hear him but he speaks in a different way you'll never understand if you don't accept him. To me the world itself is enough evidence. I know that all that big bang crap is fake. A lot of what is happening now is confirming what the bible says. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you won't understand the bible. You say there is no evidence but just look around you. Ok tell me this: what started life? Did it just come from no where? Just think about it. Do you really believe that!
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-24T05:16:52.1836154-06:00
"@MuffinkingPM Is the statement" We will never be able to reach the full truth" fully true or fully false?" The whole point of that statement was to show that what we believe does not immediately equal as 100% correct. So somewhere in between I would assume. There might be no full truth or full false, and even if there was mankind would most likely never be able to find this, mainly also through the fact that even if we find this truth there would be little means to identify it. Truth and false are quite interesting, for many things can be false. But only one thing can be true, if something like the full truth even exists. Mankind does not know, can not claim to know and will most likely never fully know, that's why I prefer the scientific method for it accounts for this uncertainty instead of filling in the gaps with facts without evidence. Still haven't got those links, perhaps send them to me in a personal message so I can see them.
Haroush says2013-11-24T06:11:07.6802328-06:00
@Jingram, Get a life and go somewhere with your Ausi self. Americans have no respect for you either and if you ever did come to America expect an American boot at your rear behind. "Honestly, unless you're an extreme conservative or fundamentalist, then I'm not meaning to offend you, and I apologize if that's how I come across. If you *are* an extreme conservative or a fundamentalist, then I may or may not," Why should people even respond to you when you are going to say things in ignorance on purpose anyways or do whatever you can ignorantly without crossing the line? And no the rest of that sentence don't matter just that is enough. There is some truth to every joke.
Haroush says2013-11-24T06:20:56.3424127-06:00
@Jingram, "Hi, I'm Josh. I'm generally a pretty quiet person, given to sarcasm and joking around. People in real life tend to find me pretty funny, in a rather dry sort of way," And what does this tell people...??? You use sarcasm as a weapon against those you don't like. You may not like "ugly Americans" but you will damn sure learn to respect us.
chengste says2013-11-24T07:15:50.8993522-06:00
@jingram good to see you think Jesus did live at one time, now for the question (I think I know your answer) did Jesus believe He was God son
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T09:02:41.6947686-06:00
@Haroush: "Get a life and go somewhere with your Ausi self. Americans have no respect for you either and if you ever did come to America expect an American boot at your rear behind." Oh my god; are you serious, Haroush? I could say the exact same thing to you; you're spending time on this site, so clearly you have just as much of a 'life' as myself. And you're rude, and apparently a racist (or whatever the equivalent for nationality is) to boot. Glad to see that classic US 'patriotism' working out just as well as it normally does. "Why should people even respond to you when you are going to say things in ignorance on purpose anyways or do whatever you can ignorantly without crossing the line? And no the rest of that sentence don't matter just that is enough. There is some truth to every joke." What exactly do you mean? I do my best to get the fact of the matter, and my honest opinion, across whenever I write something here. If that offends people, my *intent* is not to do so, which is what I wrote there. I don't *care* if some of what I say offends you; I've explained this before. *You* are the one who began to throw insults and act rudely. If you don't like the way I act here, or if you find something I say unpalatable, act like an adult and put forward a rational argument about this. Don't just make arrogant, demeaning and discriminating statements and expect *me* to apologize. You're acting rudely and childishly, and until and unless you mature the hell up I'm going to treat you like you deserve. "And what does this tell people...??? You use sarcasm as a weapon against those you don't like. You may not like "ugly Americans" but you will damn sure learn to respect us." No, I don't. I use facts and basic rational thought as a 'weapon' against those I *disagree with*. I use sarcasm as a basic tool for humor in the real world, and for inoffensive joking where possible. And you clearly haven't *actually* read my profile; Ugly Americans is a *TV Series*, you idiot. It isn't even about what it sounds like it's about. Google it. If that's the way you're consistently going to act there's no way in hell I'm ever going to respect you. You act like a child that was just told he can't have a lollipop. I disagree with your statements on this site, and have made arguments against them, that you for the most part have not actually refuted, and you act like I'm being offensive, or doing something 'wrong', for having done this. As I have previously stated; Grow up. If you're not going to be civil, or at the very least say something intelligent whilst being a d**k, then as far as I'm concerned you can go root yourself, mate.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T09:16:44.8446508-06:00
"Like I said, I do think that Jesus Christ, as a man, at the very least as a 'seed' for the biblical Jesus, did exist. And like I said, there is debate on whether or not this man did in fact exist; to extrapolate, there is further debate as to what capacity this man is the exact same, and has the same personal history, as the biblical Jesus. For example, claiming that Jesus' mother was absolutely a virgin, and that he is the literal son of God, does not follow logically from a man called Jesus having existed, and having roughly the same 'story' as the biblical Jesus. Jesus Christ having existed does not 'prove' Christianity, any more than Charles Darwin having existed 'proves' evolution. The mythology/scientific evidence, in both cases, is separate from the individuals involved. There were 3 links here, but they're pretty much on top of the list of google results for "arguments about existence of Jesus", so it's not really that important." I didn't say that Christianity is true because Jesus existed. I said Christianity is true because of his resurrection. His resurrection is based on historical fact. Second his existence is not disputed. It would be like saying that microevolution is disputed and we can't at all be sure. Well that is simply fallacious. No real historian/scholar is disputing his existence. We have more evidence for Jesus outside the NT, and inside the NT then Julius Caesar. We already have 9 secular sources that mention Jesus within 150 years. Then we have like 8-30 more within 200-300 years of his existence. I am not sure what other evidence we need to confirm his existence. You seem to think that the apostles made up Jesus's miracles and divinity. That is simply not true. They had no motive, and they are trustworthy. Because, Jesus is risen then what he said and did was true. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the same Historical Jesus.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T09:22:54.9911698-06:00
@SONOFGOD2013: "You don't get it do you? When you truly have a relationship with god you know he exists, you actually know him personally. I don't know what he looks like but I talk to him. I don't literally hear him but he speaks in a different way you'll never understand if you don't accept him." No, I do get that people fell comforted by religion, often to the point of having the feeling of actually having a 'relationship' with the central figure of said religion. People also feel this way about every other religion out there that touts the same 'sort' of God. It's a psychological thing. There's a reason that personal emotive testimony is not considered to be scientific evidence. Fulfilling as you may find this to be, I honestly am sorry to say that that just is not 'proof' of God. "To me the world itself is enough evidence. I know that all that big bang crap is fake. A lot of what is happening now is confirming what the bible says. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you won't understand the bible. You say there is no evidence but just look around you." Well, to a lot of people, who have given the matter just as much if not more thought than yourself, it is not enough evidence, if indeed it is at all. And we probably shouldn't debate the big bang here; it's about as proven as a scientific theory can get, is not necessarily 'proof against' God, and I'd hate to enter 'destroy opponent mode' with this. And again, personal emotive testimony is not scientific evidence. At absolute best it's shaky, circumstantial testimony. "Ok tell me this: what started life? Did it just come from no where? Just think about it. Do you really believe that!" That one actually isn't an entirely proven idea, but more than likely some form of abiogenesis. Just to note, 'we don't know' =/= 'God did it'. The idea of abiogenesis and evolution is not necessarily at odds with belief in God.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T09:27:12.8903698-06:00
@chengste: "good to see you think Jesus did live at one time, now for the question (I think I know your answer) did Jesus believe He was God son" You know, you're almost certainly correct, even though I don't actually know what your assumption of my answer is. I myself don't know if Jesus actually did or did not 'believe he was God's son', but I don't believe that he actually was, no. Just to whit, that would mean that God raped Mary to conceive him, and forced a pregnancy upon a young girl who never consented to anything of the sort. I'm not meaning to 'tear apart' your statement, or anything like that; I'm just pointing out of of the, as I see it, flaws, with the idea of Jesus actually being the 'son of God'.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T09:38:40.9317869-06:00
@janetsanders: "I didn't say that Christianity is true because Jesus existed. I said Christianity is true because of his resurrection. His resurrection is based on historical fact. Second his existence is not disputed. It would be like saying that microevolution is disputed and we can't at all be sure. Well that is simply fallacious. No real historian/scholar is disputing his existence. We have more evidence for Jesus outside the NT, and inside the NT then Julius Caesar. We already have 9 secular sources that mention Jesus within 150 years. Then we have like 8-30 more within 200-300 years of his existence. I am not sure what other evidence we need to confirm his existence." No, the resurrection of Jesus is not fact. I... Don't really know if I need to extrapolate on that. And yes, his existence *is* disputed, just, clearly, not by 'most modern historians'. Like I said, his existence is essentially a certainty; his being the literal 'son of God', and having actually been 'resurrected, is most assuredly not. I'm very tired right now, so I'll get on to the rest of your post, and extrapolating a bit more with the first part, tomorrow at some stage.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T09:47:23.3292254-06:00
Jingram this isn't what all Americans are like just so you know. Idk why Haroush flipped out like that... Haroush said: "At least we are nice enough to have some respect.... Unlike some people." Yes... You have obviously proven that statement... Actually I think you backed him into a corner so he decided to attack your profile.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T10:07:17.8866418-06:00
@Jingram994 " No, the resurrection of Jesus is not fact. I... Don't really know if I need to extrapolate on that. And yes, his existence *is* disputed, just, clearly, not by 'most modern historians'. Like I said, his existence is essentially a certainty; his being the literal 'son of God', and having actually been 'resurrected, is most assuredly not. I'm very tired right now, so I'll get on to the rest of your post, and extrapolating a bit more with the first part, tomorrow at some stage." Based on what evidence is his resurrection not true? What historian denies Jesus existence?
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T10:22:48.8414119-06:00
@janetsanders: Like I said, tired, and will go in depth tomorrow. But the 'resurrection' of a man several days dead, or that man being the 'son of God', is a very extraordinary claim. You need a lot of hard evidence in order for that claim to be taken seriously. Word of mouth and/or a book's say so is not enough. And I don't actually know by name any modern historians who deny the existence of a man called Jesus, with the general 'history' of Jesus Christ, at around the time Jesus Christ was purportedly alive. I do know that there are still some who dispute the point, but I'm not aware of the specifics of their arguments. Try Wikipedia for now, I suppose. @DudeStop: And yeah, thanks. I'd be shocked to think that people like Haroush are in any way indicative of 'normality' in the US. I've argued against a few of his opinions in that section, and he hasn't actually managed to successfully contest the point on any of them. I think you're probably right.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T10:24:20.6029647-06:00
Sorry, dude I didn't mean to wake you. I tell you tomrrow then.
Jingram994 says2013-11-24T10:26:49.3982923-06:00
Haha, well, it's not like my laptop vibrates every time I get a message on DDO... I'm actually just headed to bed now, so no worries.
Haroush says2013-11-24T10:49:27.4129093-06:00
@dudestop, No one backs me in a corner, but G-d himself. If you don't see the ignorance in those statements on his profile and bias, then your comprehension is not very high. Just because I believe in G-d doesn't mean I am going to accept incompetence. Unless the incompetence can respect beliefs incompetence don't agree with. @Jingram, " Oh my god; are you serious, Haroush? I could say the exact same thing to you; you're spending time on this site, so clearly you have just as much of a 'life' as myself. And you're rude, and apparently a racist (or whatever the equivalent for nationality is) to boot. Glad to see that classic US 'patriotism' working out just as well as it normally does." First off, you don't have a G-d, so please don't call on our G-d unless you are willing to accept him. Second, maybe you should reconsider things you post about yourself and what you think of other people who don't carry your same beliefs.Third, and it's that same Patriotism that has prevailed for over 200 years. "What exactly do you mean?" I mean exactly what I say. "I don't *care* if some of what I say offends you; I've explained this before." Exactly! That's the problem you don't care. Just like you don't care if you say something and it offends Janet, SonofGod, or anyone of us who holds these morals, ethics, and values. "No, I don't. I use facts and basic rational thought as a 'weapon' against those I *disagree with*. I use sarcasm as a basic tool for humor in the real world, and for inoffensive joking where possible." It's quite hard to believe that with an ego like yours and a comment like this... "Honestly, unless you're an extreme conservative or fundamentalist, then I'm not meaning to offend you, and I apologize if that's how I come across. If you *are* an extreme conservative or a fundamentalist, then I may or may not," What a joke. "And you clearly haven't *actually* read my profile; Ugly Americans is a *TV Series*, you idiot. It isn't even about what it sounds like it's about. Google it." And what you watch defines who you are. "If that's the way you're consistently going to act there's no way in hell I'm ever going to respect you." Do you really think I even take you seriously? You have to love for your enemy in order for there to be peace. I respect you, but you clearly don't respect other's who are an "extreme conservative" or "fundamentalist". The problem is I can't show you that respect until you give up that grudge you have against people like me. "As I have previously stated; Grow up. If you're not going to be civil, or at the very least say something intelligent whilst being a d**k, then as far as I'm concerned you can go root yourself, mate." First, I am definitely NOT your brother, Janet, SonofGod, and those who believe in Christ or want to come to the Messiah are. And maybe if you just look at the reflection in the mirror, you will see yourself. I can be a nice person, but you chose which side you see of me. I'm not some fluffy puffy Christian.. I am a veteran too.
Haroush says2013-11-24T10:49:33.3721093-06:00
@dudestop, No one backs me in a corner, but G-d himself. If you don't see the ignorance in those statements on his profile and bias, then your comprehension is not very high. Just because I believe in G-d doesn't mean I am going to accept incompetence. Unless the incompetence can respect beliefs incompetence don't agree with. @Jingram, " Oh my god; are you serious, Haroush? I could say the exact same thing to you; you're spending time on this site, so clearly you have just as much of a 'life' as myself. And you're rude, and apparently a racist (or whatever the equivalent for nationality is) to boot. Glad to see that classic US 'patriotism' working out just as well as it normally does." First off, you don't have a G-d, so please don't call on our G-d unless you are willing to accept him. Second, maybe you should reconsider things you post about yourself and what you think of other people who don't carry your same beliefs.Third, and it's that same Patriotism that has prevailed for over 200 years. "What exactly do you mean?" I mean exactly what I say. "I don't *care* if some of what I say offends you; I've explained this before." Exactly! That's the problem you don't care. Just like you don't care if you say something and it offends Janet, SonofGod, or anyone of us who holds these morals, ethics, and values. "No, I don't. I use facts and basic rational thought as a 'weapon' against those I *disagree with*. I use sarcasm as a basic tool for humor in the real world, and for inoffensive joking where possible." It's quite hard to believe that with an ego like yours and a comment like this... "Honestly, unless you're an extreme conservative or fundamentalist, then I'm not meaning to offend you, and I apologize if that's how I come across. If you *are* an extreme conservative or a fundamentalist, then I may or may not," What a joke. "And you clearly haven't *actually* read my profile; Ugly Americans is a *TV Series*, you idiot. It isn't even about what it sounds like it's about. Google it." And what you watch defines who you are. "If that's the way you're consistently going to act there's no way in hell I'm ever going to respect you." Do you really think I even take you seriously? You have to love for your enemy in order for there to be peace. I respect you, but you clearly don't respect other's who are an "extreme conservative" or "fundamentalist". The problem is I can't show you that respect until you give up that grudge you have against people like me. "As I have previously stated; Grow up. If you're not going to be civil, or at the very least say something intelligent whilst being a d**k, then as far as I'm concerned you can go root yourself, mate." First, I am definitely NOT your brother, Janet, SonofGod, and those who believe in Christ or want to come to the Messiah are. And maybe if you just look at the reflection in the mirror, you will see yourself. I can be a nice person, but you chose which side you see of me. I'm not some fluffy puffy Christian.. I am a veteran too.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-24T13:58:17.9120000-06:00
Also to all those that are interested. I highly recommend the movie The man from earth. Definitely one of my personal favorites.
MuffinkingPM says2013-11-24T13:58:20.1896000-06:00
Also to all those that are interested. I highly recommend the movie The man from earth. Definitely one of my personal favorites.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T19:34:27.1435894-06:00
@MuffinkingPM, My favorite movie(s) Black Hawk down, and Shawshank.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T21:52:10.4576955-06:00
My favorite videos are Two girls one cup, and the human centipede. No just kidding, that'd be horrible. Don't ever let you or a loved one watch those, lol.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T21:52:14.9696647-06:00
My favorite videos are Two girls one cup, and the human centipede. No just kidding, that'd be horrible. Don't ever let you or a loved one watch those, lol.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T21:55:33.6980647-06:00
@Haroush: This is a debate about god, care to join in? I didn't see you refute his arguments... You just started attacking him as a person. I could drone on about this, and attack your comments, but I don't think I will.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T21:55:35.9096955-06:00
@Haroush: This is a debate about god, care to join in? I didn't see you refute his arguments... You just started attacking him as a person. I could drone on about this, and attack your comments, but I don't think I will.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T22:10:50.1992000-06:00
The proof of the guys and gals who did the same thing as Jesus Christ: Google there names, sorry but ai don't think it will let me post any links, let alone 6...
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T22:23:52.4766432-06:00
@Dudestop The pagan myths are not true. All historians/scholars have abandoned this position in the 20th century. Yes, I think even though I have not seen these videos, they are very graphic and dirty. I would never let anyone watch these.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T22:37:14.2494875-06:00
Comment submitted for moderation...
DudeStop says2013-11-24T22:37:49.8034344-06:00
When Haroush asked me to Do him a great favor and "... Explain how it can rain frogs, fish, birds, and other things? Explain why there is certain comets that revolve around the sun and earth every once in a while that cause pestilences?""Just because a place existed doesn't mean all the stories of that place actually happened in the way it was told. Look at any history book. There is always more than one account of the same event and many times, they vary quite a bit. Even when there are so called "eye witnesses", their stories are not always exactly the same. Just because a person existed, is not proof that the stories about them actually took place. Just because an event took place, is not proof that it was directed or orchestrated by some supreme being. Many of the natural disasters that took place were said to be of some divine origin, from the time of the Greeks and Romans back to ancient man. So, just because there was some guy named Moses, doesn't prove that any sea was parted by his hand. Hey Haroush, do me a favor. Give to me, ABSOLUTE PROOF that these things were reported 100%accurately and honestly and happened in the exact way your bible states them. 1. Spider-man is from New York City... New York City is a real place 2. Spider-man met Barack Obama in a comic... Obama is a real person 3. Spider-man assisted with 9/11 rescue and recovery... 9/11 actually happened. Just because a work of fiction uses real places events and people doesn't mean all the magic happened. Otherwise, I am able to happily say that Spider Man is real!
DudeStop says2013-11-24T22:37:53.2577528-06:00
When Haroush asked me to Do him a great favor and "... Explain how it can rain frogs, fish, birds, and other things? Explain why there is certain comets that revolve around the sun and earth every once in a while that cause pestilences?""Just because a place existed doesn't mean all the stories of that place actually happened in the way it was told. Look at any history book. There is always more than one account of the same event and many times, they vary quite a bit. Even when there are so called "eye witnesses", their stories are not always exactly the same. Just because a person existed, is not proof that the stories about them actually took place. Just because an event took place, is not proof that it was directed or orchestrated by some supreme being. Many of the natural disasters that took place were said to be of some divine origin, from the time of the Greeks and Romans back to ancient man. So, just because there was some guy named Moses, doesn't prove that any sea was parted by his hand. Hey Haroush, do me a favor. Give to me, ABSOLUTE PROOF that these things were reported 100%accurately and honestly and happened in the exact way your bible states them. 1. Spider-man is from New York City... New York City is a real place 2. Spider-man met Barack Obama in a comic... Obama is a real person 3. Spider-man assisted with 9/11 rescue and recovery... 9/11 actually happened. Just because a work of fiction uses real places events and people doesn't mean all the magic happened. Otherwise, I am able to happily say that Spider Man is real!
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T22:47:29.9700166-06:00
@DudeStop You are using the "Spiderman Fallacy", which assumes that because New York existed, then Spider-man is real. That is not what historians/scholars mean by Jesus. We are saying that we can trust the NT, because it is written as history. Of course spider-man is fiction, because it is written as fiction. We have overwhelming evidence for Jesus life, death, ministry, and resurrection. The NT is consisten with the facts it mentions. It has a point of reference to back it up. I suggest atheists not use this argument in a debate with us.
DudeStop says2013-11-24T23:00:50.7133734-06:00
Tired now , gtg to bed. Jingram, I choose you! -^
janetsanders733 says2013-11-24T23:02:00.2195002-06:00
@Dudestop Good night!
PurpleRepublic says2013-11-25T00:41:21.5805601-06:00
We have overwhelming evidence for Jesus life, death, ministry, and resurrection....Proof? "because it is written as history." this doesn't mean its reliable history. Also why dose Jesus existence prove that god is a natural force in this world? Do you believe he is the son of a god? Why? If he is the son of god don't you think he would have the moral "truth"? It seems to me that he dose not.
PurpleRepublic says2013-11-25T00:41:25.6470924-06:00
We have overwhelming evidence for Jesus life, death, ministry, and resurrection....Proof? "because it is written as history." this doesn't mean its reliable history. Also why dose Jesus existence prove that god is a natural force in this world? Do you believe he is the son of a god? Why? If he is the son of god don't you think he would have the moral "truth"? It seems to me that he dose not.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T01:24:20.4458448-06:00
" this doesn't mean its reliable history. Also why dose Jesus existence prove that god is a natural force in this world? Do you believe he is the son of a god? Why? If he is the son of god don't you think he would have the moral "truth"? It seems to me that he dose not." Well, actually yes it does. We can verify the people, location, events, time, archaeology, and prophecy. Yes, I believe Jesus is the Son of God. He claimed and proved it through his death and resurrection. Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." In this verse, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in an "exclusive and absolute sense," having a unique and personal relationship with the Father. It is helpful here to make a momentary digression into the Jewish conception of the father/son relationship. John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16). Why does he have the moral truth? Because he is God. I am not sure where your going with this. If you could elaborate a little more on your statement.
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T02:30:37.1819097-06:00
@Haroush: "No one backs me in a corner, but G-d himself. If you don't see the ignorance in those statements on his profile and bias, then your comprehension is not very high. Just because I believe in G-d doesn't mean I am going to accept incompetence. Unless the incompetence can respect beliefs incompetence don't agree with." Clearly that first sentence is a flat-out lie. You wouldn't be so touchy, and you wouldn't be using personal attacks in lieu of *real arguments*, if you were capable of using actual rational arguments by this stage. How are any of the statements on my profile 'ignorant'? In an amazing fit of irony, I don't think you actually know what 'ignorant' means. And if you aren't going to accept 'incompetence', why the hell are you using personal attacks in lieu of real arguments? "First off, you don't have a G-d, so please don't call on our G-d unless you are willing to accept him. Second, maybe you should reconsider things you post about yourself and what you think of other people who don't carry your same beliefs.Third, and it's that same Patriotism that has prevailed for over 200 years." You can use the word 'god' in everyday speech without being religious. I have no problem with 'people who don't carry (my) same beliefs'. I *do* have a problem with a**holes who feel the need to use their religion as a tool to try and intimidate, oppress or attack people. And what you're saying is not 'patriotic', pal. It's *pathetic*, plain and simple. "Exactly! That's the problem you don't care. Just like you don't care if you say something and it offends Janet, SonofGod, or anyone of us who holds these morals, ethics, and values." No, I mean just you, very specifically. You're the one who decided to try and be a 'big man' and attack and insult me, without a shred of rationality or thought to back you up, so you're the one I called out for being a complete idiot. I do my best to not offend, but as I have stated to you, I will not 'mince words' at the risk of hurting my argument. I will not exclude fact and my own honest opinion from my statements because someone else might not like it. And without even thinking about it, you yourself are easily at least ten times as offensive as myself, sir. "It's quite hard to believe that with an ego like yours and a comment like this..." Coming from you, that's absolutely meaningless. Your comments here do nothing but make you look like an ignorant rube, and serve no purpose at all but to fondle your ego. "What a joke." What do you mean? I made a statement of my own opinion there. Presumably, the sorts of people I'm talking about won't just sit quietly and not themselves act offensively. I treat people as they deserve to be treated. You, as you have clearly shown, deserve to be treated like a child throwing a tantrum because someone doesn't like his opinions, and thinks he's stupid. "And what you watch defines who you are." Not necessarily. Have you even looked it up yet, or are you still just running off the blind and ridiculous assumption that I, for no real reason, 'hate Americans'? Are you serious? "Do you really think I even take you seriously? You have to love for your enemy in order for there to be peace. I respect you, but you clearly don't respect other's who are an "extreme conservative" or "fundamentalist". The problem is I can't show you that respect until you give up that grudge you have against people like me." What? What 'grudge'? I had nothing against you, personally, until you started acting like a d**k. 'People like you' act as though you have some sort of 'right' to force their personal opinions and beliefs on others. Extreme conservatives and fundamentalists are exactly the sort of people that try using their ideology to deny others their basic rights, and force their beliefs and ideology on others. If those people simply held their own beliefs, and weren't astoundingly pretentious and amazingly entitled with them, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I judge people based on what they do, not what they are. As it so happens, 99.999% of the time, extreme conservatives and fundamentalists act in such a manner that not having that attitude about them is itself stupid. As it stands, in reality, 'people like this' are 2/3rds of the reason the world sucks, and doing anything but treating them like the fools they are, and refusing to allow their beliefs to be enforced *because they demand it*, is a bad move. And need I remind you, *You Are The One Who Started Throwing Insults And Acting Like A D**k.* You are directly responsible for me not liking or respecting you, because you started acted like exactly the sort of person I dislike and have no respect for, without provocation and for no reason but the fact that you are apparently *incapable* of rationally debating my arguments. I think I'm about done. If you would, at any point, like to start debating the topic at hand instead of using information about me from my profile to attack me and imply things about my personality, feel free to do so.
DudeStop says2013-11-25T07:27:52.1447217-06:00
Good work Juingram.
chengste says2013-11-25T08:03:16.3819348-06:00
@jingram sorry for the delay in answering been kind of busy, as far as Jesus believing He was the Son of God, and did He say it and did He believe it. A quick look at a couple of things written in history both in the Bible and outside would say yes here is why. A simple question first what is the reason the Sanhedrin used to crucify Him? They said He blasphemed, what did He do? During His trial He stated He was God it was very clear to them what He meant. As far as God raping Mary, remember she stayed a virgin so no she was not raped. If God is who we say the creator of everything then it would be quite simple for Him to cause someone to pregnant would you not agree? Remeber using the logic of God is the creator of all.
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T08:45:20.6319705-06:00
@chengste: Don't worry about it. I've had a bit on as well. "...As far as Jesus believing He was the Son of God, and did He say it and did He believe it. A quick look at a couple of things written in history both in the Bible and outside would say yes here is why. A simple question first what is the reason the Sanhedrin used to crucify Him? They said He blasphemed, what did He do? During His trial He stated He was God it was very clear to them what He meant." Yeah, I've done a bit of light reading and research myself, and I thought it was something along those lines. As well, it would hardly be expedient to crucify someone for 'heresy' unless there was actually something up, or at least unless he was screwing up the status quo currently being relied on by certain individuals, in some manner. Personally, I think it's probably something to do with Jesus' 'message' being a lot 'kinder', and/or better at drawing in followers, than religious authorities of the time would have preferred, especially seeing as this would have been in pretty much direct competition with contemporary religious institutions. "As far as God raping Mary, remember she stayed a virgin so no she was not raped. If God is who we say the creator of everything then it would be quite simple for Him to cause someone to pregnant would you not agree?" While I can see where you're coming from, I still think it should be a basic logical inference that if someone becomes pregnant without their consent, they have been raped. I haven't looked it up, specifically; did God actually ask ahead of time, or did he just pick a body and use it? While not fitting stricter definitions of rape, that's still at least a violation of consent and bodily autonomy, I hope we can agree. Actually, now that I think about it, wasn't the virgin Mary only 14 (15? I'm certain I read one of the two somewhere) when she gave birth to Jesus? Or conceived him; I forget which it was actually in relation to. Nevertheless. That seems to me to be a further ethical issue.
Haroush says2013-11-25T10:42:19.5226066-06:00
@Jingram, I didn't know you had a groupie? Just the fact you have been paying so much attention to me even shows what you are trying to do on here. Not to mention, your regurgitation of hatred toward peoples' beliefs who hold onto American exceptionalism. The funny thing is you claim this is radical, but yet there is nothing more radical than trying to force YOUR views and BELIEFS as an AMERICAN ideology. Despite the fact, comments before we got into an argument were a representation of your ego and beliefs. In all, it is a reflection of who you say you are on your profile. Libertarian socialism is not American.If anything it represents the destruction of religion, and the end of capitalism. Us American exceptionalist will stand above that. We don't need a NWO and we don't need an emotional "social worker" telling people how we need to treat others, even though we treat others all the same already over here in the U.S. All, you are trying to do is inject your ideology into any American you can. Just like all those other foreign socialist who HATE America. If it wasn't for Obama we wouldn't be so bad off right now, but because of him and his agenda (the attempt of spreading socialist ideology) to deceive Americans in believing in a welfare state, people like YOU and others outside the U.S. Become more embolden to spread your world views into the U.S. It's sick, disgusting, filthy, and down right wrong. Lol, then you continue on arguing and then want to call it quits. NO. It doesn't happen like that. You started with someone who doesn't quit, unless, the other person is willing to quit without injection of one word. As for socialism let's see what socialism is really about and how it even relates to America. The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 As for atheism always existing.. Karl Marx apparently doesn't agree with that. Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Reasonable Form - atheism Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Ah! This is what socialism leads to, I didn't know that?? Shaking my head.
Haroush says2013-11-25T10:42:24.3103637-06:00
@Jingram, I didn't know you had a groupie? Just the fact you have been paying so much attention to me even shows what you are trying to do on here. Not to mention, your regurgitation of hatred toward peoples' beliefs who hold onto American exceptionalism. The funny thing is you claim this is radical, but yet there is nothing more radical than trying to force YOUR views and BELIEFS as an AMERICAN ideology. Despite the fact, comments before we got into an argument were a representation of your ego and beliefs. In all, it is a reflection of who you say you are on your profile. Libertarian socialism is not American.If anything it represents the destruction of religion, and the end of capitalism. Us American exceptionalist will stand above that. We don't need a NWO and we don't need an emotional "social worker" telling people how we need to treat others, even though we treat others all the same already over here in the U.S. All, you are trying to do is inject your ideology into any American you can. Just like all those other foreign socialist who HATE America. If it wasn't for Obama we wouldn't be so bad off right now, but because of him and his agenda (the attempt of spreading socialist ideology) to deceive Americans in believing in a welfare state, people like YOU and others outside the U.S. Become more embolden to spread your world views into the U.S. It's sick, disgusting, filthy, and down right wrong. Lol, then you continue on arguing and then want to call it quits. NO. It doesn't happen like that. You started with someone who doesn't quit, unless, the other person is willing to quit without injection of one word. As for socialism let's see what socialism is really about and how it even relates to America. The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 As for atheism always existing.. Karl Marx apparently doesn't agree with that. Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Reasonable Form - atheism Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Ah! This is what socialism leads to, I didn't know that?? Shaking my head.
DudeStop says2013-11-25T14:00:54.3238516-06:00
Haroush seriously calm down, no one cares
DudeStop says2013-11-25T14:02:53.2316292-06:00
Dude Stop
Haroush says2013-11-25T14:41:38.2109453-06:00
:O How did I know you'd say something like that... Figures.
Mikal says2013-11-25T18:38:36.5704038-06:00
Lets all potato
DudeStop says2013-11-25T18:54:19.7891102-06:00
Or should we agree to disagree? Maybe two people here could have some sort of debate... I wish that would be possible. But how? Hmm.
PurpleRepublic says2013-11-25T19:46:20.2581260-06:00
Well, actually yes it does. We can verify the people, location, events, time, archaeology, and prophecy. ( prove it. You can claim its true all day if you want but that is meaningless if you don't have proof.) . He claimed and proved it through his death and resurrection.(prove it. I need evidence to believe this one guy has 1.Claimed to be god. You need far more evidence then these author who are clearly biased. Where these authors there? When he claimed he was a god?Furthermore how can we trust the claims that are made by these men? It is helpful here to make a momentary digression into the Jewish conception of the father/son relationship.(no its irrelevant if you cant prove these claims.) Why does he have the moral truth?( That wasn't the question. The truth doesn't change. In fact if something is true then there is a time and place in which it became true and then is never changed [it doesn't need to]. I was asking you why you think Jesus was morally correct in all of the statements he was claimed to have said. If his word is the word of god who has the absolute moral truth than it wouldn't be much of a debate to argue against any of his moral claims wouldn't it? How ever I do recall he has made some spotty moral claims. Mathew 5:28 - But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This is patently absurd on several levels. If you looked at your wife with lustful intent then you are committing adultery? This to me sounds a lot like though crime which I reject as a moral principle. Mathew 19:23-24 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus supposedly claims that a rich man is inherently wrong or clearly must have done something wrong in order to be rich and therefor DESERVES an eternity of torture. There very concept that someone should be tortured for all of eternity based on finite crimes is immoral. Further more it is claimed that a profound belief in Jesus and his teachings is the only path to get out of eternal suffering.You cannot be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, for the Scripture clearly shows that you have not kept them. Romans 3:20 says: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same thing is told in Galatians 3:11 which says: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." Many, many Scriptures repeat again and again that there is no salvation through human goodness. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."—Titus 3:5. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."—Eph. 2:8,9. Lets think about this for a second. If a baby dies before knowing god in his heart then necessarily according to Jesus they will go to hell. A rapist who repents and believes in Jesus and who is saved is supposedly going to heaven but a man like Gandhi would not for he did not accept Christ into his heart. There is also evidence that people don't even need to repent in order to be saved. The jailer did not go through a period of mourning. He was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; he did just that and was saved, and his whole family was saved the same way, immediately, the same hour of the night. Everywhere you look through the New Testament you find that people were saved all at once without any process, without any period of mourning. Zacchaeus, up a tree, trusted Jesus and made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully (Luke 19:6-9). Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this house."When Peter told Cornelius and his assembled household that they could be saved by believing, immediately "while Peter yet spake these words," the Scripture says, the Holy Spirit came on them and they were happily saved (Acts 10:44-48). He thief on the cross, wicked sinner that he was, who a few minutes before had been railing at Jesus, was saved immediately when he inquired of Jesus (Luke 23:42,43). In the first chapter of John, verses 35 to 49, we see where Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathanael were all converted, one by one, immediately by faith in Christ. If some of the moral claims Jesus made are actually immoral than that would necessarily prove that Jesus was not the son of a god as the authors have claimed he claimed. Of course this doesn't really have anything to do with a god existing in nature but it dose disprove that the claims that Jesus claimed he was a god is either false or he was a liar/full of him self. Why dose Jesus's existence prove that god is a natural force in this world? Considering he dose not have moral truth and therefor can not be a god (at least not a morally good/perfect god). Once again I will repeat that you need proof that these claims are true. You did not provide them the first time so this time I will put this at the bottom so you cant forget. You have the burden of proof here. You need to show good evidence for the existence of a god. Or even for the possibility of a god to exist.
PurpleRepublic says2013-11-25T20:07:09.0361024-06:00
Libertarian socialism is not American.( this literally means nothing. "The theory of exceptionalism can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville[a Frenchman], the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.The term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their heretical belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions". American Communists started using the English term "American exceptionalism" in factional fights. It then moved into general use among intellectuals."-wiki) also....Relevancy? Even though we treat others all the same already over here in the U.S.(this is not true and irrelevant to the topic) f anything it represents the destruction of religion, and the end of capitalism. Us American exceptionalist will stand above that. We don't need a NWO and we don't need an emotional "social worker" telling people how we need to treat others, even though we treat others all the same already over here in the U.S. All, you are trying to do is inject your ideology into any American you can. Just like all those other foreign socialist who HATE America. If it wasn't for Obama we wouldn't be so bad off right now, but because of him and his agenda (the attempt of spreading socialist ideology) to deceive Americans in believing in a welfare state, people like YOU and others outside the U.S. Become more embolden to spread your world views into the U.S. It's sick, disgusting, filthy, and down right wrong. Lol, then you continue on arguing and then want to call it quits. NO. It doesn't happen like that. You started with someone who doesn't quit, unless, the other person is willing to quit without injection of one word. As for socialism let's see what socialism is really about and how it even relates to America. The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 As for atheism always existing.. Karl Marx apparently doesn't agree with that. Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Reasonable Form - atheism Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Ah! This is what socialism leads to, I didn't know that?? Shaking my head. ( Irrelevant,irrelevant,irrelevant)
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T20:42:25.0946466-06:00
@PurpleRepublic Alright that is fair. I was wondering if you don't mind addressing me one issue at a time. I ask this, so we can stay on track with the arguments. So what is your first question/topic?
Haroush says2013-11-25T22:13:32.0135850-06:00
Lol
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T23:25:53.3863421-06:00
@Haroush: Wow. Where am I even going to start? "I didn't know you had a groupie? Just the fact you have been paying so much attention to me even shows what you are trying to do on here. Not to mention, your regurgitation of hatred toward peoples' beliefs who hold onto American exceptionalism." There is no such thing as 'American exceptionalism'. There is only broad Nationalism applied to your own specific country. What I am 'trying to do here' is get you to stop being an idiot, in the most straightforward and aggressive manner I can think of. "The funny thing is you claim this is radical, but yet there is nothing more radical than trying to force YOUR views and BELIEFS as an AMERICAN ideology. Despite the fact, comments before we got into an argument were a representation of your ego and beliefs. In all, it is a reflection of who you say you are on your profile." Extreme Nationalism *is* radical. How am I trying to 'force (MY) views and BELIEFS as an AMERICAN ideology'? I'm upholding my own personal views. This does not have anything to do with 'AMERICA'. Not everything is about you, or your country. America is not the center of the world, Haroush. It is just another country. "Libertarian socialism is not American.If anything it represents the destruction of religion, and the end of capitalism. Us American exceptionalist will stand above that." Here you assume that capitalism is somehow magically 'more AMERICAN' than socialism. Prove this. How is any given *economic* position more 'AMERICAN' than any other economic position? How is libertarianism, and/or socialism 'not American'? I'm assuming here that you mean 'In my ideal America', ie. Not in the real America, in the *Real World*. And again, there is no such thing as 'American exceptionalism; there is only Nationalism applied to your own country. "We don't need a NWO and we don't need an emotional "social worker" telling people how we need to treat others, even though we treat others all the same already over here in the U.S. All, you are trying to do is inject your ideology into any American you can. Just like all those other foreign socialist who HATE America." Right, I forgot. You're *DELUSIONAL* and *PARANOID*. I 'HATE AMERICA', Because I'm Australian. Are you out of your mind? How does libertarianism, or socialism, or libertarian socialism, have anything at all to do with the idea of a NWO that exists only in the minds of delusional paranoiacs like yourself? And again, *IT'S A TV SHOW, YOU DUMB F**K.* I'll reiterate my earlier statement; "Have you even looked it up yet, or are you still just running off the blind and ridiculous assumption that I, for no real reason, 'hate Americans'?" "If it wasn't for Obama we wouldn't be so bad off right now, but because of him and his agenda (the attempt of spreading socialist ideology) to deceive Americans in believing in a welfare state, people like YOU and others outside the U.S. Become more embolden to spread your world views into the U.S. It's sick, disgusting, filthy, and down right wrong." Are you serious? The reason the US is in so much s**t right now is directly because of the Bush administration, combined with the fact that the Republican party is perfectly happy to let the entire country rot if it means their opponent doesn't get their way. And no, Obama is not 'socialist', he's a hard-line capitalist with mild socialist leanings. Regulated capitalism is not socialism. Please give an example of how socialism is 'wrong', as opposed to you just not liking it, without referring to specific people, 'communism', 'AMERICA' or my own profile. "Lol, then you continue on arguing and then want to call it quits. NO. It doesn't happen like that. You started with someone who doesn't quit, unless, the other person is willing to quit without injection of one word." When did I say I '(wanted) to call it quits'? I 'want' to annihilate your pathetic arguments and destroy your credibility. I seem to be doing pretty well so far, in reality. And again, *YOU* are the one who started this, pal. "As for socialism let's see what socialism is really about and how it even relates to America." Yes, Let's. Wikipedia, on Socialism: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]" Now, if you're still feeling man enough, point out how this is 'wrong', or 'unAmerican', without using a bulls**t link to Communism or Marxism, or using the words 'Australian' or 'Profile'. Also, prove how it potentially being 'unAmerican' is a bad thing. Prove capitalism is 'better' than socialism'. Prove that capitalism is more 'American' than socialism'. Prove that 'American exceptionalism' is different to ordinary Nationalism, and that it is even a 'good' thing to being. Go on.
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T23:32:12.8316256-06:00
@Haroush: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 As for atheism always existing.. Karl Marx apparently doesn't agree with that. Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Reasonable Form - atheism Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite! Karl Marx Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#htiLdwEbTKTpoRAP.99 Ah! This is what socialism leads to, I didn't know that?? Shaking my head." You are aware that I directly pointed out, in a separate thread, just how your linking Marxism, a very specific and radical form of Communism, with any given form of socialism, is complete s**t, right? ANd how the unrelated ideals of the main 'founder' of said ideology have little if anything to do with the ideology itself, right? It's not a religion, c**khead. Prove that religion is a good thing. Prove that unrelated economic or political positions have anything at all to do with religion. You can be a Christian and still be a liberal socialist, moron. While we're at it, prove that Socialism 'leads to' or is 'just an outgrowth of' Communism. Their both being on the 'left' side of the economic spectrum does not make them the same thing. Me, from aforementioned earlier post from separate thread: "...Socialism and communism are both on the left side of the economic scale. This does not make them the same thing, nor does it make one an extension of the other. Socialism is not a political position, it's an economic one that can be combined with any political stance that doesn't by definition include a contrary economic ideal. And socialism is no more 'unAmerican' than capitalism, secularism or desegregation are. You don't have to be a redneck, capitalist, republican 'patriot' to be 'American'."
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T23:37:48.8372495-06:00
@Jingram994 Are you saying Christianity is at fault for wars?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T23:37:51.8168686-06:00
@Jingram994 Are you saying Christianity is at fault for wars?
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T23:39:40.3467643-06:00
What? Which post was this in? I don't think I even implied that anywhere.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T23:41:06.8732626-06:00
@Jingram994" Prove that religion is a good thing. Prove that unrelated economic or political positions have anything at all to do with religion. You can be a Christian and still be a liberal socialist, moron."
Jingram994 says2013-11-25T23:43:25.5195791-06:00
Oh, that. No, I was just pointing out how religion, and any given economic or political position, aren't necessarily more inter-related than any *other* economic or political position. I included the 'Prove that religion is a good thing' in there as this seems to be one of the main points of his arguments, despite the fact that his reasoning for this is very flawed.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-25T23:45:48.2119618-06:00
Oh Okay. But, do you as an atheist(I hope you don't mind me asking) think Religion is responsible for all wars? For example: Do you think Christianity is responsible for the Crusades?
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T00:05:22.3871215-06:00
Not really, no. Individual Christians, in that particular instance, do seem to be at the forefront of people reasonably able to be held accountable. Nine times out of ten, though, it's almost certainly a lot more to do with economics (ie. Take their land and goods), politics (ie. Using it to take up public attention, etc.) or other things like that. Individuals involved in wars may be religiously motivated, but saying that religion itself is 'responsible for all wars' is an extremely simple view to hold.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T00:12:15.4518649-06:00
I would agree with you on everything except one thing. I would say that they were not really Christians. Remember Jesus said when he stood before Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36. So those false christians would be acting inconsistent with who Christ is and what he taught. I would say that the cause of war based on God's word, is through man's fallen nature of sin. “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:1-3). “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19). “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5).
Haroush says2013-11-26T00:41:15.1131099-06:00
Now this got interesting. I'm just going to ignore everything you said except one thing...... How can a liberal socialist be a Christian?
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T00:48:52.0833070-06:00
Easily, that's how.
Haroush says2013-11-26T00:50:59.6802660-06:00
Yeah, go ahead and explain. Give me an example..
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T00:51:55.2776299-06:00
I think @Haroush and @Jingram994 should Debate Political ideology.
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T00:52:48.3498505-06:00
A man holds overall 'liberal' political values, overall 'socialist' economic values, and also believes in God, and that Jesus Christ was his son. Why do you need an example? How do any of those things contradict or prevent each other?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T00:58:17.3289769-06:00
@Jingram994 I think it just depends on what kind of "liberal" political values they hold. For example: Abortion. I don't see how you can be a Christian, and hold to abortion or gay marriage. Now economically speaking. Maybe someone can hold to Big Government over Small Government. But, I think Liberalism is very Inconsistent with Christianity.
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T01:11:38.7319882-06:00
Not necessarily. The bible itself has nothing to say on the specific matter of abortion. The modern catholic ruling does not apply to all denominations of Christianity, just Roman Catholics. 'Christian', as a general-use word rather than a specific sect-denominator, just means that one believes in and worships the Judeo-Christian God, and believes that Jesus Christ was his literal son. As well, there are numerous 'other' issues that it's quite possible to hold a 'liberal' set of values in relation to, without directly contradicting even some of the stricter rulings of various Christian sects. Just like how you don't need to be positively libertine about anything and everything to still be 'liberal', you don't need to follow the exact word of every single passage in the bible (also, there are dozens of different versions of the bible, many of which drastically change the exact wording and 'intent' of passages) to still be 'Christian'. Quakers, Roman Catholics, Protestants, even members of the Westboro Baptist Church, are all Christians. Whether or not, and to what extent, the various passages of the various versions of the bible are actually used and followed likely has a lot to do with this. And yeah, religion doesn't really have a whole lot to say about the issue of economics, so there isn't any real issue there at all.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T01:23:11.6973142-06:00
I think I would have to beg to differ with you Jingram994. The term 'Christian' does not depend on what sect or denomination of Christianity you belong to. It matters on what Jesus said. As Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said, “‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be born again”’” (John 3:3-7). Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6) Well the bible has not been changed in terms of "what we have today is not what we do not have back then" Roman Catholics may except the non-apocrypha(Forged Gospels), but that does not change the bible in any way. We have a wealth of manuscripts for the OT and NT. They all have 99% accuracy. The other 1% percent of the textual varriants are just spelling and gramtical errors the scribes made when copying the original manuscripts and original text. But, they have no affect on doctorine, people, places, historical events in the bible, and or the message of God's word. So in reality we have 100% accuracy for the consistency of scripture.
Haroush says2013-11-26T01:27:42.7837273-06:00
As for the relation between socialism and communism.... And how it relates to religion... "The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises. The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. " Then you add liberal socialist on to that... Scary... Can you guess how this relates to religion? ^^^^^^ Think about the Declaration of Independence.
Haroush says2013-11-26T01:29:05.0909101-06:00
Http: // www . Marxmail . Org/ faq / socialism _ and _ communism . Htm
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T05:56:38.1222272-06:00
Sorry for the wait; I had to be somewhere. @Haroush: Of course, a website actually called marxmail will be at least somewhat biased toward a Marxist view. This has been explained; indeed, what you have just described yourself, points to this. Socialism =/= Communism. Socialism does not have a stance or impact on religion in and of itself. I'm afraid I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here; What does the declaration of Independence have to do with this? Also, I think you missed a spot; "Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before. There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are. Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.G. Your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.G. Your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies. More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism." @janetsanders: "The term 'Christian' does not depend on what sect or denomination of Christianity you belong to. It matters on what Jesus said." This was over 2000 years ago; 'what Jesus said' is entirely recorded in scripture by this point. Scripture as a whole can't agree on what exactly Jesus actually said, and even if this were the case 'what the bible says' does not necessarily equate to 'what Jesus said', which again does not necessarily equate to 'what God, if he exists, actually thinks'. "As Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said, “‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be born again”’” (John 3:3-7). Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)" Of course, if this is the way the issue is being looked at, and I'm certain that this is going to sound offensive, then the way the issue is being looked at is simply incorrect. Does the bible also iterate a belief that a body that has had it's brain removed or injured to the point of complete non-functionality is a 'person', and 'alive' the same way every other body is? Is there really any difference whether or not the brain had been previously working? What are your own thoughts on that issue? Whatever else you may consider it, the bible is not a 'reality warper'; the bible cannot change reality. We know that a fetus is simply not correctly able to be biologically construed as a 'person', and thus an actual 'human life', until around 26 weeks, when it's brain, which is necessarily required to be considered actually alive and a 'person', develops to the point of functionality. Until this point, only it's 'lower brain' (essentially it's brain stem, and some related areas, that only amounts to autonomic functioning) is functioning. If it *is* considered to be a 'person' and a full 'human life' despite this, there are dozens if not hundreds of both related and unrelated issues that then become absolutely nonsensical when this rule is applied. For example, if this is the case, then 'I' cannot be legally considered to be 'actually dead' until each and every last cell containing my DNA dies off, which again is an absolutely ridiculous idea. There is a reason that brain death is synonymous with actual death in the medical community. If the bible is simply, undeniably wrong on an issue, then a majority of reasonable Christians will favor reality over the bible's ancient interpretation of reality. This does not mean that they aren't 'still Christians'. "Well the bible has not been changed in terms of "what we have today is not what we do not have back then" Roman Catholics may except the non-apocrypha(Forged Gospels), but that does not change the bible in any way. We have a wealth of manuscripts for the OT and NT. They all have 99% accuracy." How do we know they are accurate? Are there other, non-religious documents and other sources that can themselves be considered reliable, accurate sources of information on the topic? Does the bible actually match these sources to a near-complete degree, or does the bible appear to have extrapolated, and imposed it's own mythology on the actual events? Even if '99%' of the bible does actually describe something that actually happened, this does not prove the mythology that the bible is blatantly trying to push on the reader. Even if Jesus did consider himself 'God's son', and even if his belief of such can be accurately and reliably proven, this does not mean that he *actually was*. That's an absolutely extraordinary claim, and I reiterate that such a claim requires a lot of solid, hard evidence to actually be taken seriously by anyone with a skeptical or rational eye. No such evidence exists, which is why people with such don't take it seriously. "The other 1% percent of the textual varriants are just spelling and gramtical errors the scribes made when copying the original manuscripts and original text. But, they have no affect on doctorine, people, places, historical events in the bible, and or the message of God's word. So in reality we have 100% accuracy for the consistency of scripture." Even small spelling and grammar errors add up over time. Especially when there is a language change involved, and even more so when there is almost a 2000 year gap between the original collection of works and the book they have been compiled into. Even with a very high standard of book-keeping, you can't just assume that the final document is absolutely, '100%' true to the original works, over that period of time. And again, even if you could, that just does not mean that the document in question is itself actually '100%' factual. Also, is it just me, or did the maximum word-count go up?
DudeStop says2013-11-26T08:40:59.0670868-06:00
Do you think we will ever actually have a victor?
chengste says2013-11-26T09:11:10.2153256-06:00
@jingram "Even if '99%' of the bible does actually describe something that actually happened, this does not prove the mythology that the bible is blatantly trying to push on the reader. Even if Jesus did consider himself 'God's son', and even if his belief of such can be accurately and reliably proven, this does not mean that he *actually was*" However the things He did do prove He is God's son, did He have power over nature? Yes, proven many times. Does He have the power to forgive? Yes, proven many times. Does He have power to heal? Again proven many times. Does He have the power over life and death? Again proven not only on others but also Himself. Do words prove He is the Son of God, no lots of people use words. Do His actions prove that He is the Son of Godfor sure. Now you might say that it is only the Bible that says He did these things, then I would need your to look up the works of Josephus, Tactus, Pliny the younger all historians who record that Jesus did wonderful works.
Haroush says2013-11-26T10:25:36.1223093-06:00
"Socialism does not have a stance or impact on religion in and of itself. I'm afraid I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here; What does the declaration of Independence have to do with this? Also, I think you missed a spot; "Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before. " You say this ^^^^ Though lets look at other famous peoples' quotes.... Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. Alexis de Tocqueville Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Winston Churchill Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. Margaret Thatcher Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing. Vladimir Lenin Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 Is Medicare socialism? You want to get rid of Medicare. And a lot of the people against health care do. I want to preserve it and grow it. Anthony Weiner Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.Html#EEP9zJ584yCLsFLL.99 Conservatives may worship Adam Smith's 'invisible hand,' but for Obama, the helping hand comes in large measure from the public, not the private sector. To call this 'socialism' is to do violence to the word and to the concept. To call it 'un-American' is a smear. Jeff Greenfield Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.Html#EEP9zJ584yCLsFLL.99 Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism. Benjamin Tucker Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.Html#EEP9zJ584yCLsFLL.99 All socialism involves slavery. Herbert Spencer Democracy and socialism are means to an end, not the end itself. Jawaharlal Nehru Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it? H. G. Wells Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism.Html#ylZ66YSj4YFMff44.99 Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion. Richard John Neuhaus Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_2.Html#sCpvhAo32Sdxb2ci.99 We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: We must go from capitalism to socialism. Hugo Chavez Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_2.Html#sCpvhAo32Sdxb2ci.99 I think it's very clear that the American people are frustrated with this move toward socialism. And so whether you're back or white, if you believe that the conservative construct is in the best interest of our future, than you too would be voting with Republicans, and if you had the opportunity to run you'd join us as well. Tim Scott Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_2.Html#sCpvhAo32Sdxb2ci.99 A lot of populists after populism died just became socialists. At the beginning of the 20th century, socialism looked like it was going to take off. It didn't, of course, but a lot of people thought it was going to. Thomas Frank Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_2.Html#sCpvhAo32Sdxb2ci.99 The real issue behind these people who are gun grabbers, the truth is - based on fact - the reason why is, they want control. They want control of the people. That's what socialism is and communism. Luke Scott Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.Html#EEP9zJ584yCLsFLL.99 In practice, socialism didn't work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy. David Horowitz Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.Html#EEP9zJ584yCLsFLL.99
Haroush says2013-11-26T10:29:18.0430744-06:00
Socialist only want certain people to have more private property. Those who don't fit with that class of people lose their private property at the public's "right".
Haroush says2013-11-26T10:31:40.0516453-06:00
Also, how can religion survive in a system that doesn't believe in liberty? It is definitely as Alexis de Tocqueville said it is.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T10:51:03.7881844-06:00
@Jingram994 My comment has been submitted for Moderation. It will show up shortly.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T10:58:42.0157963-06:00
@Jingram994 Also I would like to know what is this supposed "extraordinary evidence" that we need?
Romanii says2013-11-26T18:47:15.1352731-06:00
I hate it when comments are submitted for moderation. I've noticed that half the time, they don't even show up later on.
Romanii says2013-11-26T18:47:48.5199151-06:00
And how did a debate over whether or not God is real turn into a a discussion about socialism?
Romanii says2013-11-26T18:47:50.5940556-06:00
And how did a debate over whether or not God is real turn into a a discussion about socialism?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T18:58:08.1824556-06:00
@Romanni I do too. DDO doesn't really seem to do anything about this.
Jingram994 says2013-11-26T19:21:18.8756556-06:00
@Haroush: "You say this ^^^^ Though lets look at other famous peoples' quotes.... Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Bulls**t. I've pointed this out before. Socialism is an economic position, that denies the use of 'private property' for the purposes of gaining power over others in an otherwise 'free' system, which kind of invalidates the entire point of such a system. There is no express contradiction with democracy and socialism. Ever heard of democratic socialism? Or social democracy? Or liberal social democracy? Or democratic social liberalism? Or libertarian socialism? They're all different things, just so you don't try and explain them as one big oversimplified 'conspiracy' against capitalism, the US and liberty. Which I do need to remind you are all entirely separate and unrelated things. "Socialist only want certain people to have more private property. Those who don't fit with that class of people lose their private property at the public's "right"." Clearly you can't read. Socialism has no problem with personal property. It just has a problem with certain things that absolutely should not be privately owned being classed as such, and then used to gain 'power' over others, in what is otherwise a free system, again invalidating the entire point of such a system. Why should basic, essential means of production be the 'private property' of whatever individual has enough money to get their hands on them? How is that a good idea? "Also, how can religion survive in a system that doesn't believe in liberty? It is definitely as Alexis de Tocqueville said it is." Yet another instance of Haroush dramatically, and, I suspect, deliberately, missing the point. How is socialism 'at odds' with liberty? I've explained this almost a dozen times now; "There is no express contradiction with democracy and socialism. Ever heard of democratic socialism? Or social democracy? Or liberal social democracy? Or democratic social liberalism? Or libertarian socialism? They're all different things, just so you don't try and explain them as one big oversimplified 'conspiracy'." Please explain to me, without quote mining people irrelevant to the fact of the matter, how socialism and liberty actually 'have a problem' *in reality*. 'This random person's opinion of socialism' =/= 'Socialism'. @janetsanders: "Also I would like to know what is this supposed "extraordinary evidence" that we need?" *shrugs* Well, once it's enough to clearly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to all reasonably skeptical people, that your God does in fact exist in reality, and that what your religion says is fact rather than belief, then you'll have it. Really, I just don't think it's possible to get such evidence in reality. This doesn't remove the need for it, though. Inability to meet Burden of Proof doesn't then mean that you aren't still required to meet it, it just means you can't. And, did you copy and paste before you posted the reply? @Romanii: "And how did a debate over whether or not God is real turn into a a discussion about socialism?" I started talking, Haroush started insulting me, he picked out the words 'libertarian socialism' from my profile as a good way to try and attack me, and arguing against what he thinks socialism is, is the only way he's been able to avoid just having his arguments totally paved.
Haroush says2013-11-26T19:49:14.7616030-06:00
"Bulls**t. I've pointed this out before. Socialism is an economic position, that denies the use of 'private property' for the purposes of gaining power over others in an otherwise 'free' system, which kind of invalidates the entire point of such a system." So, I guess all those people were completely wrong and you are the one right? Ok, then.... "I've pointed this out before. Socialism is an economic position, that denies the use of 'private property' for the purposes of gaining power over others in an otherwise 'free' system, which kind of invalidates the entire point of such a system." And I have completely refuted your stance on socialism. "They're all different things, just so you don't try and explain them as one big oversimplified 'conspiracy' against capitalism, the US and liberty." Again, I guess all those people are wrong. Shaking my head. "Clearly you can't read. Socialism has no problem with personal property. It just has a problem with certain things that absolutely should not be privately owned being classed as such, and then used to gain 'power' over others, in what is otherwise a free system, again invalidating the entire point of such a system. Why should basic, essential means of production be the 'private property' of whatever individual has enough money to get their hands on them? How is that a good idea?" Again, I guess all those people are wrong. You turned this into a complete rant. "Yet another instance of Haroush dramatically, and, I suspect, deliberately, missing the point. How is socialism 'at odds' with liberty? I've explained this almost a dozen times now; "There is no express contradiction with democracy and socialism. Ever heard of democratic socialism? Or social democracy? Or liberal social democracy? Or democratic social liberalism? Or libertarian socialism? They're all different things, just so you don't try and explain them as one big oversimplified 'conspiracy'." Please explain to me, without quote mining people irrelevant to the fact of the matter, how socialism and liberty actually 'have a problem' *in reality*. 'This random person's opinion of socialism' =/=" And now you are calling all these philosophers and specialist liars. Talk about arrogance. "I started talking, Haroush started insulting me, he picked out the words 'libertarian socialism' from my profile as a good way to try and attack me, and arguing against what he thinks socialism is, is the only way he's been able to avoid just having his arguments totally paved." Of course, it's my fault. How did I know? Not to mention, all the people I quoted are liars. Besides, political policies do affect religion, and as you have already admitted to, think religion should be abolished. "It's not a religion, c**khead. Prove that religion is a good thing. Prove that unrelated economic or political positions have anything at all to do with religion. You can be a Christian and still be a liberal socialist, moron." I mean, apparently you wouldn't care if religion was abolished. Which means, if there was a lot of support world wide to abolish religion all together, you would do it.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T20:16:18.4000115-06:00
@Jingram994 So then I don't need extraordinary evidence. I need ordinary evidence that is best explained by the extraordinary. I will go ahead and list the 4 facts for Jesus's resurrection that historians/scholars (Atheist/Christian) agree upon. FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: . . . That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. The Resurrection of Jesus The Resurrection of Jesus William Lane Craig Examines the historical grounds for belief in Jesus’ resurrection, focusing on the empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. I spoke recently at a major Canadian university on the existence of God. After my talk, one slightly irate co-ed wrote on her comment card, “I was with you until you got to the stuff about Jesus. God is not the Christian God!” This attitude is all too typical today. Most people are happy to agree that God exists; but in our pluralistic society it has become politically incorrect to claim that God has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus. What justification can Christians offer, in contrast to Hindus, Jews, and Muslims, for thinking that the Christian God is real? The answer of the New Testament is: the resurrection of Jesus. “God will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17.31). The resurrection is God’s vindication of Jesus’ radical personal claims to divine authority. So how do we know that Jesus is risen from the dead? The Easter hymnwriter says, “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!” This answer is perfectly appropriate on an individual level. But when Christians engage unbelievers in the public square—such as in “Letters to the Editor” of a local newspaper, on call-in programs on talk-radio, at PTA meetings, or even just in conversation with co-workers—, then it’s crucial that we be able to present objective evidence in support of our beliefs. Otherwise our claims hold no more water than the assertions of anyone else claiming to have a private experience of God. Fortunately, Christianity, as a religion rooted in history, makes claims that can in important measure be investigated historically. Suppose, then, that we approach the New Testament writings, not as inspired Scripture, but merely as a collection of Greek documents coming down to us out of the first century, without any assumption as to their reliability other than the way we normally regard other sources of ancient history. We may be surprised to learn that the majority of New Testament critics investigating the gospels in this way accept the central facts undergirding the resurrection of Jesus. I want to emphasize that I am not talking about evangelical or conservative scholars only, but about the broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries. Amazing as it may seem, most of them have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus. These facts are as follows: FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: . . . That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case. 2. The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The gospels tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus’ life which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged. But when we come to the passion story we do have one, smooth, continuously-running narrative. This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark’s sources of information in writing his gospel. Now most scholars think Mark is already the earliest gospel, and Mark’s source for Jesus’ passion is, of course, even older. Comparison of the narratives of the four gospels shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial. This implies that the burial account was part of the passion story. Again, its great age militates against its being legendary. 3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal. 4. No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph. For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”1 FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb story is also part of the old passion source used by Mark. The passion source used by Mark did not end in death and defeat, but with the empty tomb story, which is grammatically of one piece with the burial story. FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons: 1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. 2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John. We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John. FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal. 2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!
Romanii says2013-11-26T20:18:53.2114033-06:00
Why don't you guys just have a real debate?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T20:21:37.3733602-06:00
Maybe, if @Jingram994 wants to.
Haroush says2013-11-26T20:21:40.6650235-06:00
I think after the debate would be over, it would still be going on. Lol
DudeStop says2013-11-26T20:25:49.9578175-06:00
Who against who? Jingram994 cannot debate both Haroush and Janetsanders... I mean it just wouldn't be fair, would it
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T20:25:50.5924115-06:00
@Haroush Probably would.
Haroush says2013-11-26T20:26:26.1916115-06:00
I think that would be a good debate between Janetsanders733 and Jingram994 on the topic of Does G-d Exist. I would probably debate Jingram on whether political views can determine if you are Christian or not.
DudeStop says2013-11-26T20:27:24.6828391-06:00
Oo sounds good
janetsanders733 says2013-11-26T20:27:43.2627964-06:00
@Haroush Thanks! I would say that if you are a Christian, that should your political views.
Haroush says2013-11-26T20:31:41.8069837-06:00
@Janet, No problem. And it's not like we both have to debate Jingram at the same time. He can chose who he wants to debate first and then second.
Jingram994 says2013-11-27T00:33:47.4336832-06:00
@Haroush: "So, I guess all those people were completely wrong and you are the one right? Ok, then...." That's not what I said. You're taking quotes without context, and using them to promote your argument. You're taking the quotes of people describing specific forms of communism and using it to denounce any and all unrelated forms of socialism, which I reiterate is not the same thing as communism. "And I have completely refuted your stance on socialism." No, you haven't. Please point out where you have managed to do so. I have put forward the correct, fact-, dictionary- and wiki-approved definition, and you have quote-mined to try and imply that this definition, which I reiterate is literally correct, is somehow 'wrong'. "Again, I guess all those people are wrong. Shaking my head." See above. Incorrect statement. "Again, I guess all those people are wrong. You turned this into a complete rant." Again, that is not the case. My definition is backed up by facts, every wiki out there, and literal dictionary meaning. Your quotes are, for the most part, out of context, and specifically chosen to imply that the actual definition is magically 'just wrong'. And *I'm* the one who's turning this into a rant? 'Mr. American Exceptionalist' is saying that this is a rant? "And now you are calling all these philosophers and specialist liars. Talk about arrogance." No, I'm calling *you* a liar. Well, for a given definition of 'liar', anyway. Wrong, and aware of it, more like. You still haven't actually refuted any of the arguments or points I put forward. "Of course, it's my fault. How did I know? Not to mention, all the people I quoted are liars. Besides, political policies do affect religion, and as you have already admitted to, think religion should be abolished." How do you mean, "how did (you) know?"? And the people you quoted aren't 'liars'; *You* are a 'liar' for deliberately quoting them out of context to try and imply that the literal, factually correct definition of socialism is 'wrong' somehow. And how do I 'think religion should be abolished'? I have no problem with religious beliefs in and of themselves. I do have a problem with people pushing their beliefs on others, and attempting to enforce their own private beliefs as law. I especially have a problem with people using religion as a tool to indoctrinate children who don't know any better, and just believe what they're taught. That's a despicable and reprehensible practice, and if that's what you're talking about when you say 'religion', then yes, it should be 'abolished'. I'll reiterate that I have absolutely no problem with personal religious beliefs. @janetsanders: I'll get around to replying to your post; that's a pretty big block of text. We really need formatting in here. @BothOfYou: Also, yes, if either of you have a preference on who actually wants to go first, a debate on either topic would be fine by me.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T01:11:37.5210356-06:00
Maybe we should vote on if me and Jingram994 should have a debate. Voters should be dudestop and haroush and romanni
Haroush says2013-11-27T02:07:48.2934569-06:00
@Jingram, My conclusion of your argument, it is very repetitive and very redundant. If anything you failed to prove your point and lacked humility when proven wrong. I must say, I am very disappointed in the lack of sportsmanship on your part. Maybe I expected too much you. Or did I? Can you prove me wrong about your character? You still can if you just try. I know you got it in you to do good. Let's finish this up on a debate.@Janet, I definitely think you and Jingram should debate the topic of this voting poll.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T02:33:39.6993335-06:00
Haroush- 1 Dudestop- Not answered yet Romanii- Not answered yet
Mikal says2013-11-27T03:29:56.1594766-06:00
If we are weighing the probability that a God exists, it is very low. I would appeal to Occam's razor, If we have a rational answer for why everything is the way it is, the simplest and most logical answer is more than naught the correct one. We exist by chance, pure and simple fact. We do not need a deity in order to explain that.
Jingram994 says2013-11-27T04:27:07.9861963-06:00
@Haroush: Alright, if that's your honest opinion. Honestly, I have the same summary of your own arguments. I have a tendency to just do things at my opponent's level; If my opponent is respectful, rational and puts forward nothing but good arguments, I keep it professional and do things in a similar manner. In situations that get more heated, I have a tendency, after my opponent has proven that they're definitely doing this on purpose, to just start acting like a d**k right back at them. I apologize if there has, at any point, been any actual misunderstanding on my part. I would like to also reiterate, for what it may be worth, that quote mining just does not beat out an actual, literal, widely accepted definition, and that, from what I can see of your own statements, you have not actually definitively proven any of my points wrong, so much as you have disagreed with them. However, in saying that, I would also like to state that a formal debate on the topic is a good idea, and could very well serve to definitively end the argument, or at least defuse tensions and allow us to part amiably. So, once we have the order figured out, we can probably do that.
Romanii says2013-11-27T09:06:35.6646736-06:00
I would be fine with voting on the debates you proposed, Janetsanders
Romanii says2013-11-27T09:07:56.1572778-06:00
I want to read this in debate format; in comments, you're not allowed to break your huge essays into paragraphs, and other people keep bringing up new arguments in the middle, so it gets kind of hard to follow.
DudeStop says2013-11-27T10:37:30.3319994-06:00
Yes, no prob
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:20:06.2566912-06:00
@MIkal So this universe is all that there is and will ever be? Then there is no objective purpose on Atheism to live.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:23:50.5690912-06:00
There is always purpose in life. Its whatever you want it to be. Is there a universal purpose as to why we live? No there probably is not. I would like to thank the well being of others and helping each other advance is a trait that is common among most people, but every person has their on reason to live. The thought of an objective purpose bothers me from the start. We find our own reasons to live.
DudeStop says2013-11-27T19:25:16.4815971-06:00
I like cake. Why shouldn't a olive so I can eat cake?
DudeStop says2013-11-27T19:25:26.7929988-06:00
*live
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:27:14.5546912-06:00
Correct. On Atheism there is no real reason objectively to live. I mean none of that will matter when you die.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:28:17.7502912-06:00
Essentially yes. You find your purpose and live for it. Is there anything after death? It is highly unlikely, there is no reason to believe there is.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:29:15.6561975-06:00
@Dudestop, because that's a subjective illusion. We as human beings don't exist to eat cake. Cake does not explain the reason for our existence.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:35:17.5068387-06:00
@MIkal Right, but the problem is it does matter. On atheism there is no ultimate reason for me to live. It is just like Jean Paul Sarte said "Whether it's a few hours or a few years, makes no difference once you have lost eternity.” ~Jean Paul Sartre." I mean if God does not exist, then we shouldn't even question our purpose in life.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:37:40.7074912-06:00
Everyone knows we live to die, that is irrelevant when you are discussing individual purpose unless you make that your purpose. Anyone can have any purpose they want, each has their own.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:39:56.4430912-06:00
Why can't their be an objective ultimate purpose?
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:41:11.6471629-06:00
Because there is no need for one. Why force everyone to have a universal purpose?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:42:57.2658637-06:00
Well, it is not necessarily force. It is something that all human beings wonder about.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:44:50.1879853-06:00
It is forcing if the objective purpose is to glorify someone. If you say our essential purpose is to bring glory to God, those that go against that purpose suffer. Then no one would have their own purpose. Again though, there is no need to even assume there is universal purpose involving a deity.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:47:27.3410685-06:00
Well, I would say that the ultimate purpose is not to serve God, but to be in a relationship with him. But, we broke that relationship with our sin. Christ is the one who restored it through his death and resurrection. So when we believe in him we will have eternal life.
Romanii says2013-11-27T19:49:32.2014736-06:00
Oh my God, I'm getting a notification every five seconds.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T19:50:19.3354912-06:00
@Romanii Sorry
Romanii says2013-11-27T19:51:44.7950296-06:00
'Tis fine. It would be nice if we could move this little exchange into a debate.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:51:56.0086912-06:00
I know how it works lol. I am just saying it is not necessary to add that into the reasons why we live. There is no reason to believe it is truth. As I said take occams razor. When people thought they earth was flat, that was an objective truth in a way. It was objective to everyone but not objectively true universally. When evidence was released to show the earth was round, it changed and the earth being round is now an objective truth among everyone. The same is true or would be true about God except it worked backwards. Pagans had no idea how or why we existed so they assumed Gods or God made the earth, now that we know there is no need for God that needs to become an objective fact. There is no need to add a God variable because everything can be explained.
Mikal says2013-11-27T19:51:59.8026144-06:00
I know how it works lol. I am just saying it is not necessary to add that into the reasons why we live. There is no reason to believe it is truth. As I said take occams razor. When people thought they earth was flat, that was an objective truth in a way. It was objective to everyone but not objectively true universally. When evidence was released to show the earth was round, it changed and the earth being round is now an objective truth among everyone. The same is true or would be true about God except it worked backwards. Pagans had no idea how or why we existed so they assumed Gods or God made the earth, now that we know there is no need for God that needs to become an objective fact. There is no need to add a God variable because everything can be explained.
supershamu says2013-11-27T20:17:09.2628171-06:00
If everything could be explained as fact I might have different beliefs.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T20:27:13.9539882-06:00
But, God proved it through his son Jesus. Well that wasn't really objective if the truth changes. If it is objective then it doesn't change. The Bible says the earth is round "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7. "Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens ..." Isaiah 40: 21-22.
supershamu says2013-11-27T20:48:59.5135365-06:00
Oh yes I should have clarified. I meant through the lens of science. I feel everything is explained through Jesus but I also feel that the day science can tell me for certain how I got here without God will never come.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T20:51:55.9963365-06:00
@supershamu I would agree with that 100%
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T20:56:46.1251365-06:00
@supershamu Science can only tell us the is, not what ought to be. @Romanii, I know its just I don't like doing more than 2 debates at once. It is very stressful.
Romanii says2013-11-27T20:59:03.9199365-06:00
Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes hours can fly by trying to post well-researched, coherent arguments to various debates.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T21:01:20.3382339-06:00
@Romanii Yeah, and on top of that you might end up(not always) losing one of your debates because you have to hurry up and post before the time limit.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T23:38:29.0369819-06:00
Occam's razor is good, but it is does not the best way to explain a worldview. We can test things in science that look simple are really more complex than they really are(for example evolutionary theory). Atheism would seem more complex than Theism. An atheist explanation of the Universe really lacks the explanatory power. The power to explain the Origin of the Universe, Morality, Destiny, and Meaning.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T23:39:59.7499159-06:00
*is not the best
janetsanders733 says2013-11-27T23:52:13.5270107-06:00
In conclusion, Occam's razor may be the most simple way to explain something. But, it is not the best way to explain something.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T00:19:35.8170107-06:00
Occam's razor, is one of many tools in a broad spectrum to explain something based on evidence. But, Occam's razor can only explain something in the most simple way. Not, the best way. For example: Imagine I walk out into my front-yard, and I happen to spot one of my trees lying face down on the ground. There happened to be a mild storm the night before. Let's say that I have 2 live options from the pool to choose from. A) A storm knocked it over b) Neighbor crashed into it with his truck. Well the most "simple" explanation is (a). But, what if I happen to walk further along, and notice my neighbor's truck parked in my driveway, with a large dent and some tree limbs in his Fender. Then upon further investigation, I see my neighbor get out of his truck, and walk up to me with a scared look on his face. The best explanation of the evidence would be (b), since I have more variables to deal with in this scenario. The evidence for somthing may seem "simple", but that does not mean it is the "best" explanation. Atheism may seem "simple" on the outside. But, because it is "simple", that does not mean it has the "best" explanatory power, to explain our Universe. For example: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. These are 4 things that every worldview must answer logically and coherrently.
supershamu says2013-11-28T01:59:53.8767191-06:00
That's a very good example Janetsanders and I agree with you there. I think that to try to explain "the is" while limiting the lens through which you are willing to find it is like tying weights around your ankles. I love science and I follow major scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating but I never feel like they are actually searching for truth. It is a constrained enterprise in my opinion that could be a lot more.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T03:09:41.0252396-06:00
@Supershamu Thank you. I would say I am more of a "History-Philosophy" type guy. But, I do like science. I am not against science. My argument is that, I am against the idea that Science and Religion are Incompatible. I think that is a lie told by many secularists, and I'm not saying I have anything against secularists. I think the whole Evolution vs. Creation debate is not so much a "scientific" debate, but a "worldview" debate. It is Atheism vs. Theism For example: This is Bill Nye's Quote on Creationism: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems." What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with "literate voters", or "taxpayers". Or as he mentions "engineers". He is putting the cart before the horse by saying that you must be an atheist in order to be a scientist.
Mikal says2013-11-28T03:21:36.9064262-06:00
I think you are misinterpreting occams razor. Its not the easiest solution but the best working model that is available.
Jingram994 says2013-11-28T03:28:51.9412502-06:00
@janetsanders: I think that's just a basic difference in what various position are *trying* to do. For example, theism is designed to provide answers to those 4 things, and inasmuch as it provides people who believe in it with their own answers, it does. Atheism, in and of itself, does not try to do this, nor does science. Science is only designed to tell us 'how'; to discover and state facts about the natural world. It isn't supposed to have anything to do with '(ontological)origin, meaning, morality or destiny'. Atheism, on the other hand, isn't (ordinarily) a positive position in itself, so it's hard to actually put a positive statement of 'trying to do' with it. It's like trying to make a meaningful value statement about people who *don't* play basketball. Or, saying that *not* being an NBL player is a profession. Or, saying that *not* collecting stamps is a hobby. It kind of just.... Runs into problems when you treat it like that. Personally, I view myself as a secular humanist with regards to actual specific 'worldview'. And at that latest comment by you, I don't think that's really on the same 'level' as the overall 'Theism vs. Atheism' argument; for example, there is such an idea as 'Theistic Evolution' (can't provide a link, else I'll be moderated; just Google it), wherein 'evolution', pretty much as described, is something 'God' did/controlled/started/whatever. The overall argument itself is a lot more philosophical than the example of Creationism. There are also several 'types' of Creationism. For example, young earth creationists believe that the Earth was formed in 7 literal days, 6000 years ago, by the direct Hand of God. That one, at least, is totally disprovable, disproved, and ridiculous. And yeah, Occam's razor isn't actually 'just' the 'easiest' answer, it's the most 'basic' one that makes the most sense with what information is available. The actual definition, from Wikipedia, "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T03:42:54.6584396-06:00
I promise you this is the definition. Occam's razor- the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. I am not disagreeing with you Mikal that Occam's Razor is a 'good' model. I am just saying it is not the only method we use to determine something as logical or reasonable. If we only used the "simplest" model or answer for anyting whether science, religion, history, etc we would run into dead ends. What is simple, is not always true.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T22:40:29.2107775-06:00
@janetsanders733 according to christians, do humans have freewill?
DudeStop says2013-11-28T22:48:17.5717850-06:00
I think they say "god" "gave" you Your free will,
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T22:51:11.5362614-06:00
I would say yes. Mankind is responsible for their moral actions in life. But, because of Adam's sin man is condenmed to eternal death because of our sin. But, the good news is that God loves the world, that he sent his son Jesus Christ who died for our sins and was raised to life by God so that if we believe in him we will have eternal life. Believe in Jesus as your Lord and savior and you will be saved.
Haroush says2013-11-28T23:08:40.9683775-06:00
It's funny they found the supposed G-d particle, but my question is where did that G-d particle come from?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:11:04.1458770-06:00
God that is where it came from. Science has not/nor will it ever disprove God's existence. Atheism is exlcusive to Science. Without Science Atheists can't try to make a justification for their worldview. However, Theism is compatible with Science and Religion. I don't see Atheism compatible with either one.
Haroush says2013-11-28T23:12:40.2255775-06:00
Great answer!
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:14:42.9507775-06:00
Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=egFaJXFTBbw Notice in this youtube video how this "Ex-pastor" avoided the question asked by the reporter.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:18:51.5679775-06:00
@janetsanders733 do you believe god is omniscient?
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:18:55.5303775-06:00
@janetsanders733 do you believe god is omniscient?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:19:59.7175244-06:00
This is why the evolution vs. Creation controversy that has been going around for over 200+ years, is not really a "scientific issue". But, it is a "worldview" issue. Mainly Atheism vs. Theism. In reality science is not in conflict with religion. Both are compatible.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:21:02.5143775-06:00
Yes.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:29:16.3479775-06:00
If God knows all that is and is to come then would that not make free will impossible? When God decides to make a certain person and place him or her in a certain situation, then by virtue of his omniscience he knows every choice that person will make based on the situations that he knows will arise, meaning we have no bearing on our supposed decisions. An extension of this theory can be slated to include predestination. When god creates someone he knows whether they will be sent to hell or heaven, therefor we have no bearing on where we end up in life.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:39:00.5593040-06:00
Well, no that would not make free will "impossible". What your assuming is that God's foreknowledge predetermines our moral actions. That is simply not true. Free will by definition is " the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors." That is not true that we don't have a choice. For example: I just shared the gospel with you in my other message. You make the decision to believe in Jesus or reject Jesus. I am not saying that you can save yourself. Only Christ can save you. But, you have the choice to chose Christ or Reject Christ.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:52:11.8034389-06:00
I disagree. Before you shared the gospel with me, God knew wether or not i would accept it when you did get to sharing it. If God Knows beforehand with absolute certainty what my choice will be, i have no option, just the illusion of an option. Say god knew i would choose to reject the gospel. According to you when my choice came i could reject or accept. If i accept than i have free will but God can not be considered omniscient. If you believe god to be omniscient then that choice really isn't a choice.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:52:12.1275775-06:00
I disagree. Before you shared the gospel with me, God knew wether or not i would accept it when you did get to sharing it. If God Knows beforehand with absolute certainty what my choice will be, i have no option, just the illusion of an option. Say god knew i would choose to reject the gospel. According to you when my choice came i could reject or accept. If i accept than i have free will but God can not be considered omniscient. If you believe god to be omniscient then that choice really isn't a choice.
Kashmead says2013-11-28T23:52:42.3323860-06:00
Sorry about these double posts.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-28T23:54:40.4095240-06:00
How does God's foreknowledge affect our Free Will or his omniscience?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T00:06:06.4365607-06:00
Im assuming Foreknowledge and omniscience are the same thing because i am too lazy to look it up, my definition being total knowledge of everything. For free will to exist there must be, at a minimum, two options. If my options are A and B and they were both equally attractive options than i would have a fifty percent chance of choosing them. If God knows that i will choose A before i choose, and he is 100 percent certain that i will make this decision, than me choosing B would prove that God is not omniscient because he was wrong about my choice. If god were omniscient, than i would have a 100% chance of choosing A and therefore only 1 option, making freewill nonexistent.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T00:12:16.1510583-06:00
Okay upon looking Foreknowledge would be total knowledge of the future while Omniscience is total knowledge of everything. Foreknowledge would therefore be a requirement of omniscience and disproving either would obviously disprove omniscience.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T00:30:15.9914054-06:00
Don't worry about the "double" posts. Let me see if I can answer this question. I think the problem is that, you are assuming that God's Omniscience overrides our Free will. I think your analogy is way off. God knows whether or not you will choose A or B with 100% certainty. If you choose B for example then that would not disprove his omniscience since he knows you will choose choice B. This does not however override his Omniscientence or our free will. God's knowledge of your choosing A or B does not affect your Free will of A or B. Nor, does your freewill override God's knowledge of you choosing A and B. I would say both are compatible. I would say compatiblism is true.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T00:49:56.2639824-06:00
To be Omniscient He has to know before you decide. Foreknowledge does not determine our actions, but for god to have foreknowledge our actions would have to be predetermined. God cannot know something with 100 percent certainty if there is not 100 percent certainty it will happen. In my previous analogy me choosing A (what God knows i will choose) would not disprove either theory, but choosing B (what God does not think i will choose) would. For both of these theories to be true, every option would have to be compatible with both theories. If i choose A with my free will God was correct in knowing i would choose that. If i Choose B with my freewill, Than God was wrong and therefore is not Omniscient. This is true by the definition of the two words, so to be a Christian or any other religion that believes in an Omniscient God than by definition you do not believe in free will
Kashmead says2013-11-29T00:49:59.4771775-06:00
To be Omniscient He has to know before you decide. Foreknowledge does not determine our actions, but for god to have foreknowledge our actions would have to be predetermined. God cannot know something with 100 percent certainty if there is not 100 percent certainty it will happen. In my previous analogy me choosing A (what God knows i will choose) would not disprove either theory, but choosing B (what God does not think i will choose) would. For both of these theories to be true, every option would have to be compatible with both theories. If i choose A with my free will God was correct in knowing i would choose that. If i Choose B with my freewill, Than God was wrong and therefore is not Omniscient. This is true by the definition of the two words, so to be a Christian or any other religion that believes in an Omniscient God than by definition you do not believe in free will
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T01:02:29.7863837-06:00
The Judeo- Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option. Let me give you an example. I have a 16 year old sister. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my sister was to walk by and see it, I know that she would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force her to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my sister well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. Her act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be. Because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:17:57.2781173-06:00
Not true. Unless there is a 100 percent chance she would take the cookie, you cannot KNOW she would take it. If there is a 100% chance she would take the cookie than she has no choice other than take the cookie. There may be a high probability she takes it but therein lies the difference between likelihood and certainty. Omniscience requires certainty.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:18:00.2991775-06:00
Not true. Unless there is a 100 percent chance she would take the cookie, you cannot KNOW she would take it. If there is a 100% chance she would take the cookie than she has no choice other than take the cookie. There may be a high probability she takes it but therein lies the difference between likelihood and certainty. Omniscience requires certainty.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T01:22:49.7103775-06:00
The responsiblity is up to here to choose. But, If I have Omniscience then I have 100% certainty because I can know what her choice is. God's omniscence does not depend upon our free will.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:41:39.7765594-06:00
If she chooses not to take the cookie you were wrong. Therefore you 100% certainty was never existent
supershamu says2013-11-29T01:42:19.7452629-06:00
Could not agree more with Janetsanders. Omniscience does not require certainty, it creates it! God places us on earth fully knowing every mistake and choice we will make in life but he allows us to make them. The choices we make are ours not his. God is certain we will make the choices we do because he has already seen them.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T01:50:38.0807176-06:00
@Kashmead No, Again God's omnisence is not contigent or dependent on our freewill. It doesn't matter if you choose A or B. God still knows the outcome since he is all knowing. I wouldn't be wrong because I am certain since I would have Omniscience. If I had Omniscience then the outcome doesn't really matter since my Omniscience does not depend on her outcome. @supershamu Thank you! Omniscience and Free will are not the same. But, they are not incompatible with each other. God's omniscience did not depend upon Adam or Eve's choice. Free Will- "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
supershamu says2013-11-29T01:53:02.6487775-06:00
Absolutely! A way I can think of it is an example of someone re-watching their favorite movie. Having already seen the movie you know the girl will take the cookie without "you" having even a slight influence on the girl's decision. You know what is going to happen and allow it to play out in front of you. The difference is that if God wanted to he "could" reach through the TV screen and change the girl's choice, he just doesn't because he allows us to make these decisions for ourselves
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:54:09.2137904-06:00
If God knows the choices we will make when he creates us we are not choosing these things. By definition of these two theories they cannot be true. Im not arguing an opinion i'm arguing a fact. If God knows every choice you're going to make when he creates you, then by creating you he has destined these actions to happen. Unless god is not all knowing you cannot choose anything other than what god knows you will do.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:54:11.6475775-06:00
If God knows the choices we will make when he creates us we are not choosing these things. By definition of these two theories they cannot be true. Im not arguing an opinion i'm arguing a fact. If God knows every choice you're going to make when he creates you, then by creating you he has destined these actions to happen. Unless god is not all knowing you cannot choose anything other than what god knows you will do.
supershamu says2013-11-29T01:56:45.4011775-06:00
I would strongly disagree. That would be like saying precognition actually dictates the future when it is simply seeing it. God invites us down the path of what is good and right but does not make us follow it. This is quite evident all around us
Kashmead says2013-11-29T01:57:37.3491775-06:00
By definition omniscience requires certainty. "total knowledge of everything" requires you to be certain of everything. That is literally what it means.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:05:51.9627775-06:00
Seeing the future is not the same as KNOWING the future. If God the all powerful being is CERTAIN something will happen than it will happen. If there is even the slightest chance that it does not happen than god can no longer be considered omniscient. If he invites us down the path and knows person A will follow it than person A cannot choose not to follow it because it has been predetermined. If person A does not follow it than god is not omniscient.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:12:15.1373573-06:00
@Kashmead You just admitted that to have certainty one would have to be Omniscient. God is omniscient; therfore, he is certain. God's omniscience does not dictate Free Will. And, Free will doesn't dictate God's omniscience. Therfore, as I said earlier God's omniscience is compatible with our free will? Are you an atheist?
supershamu says2013-11-29T02:16:10.3577375-06:00
I completely agree with the definition of omniscience but I just don't see how that makes free will and omniscience incompatible. If the future is known then there is no chance of an event not happening. This creates certainty of how the event will play out as it is seen. Look at the definition of knowledge. By all definitions it is "acquaintance" or "familiarity" with something rather than the influence of. Omniscience is "infinite knowledge" and says nothing about influence.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:20:17.8652065-06:00
@supershamu I agree.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:22:30.4563775-06:00
@supershamu you basically just agreed with me. I have never said anything about influence. "if the future is known then there is no chance of the event not happening. This creates certainty" if the Known future is me choosing A than i do not have the freedom to choose B. I believe this answers your question as we @janetsanders. And no im not an athiest i just dont believe in an Omniscient God
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:22:31.0536927-06:00
@supershamu you basically just agreed with me. I have never said anything about influence. "if the future is known then there is no chance of the event not happening. This creates certainty" if the Known future is me choosing A than i do not have the freedom to choose B. I believe this answers your question as we @janetsanders. And no im not an athiest i just dont believe in an Omniscient God
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:24:00.5151775-06:00
@supershamu are you christian?
supershamu says2013-11-29T02:31:01.0238259-06:00
You don't have the freedom to choose B because "you" chose A. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The future in your example is you choosing A because "you" chose A. If you choose B then true Omniscience will foresee B. And yes JanetSanders I am a Christian
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:33:14.8981962-06:00
@supershamu Ooops sorry I meant. But, that is a good explanation. Kashmead seems to think that God's omniscience is dependent on our Free will. That is not true. @Kashmead Are you a christian?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:44:17.5680391-06:00
I chose a because i was predetermined to choose A. When choosing to create a person and in what situation to create them in, god can foresee every decision that person will make and thus the outcome of their life. Therefore by creating a person in a certain situation god has determined what the outcome of that persons life will be. When you are born there is no chance of any of the decisions God determined you to make not being made, therefore you do not have the free will to decide anything contrary to what god has foreseen to happen and thus no free will.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:46:15.3767119-06:00
Im not a christian no. And also this is a large debate, it even spawned the religion of calvinism. If you just search "omniscience free will" or "omniscience predestination" you will be able to see what i mean if i am not being clear enough.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:47:22.9741465-06:00
@Kashmead Are you a theist?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:49:37.6033750-06:00
I just don't believe in an omniscient god.
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:49:39.1827475-06:00
I just don't believe in an omniscient god.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:50:37.7427078-06:00
@kashmead Calvinism is not a religion. Calvinism is a doctorine. It is more of Reformed Theology. It is more in tune with Baptist, Independent Baptist, etc.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:51:37.1425909-06:00
@Kashmead So you don't believe Jesus is God, nor do you believe that he was resurrected by God?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T02:52:42.2748277-06:00
Nope. But thats another can of worms i dont want to open or ill be up all night arguing.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T02:53:50.4978451-06:00
Well let me ask you one question. Why don't you believe in the resurrection? How about we argue this tomorrow?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T03:01:16.3638742-06:00
There is no reason for me to believe in the resurrection because i am not a christian. I don't know why i told you i believed in something before but honestly im an atheist. Because i dont believe in god there is no reason for me to believe in the bible which is the only direct evidence of the resurrection.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T03:02:33.1297102-06:00
Are you open to evidence?
Kashmead says2013-11-29T03:05:18.0235701-06:00
It wont convince me but ill surely listen.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T03:10:37.8174021-06:00
I would like to tell you that the resurrection of Jesus is the best attested fact in history. There are essentially 4 main facts that confirm Jesus's resurrection. FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: . . . That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb story is also part of the old passion source used by Mark. The passion source used by Mark did not end in death and defeat, but with the empty tomb story, which is grammatically of one piece with the burial story. FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons: 1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James. Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal. 2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!
Jingram994 says2013-11-29T05:45:35.4959708-06:00
@janetsanders: I'm just posting here to state that I agree with Kashmead; genuine Omniscience and genuine free will are mutually exclusive. Free will necessitates that I have a genuine choice, chance/opportunity and ability to freely choose A, B, C, or Other. Omniscience states that I WILL 'choose' B; this is foreknown certainty. As it is foreknown with certainty that I will 'choose' B, there is a 100% chance of me 'choosing' B, and a 0% chance of me 'choosing' anything else. As I then have no actual ability to 'choose' other than B, I do not have free will. If I did have ability to choose other than B, this 'certainty' of my 'free choice' would simply be nonexistent, and thus Omniscience would not exist. A quick question, if I may; does the 'certain knowledge' of my 'free choice' ever change as circumstances continue, such that, at 'point in time A', say 4 years ago, it is a 'certainty' that I will choose A, and at 'point in time B', 6 months from now, it is a 'certainty' that I will choose B? Assuming the same situation, that has not yet come to pass at either point, in both cases. Or is it, always and forever, an absolute 'certainty' that I will 'choose' A, no matter what? If that is the case, how can I be said to have the ability to 'choose' B if it is never the case that I can choose it? "God that is where it came from. Science has not/nor will it ever disprove God's existence. Atheism is exlcusive to Science. Without Science Atheists can't try to make a justification for their worldview. However, Theism is compatible with Science and Religion. I don't see Atheism compatible with either one." That's not really the case. While I agree that Theism and science are not mutually incompatible, you're making a false relation there with your statement that atheism conflates in any real way with science. You do not necessarily need to be 'scientific', or logical or reasonable, or even intelligent, to be atheist. Someone can be an absolute dolt, with no understanding whatsoever of how the world works, and still be an atheist. Belief in a deity is compatible with science, but science isn't necessary for lack of said belief. Atheism is just a broad statement, not a 'worldview' unto itself. It's the same with theism. Theism is not a complete 'worldview' unto itself; Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Neopaganism are. Atheism rejects worldviews that require, necessitate or include theistic concepts; it does not necessarily substitute anything in place of this. Hence, I am an atheist, and a secular humanist. Atheism is my religious stance, secular humanism my overall 'worldview'. And sorry that I haven't had time to actually reply to your earlier post; the 'extraordinary evidence' one. That really is a huge block of text, and I haven't had a lot of time to really go over it.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T11:47:52.1745533-06:00
@jingram994 But, the problem with that is your still assuming that God's Omniscience influences your decision in your free will. I am saying (if you look at my cookie example), that God can't influence or tempt us to let's say choose sin. God was testing Adam and Eve, and he warned them. With Free Will comes a Responsiblity. It is not God's fault because Adam and Eve chose to sin. My proposition is that Omniscience and Free will are compatible. Second, on your response to my claim that "Atheism is exlcusive to Science". I wasn't saying you have to be smart to be an atheist. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that Atheism is exclusive to Science. Or in other words Atheists can only believe in Science to make Atheism seem more justifiable. As a Christian-Theist, I can be open to Theistic Evolution, Old/Young-Creationism without it affecting the Bible, or Christ's Resurrection. As I said before Genesis 1 is poetic, with some literal parts to it. Atheism is not necessarily just the proposition against theism. You are proposing an alternative to Theism that says God does not exist. As a worldview there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the worldview that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). That is okay, take your time in reading my other answers.
supershamu says2013-11-29T15:58:52.3169014-06:00
Yes and to assume that omniscience destroys possibilities of free will is an assumption. Nowhere in any definition of omniscience does it have anything to do with dictating events. It is only knowledge of how they will play out. The opposing examples that have been used still even show that "you" the person are the ones making the choices, not god. I still stick by my precognition does not dictate the future statement
Kashmead says2013-11-29T19:43:55.9729169-06:00
Being omniscient and being the creator of everything at the same time would mean that god decides what you choose to do by creating you in a certain situation. God knows, by virtue of being omniscient, that creating a man in situation x will lead to outcome Y, therefore by creating a person in position x there is nothing a person can do that would cause him to stray from outcome Y. Any decision that this man makes may seem like his decision, but since god knew by creating hm in that way he would make that decision go effectively made the decision for you BY creating you in this way.
DudeStop says2013-11-29T20:35:55.3503556-06:00
" God can't influence or tempt us" Tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't god tempt Abraham? Here's the quote: "22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." http://www.Biblegateway.Com/passage/?Search=Genesis+22%3A1&version=KJV
DudeStop says2013-11-29T20:36:43.2570343-06:00
"***God did tempt ***"
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T20:50:03.8173169-06:00
Hello Dudestop, no I would say your wrong. The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. I would not recommend the KJV. Here is what it actually says" Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. Tested, not tempt.
yay842 says2013-11-29T20:52:53.0598094-06:00
This war has been raging for 13 days now. -.- and the scroll page is so tiny that it took 140 page down buttons to get to the bottom
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T20:53:59.4381494-06:00
@yah842, Sorry.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-11-29T22:01:56.5048905-06:00
It's not a war.
DudeStop says2013-11-29T22:10:17.5768129-06:00
It is pretty long... When's the debate?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T22:17:06.8193427-06:00
@Dudestop: Who? Do you mean between me and @Jingram994
DudeStop says2013-11-29T22:49:42.6161305-06:00
Sure
janetsanders733 says2013-11-29T22:56:43.6069169-06:00
Not sure when
Jingram994 says2013-11-30T02:50:59.6861200-06:00
@janetsanders: You know, I actually had a very large post responding to your latest post @me, regarding the compatibility of free will and Omniscience, and the nature of atheism in relation to theism, but I accidentally closed the tab without saving or posting it, so I lost about an hour's worth of typing and thought. :( I'll try to redo it as close to word-for-word as possible from memory, but... Well, it just won't be the same.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-30T09:11:14.3146790-06:00
@Jingram994 That is okay, only if you want to you can.
chengste says2013-11-30T17:25:14.5175078-06:00
The rub here is the God is outside of time and we cannot understand what that means or how that plays into this
DudeStop says2013-11-30T17:58:41.2942007-06:00
Right god is timeless. And omnipresent.
Kashmead says2013-11-30T20:34:47.7167693-06:00
@chengste @dudestop well that just takes all the fun out of the debate doesnt it? ;) i know there is a counter to that but i havent researched it. This whole thing is a very interesting topic that im currently wtiting a paper on and im suggesting you all look at both sides. Fun little thing to talk about
Kashmead says2013-11-30T20:34:49.3093108-06:00
@chengste @dudestop well that just takes all the fun out of the debate doesnt it? ;) i know there is a counter to that but i havent researched it. This whole thing is a very interesting topic that im currently wtiting a paper on and im suggesting you all look at both sides. Fun little thing to talk about
DudeStop says2013-11-30T21:07:35.4085108-06:00
I've looked at both sides. I used to argue intelligent design, but man I got DESTROYED! I now kinda look back and laugh at what a stupid argument it was. Go flying spaghetti monster.
Kashmead says2013-11-30T21:13:57.8269108-06:00
Its funny. If the person arguing for any facet of atheism is at least a decent debater they will always win. There is no logical, debatable upside to faith, but i guess that why the argument of religion is so hard.I guess we will all find out who is correct one day.
Kashmead says2013-11-30T21:14:00.4477108-06:00
Its funny. If the person arguing for any facet of atheism is at least a decent debater they will always win. There is no logical, debatable upside to faith, but i guess that why the argument of religion is so hard.I guess we will all find out who is correct one day.
Haroush says2013-11-30T21:25:24.8391297-06:00
And I used to be an Atheist and now I see how stupid I was for thinking there was no such thing as good and evil.
janetsanders733 says2013-11-30T21:28:24.7816692-06:00
@Kashmead How do you know God does not exist?
janetsanders733 says2013-11-30T21:34:24.8933625-06:00
@Dudestop I look at atheism and agnosticism, and they are not based on "truth". They are simply default positions. "Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on." "David Berlinski" Secular Jew(Agnostic)
Kashmead says2013-11-30T21:47:46.3261108-06:00
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus not that this disprove the existence of A creator, but since most religions follow an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being i would say that this is why i disagree. I also think religion was created to control masses of people. If you look at the corruption in many world churches this is severely evident. What god would allow this in his holy house? Especially when that same god killed 42 children for mocking a bald guy. Kings 2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Kashmead says2013-11-30T21:47:48.9313108-06:00
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus not that this disprove the existence of A creator, but since most religions follow an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being i would say that this is why i disagree. I also think religion was created to control masses of people. If you look at the corruption in many world churches this is severely evident. What god would allow this in his holy house? Especially when that same god killed 42 children for mocking a bald guy. Kings 2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
DudeStop says2013-12-01T00:33:46.3801108-06:00
There is absolutely no reason to assume a God made this universe. The universe needed a cause, yes but why assume a god did this? I don't even get the logic. 1. Everything must have a cause and effect. 2. The universe is an effect. 3. Therefor, the cause is a creator, otherwise known as a god! Now this is what I don't get: Why god? Sure something had to have happened, but why assume a pure, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, something that knows your thoughts before you do; made this? Why? Remember, religion was created when humanity had no clue on what was going on. At all. Heck, we used to think their was a person inside of the clouds that made it rain, or thunder whatever... The point is, when ancient man couldn't explain something they instead of saying "We don't know..." Assumed that a sky wizard did this. Yet when we could explain these things, they got rid of the god. God did not creat man. Man created god. How could the universe come to be? Many theories, no one knows for sure. Why not simultaneous causation? The atoms A B and C, all having casual explanation, causes each other simultaneously. Why assume god over this? It's like rather than saying: We don't' know what the end to the number pi is, some guy claims it's 50. Why would it be 50, you ask him. I don't know, but you don't know either. You cannot disprove it, therefor the fend of "pi" is 50. Even though it is a two digit number, and there is no reason to assume this one. It is as string, if not stronger than the case for god. Well, one of the common arguments was intelligent design. How is the universe this exact? Well there are a couple responses I have to this one. First one is why not assume we live in a multiverse,(Multiple/Universes...) So that every possibility was out into play? Could be true. More believable than a sky wizard most definitely. Let's see just how "Intelligently designed" this is though: Over 70% of our Earth's surface is covered by water. 97.5 percent of that is actually un drinkable by us humans. This leaves 2.5% of actual drinkable water for us humans. It also leaves us within out 30 percent of earth. 30% of the earth is dessert(Like actual ground surface.). Leaves us with just 20 percent of the earth to be livable, and 2 percent of drinkable water. 22.5% of the earth is actually useful. What kind of creator would do that? And what about the number of plants and animals that do nothing to help us survive? In fact, some of them make it harder. Poison ivy for example. ??? What purpose does this serve? We touch it, it gets the itchy oils all over us, causing us humans to itch it, causing it to get even worse. And then god laughed, and laughed, and laughed some more. Then we have the bloody "poisonous berries," Which was supposed food until adjoin or whatever tried one... Why make poison food if the goal was to keep the man alive. In fact, why allow man to die? If you're looking at it from a biblically perspective, you might say: Adam and Eve blah blah blah... And hey: I'll give you that one then. But why would god make these useless human Body parts? Before I start this segment, remember humans cannot be dropped more than about 19 feet... And god makes these mountains... And high trees... And cliffs... Then he laughed, and laughed, and laughed some more. I researched this, and found a total of 20 useless body parts, although I know there are more. God would have no need or desire to have created these parts of the body. It even ***supports evolution*** Basically, you want you're god to take personal responsibility for the huge number of collapsing stars and imploding galaxies and destroyed universes and failed solar systems that have left us in this tiny corner, on the one planet on this petty solar system that can support life on some of its surface for some of the time. You want a creator who filled this earth with species, 99% of which are now extinct already. "But look at the way a banana fits the human hand!" LOL
DudeStop says2013-12-01T00:35:16.7353108-06:00
Comment submitted for moderation guy to see it. I swear... If it does not go through...
DudeStop says2013-12-01T00:35:38.0322681-06:00
Comment submitted for moderation guy to see it. I swear... If it does not go through...
yay842 says2013-12-01T00:38:34.2835362-06:00
JUST SCREW YOU ALL PLEASE! Ya'll be fighting over a PIECE OF SH*T dat dont matter. Its gone... Its ALL GONE MUTHAFAUGGERS!! JUS STOP CHO B*TCHIN n' GETTA LIFEE!
Ragnar says2013-12-01T00:40:07.8157108-06:00
Very subjective question.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T00:43:55.8108434-06:00
How did mine get submitted for the bloody moderation!
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T00:44:07.3381108-06:00
@Ragnar How? It is either true or false.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T00:49:25.2817108-06:00
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus not that this disprove the existence of A creator, but since most religions follow an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being i would say that this is why i disagree. I also think religion was created to control masses of people. If you look at the corruption in many world churches this is severely evident. What god would allow this in his holy house? Especially when that same god killed 42 children for mocking a bald guy. Kings 2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." Epicurus argument fails. There is a difference between an Intellectual of suffering and an emotional of suffering. Are you claiming that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world? First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to children, but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.” Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God. Third, the mocking of “go on up, you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elisha not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation. In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, it is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men. Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7) so despised the prophet of the Lord, Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit. The Lord’s punishment was the mauling of 42 of them by two female bears. The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.
yay842 says2013-12-01T00:58:23.0449108-06:00
DO DA MASSES EVEN GIV A FQING SH*T BOUT WUDDYA F*K DIS B GOIN' DOWN NIGGS? How e long must dis be
Kashmead says2013-12-01T11:41:01.8974295-06:00
@yay842 you joined a discussion about the existence of God you should know you are in it for the long haul. @janetsanders i think the quote explains exactly what im saying. If god has the ability to stop suffering and evil and does not than he is benevolent. Especially when much of that suffering is to people who have done nothing morally wrong and are simply born into poverty. Natural disaster are another thing. If all evil comes from sin than does your explanation for natural disasters have to so with sin? Because that is ludicrous. Also all your doing in the case of the young men is trying to make the fact that your God murdered 42 "youths" justifiable. If i make fun of my brother is it okay for my brother to murder me and forty two of my friends? Not only this but send us to hell? Because i do not believe god allowed these people into his kingdom after mauling them. Another thing, i can say much worse about the lord and say it directly to him. Where is my punishment? Am i any less deserving of punishment because i didnt scorn him through a bald man?
Kashmead says2013-12-01T11:41:04.9027676-06:00
@yay842 you joined a discussion about the existence of God you should know you are in it for the long haul. @janetsanders i think the quote explains exactly what im saying. If god has the ability to stop suffering and evil and does not than he is benevolent. Especially when much of that suffering is to people who have done nothing morally wrong and are simply born into poverty. Natural disaster are another thing. If all evil comes from sin than does your explanation for natural disasters have to so with sin? Because that is ludicrous. Also all your doing in the case of the young men is trying to make the fact that your God murdered 42 "youths" justifiable. If i make fun of my brother is it okay for my brother to murder me and forty two of my friends? Not only this but send us to hell? Because i do not believe god allowed these people into his kingdom after mauling them. Another thing, i can say much worse about the lord and say it directly to him. Where is my punishment? Am i any less deserving of punishment because i didnt scorn him through a bald man?
yay842 says2013-12-01T14:38:38.5870657-06:00
This is the longest (insert words here) I have ever seen
DudeStop says2013-12-01T17:30:59.6065503-06:00
Ok it's been a day, so I'm assuming my comment just died... It won't be the same...
DudeStop says2013-12-01T17:47:13.9534657-06:00
Ok it's been a day, so I'm assuming my comment just died... It won't be the same...
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T19:07:31.5131300-06:00
@Kashmead No it is not like mocking your little brother, not even close. They are stating they want Elisha gone; and since Elijah had gone on to the “next world,” the implication is they wanted Elisha dead. Also, the epithet ‘baldhead’ was one of “contempt in the East, applied to a person even with a bushy head of hair.” Lepers had to shave their heads, so such a statement could easily have been a deliberate and malicious insult, something dangerous in a mob that can quickly get out of hand. Given the challenge of the young men, their intimidating number(42) which could constitute a mob, their veiled threat, the contemptuous attitude, and the fact that Elisha was the prophet of God, the Lord allowed the young men to be destroyed. In other words God was protecting the value of another human life (Elisha) from being attacked by 42 young men who wanted to hurt him or kill him. Response to your other objection about Epicurus, Are you presupposing some hidden assumption that would bring out the contradiction between God and the evil in suffering in the world. Because, these two assumptions are not contradictory. How do you know that God might not have a good reason to allow evil and suffering in the world? No atheists have ever showed how these two are logically contradictory. You must show how it is logically impossible for God to have good reasons to allow evil and suffering in the world.
Kashmead says2013-12-01T22:26:55.4568930-06:00
Why would he have reason to allow suffering? Any goal that could be achieved through suffering could easily be achieved without it because God is omnipotent. The contradiction is not between god and evil, but between an all powerful god and evil. If he has the ability to stop suffering and decides against it when other means could be used to achieve these goals he is malevolent. So you're saying that the Omnipotent God responded to the threat by killing them? If he is omnipotent why kill them? He can literally do anything else but no, your'e having to justify the murder of 42 young people who most consider to be children and not an angry mob as you said, by trying to make them sound like a vicious group deserving of death.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T22:39:01.0690657-06:00
I am not justifying "murder". It was not murder. It was not even close to murder. God was protecting Elisha from being attacked by 42 young men who were threatneing him. They are a vicious group. Did you read the context? The 42 men were about to attack elisha. It is 42 mean, threating men against 1 prophet. What do you think is going to happen if God did not intervene? They would have killed Elisha. God in self-defense was protecting Elisha. Your trying to justify those men as "innocent" like all atheists do. They always try to make the people in the bible that God judges as "innocent". Yet, they never actually read the context or the passage. They just go by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Are you assuming there's a such a thing as evil correct?
DudeStop says2013-12-01T22:44:39.1366657-06:00
I'm just gonna say god is a guy, if that's okay. No offense, I'm just doing it because do realized I said he instead of god, and it's a pain to edit it out. Literally, it means nothing. Thanks: Yet god does not always intervene. If a guy is about to kill someone, and god thinks that is good enough of a reason to kill the man, then why do we still have murder today? It conflicts with the free will of the murderers to kill them off.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T22:44:45.1582657-06:00
I'm just gonna say god is a guy, if that's okay. No offense, I'm just doing it because do realized I said he instead of god, and it's a pain to edit it out. Literally, it means nothing. Thanks: Yet god does not always intervene. If a guy is about to kill someone, and god thinks that is good enough of a reason to kill the man, then why do we still have murder today? It conflicts with the free will of the murderers to kill them off.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T22:44:50.5558657-06:00
I'm just gonna say god is a guy, if that's okay. No offense, I'm just doing it because do realized I said he instead of god, and it's a pain to edit it out. Literally, it means nothing. Thanks: Yet god does not always intervene. If a guy is about to kill someone, and god thinks that is good enough of a reason to kill the man, then why do we still have murder today? It conflicts with the free will of the murderers to kill them off.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T22:44:53.4418657-06:00
I'm just gonna say god is a guy, if that's okay. No offense, I'm just doing it because do realized I said he instead of god, and it's a pain to edit it out. Literally, it means nothing. Thanks: Yet god does not always intervene. If a guy is about to kill someone, and god thinks that is good enough of a reason to kill the man, then why do we still have murder today? It conflicts with the free will of the murderers to kill them off.
Kashmead says2013-12-01T22:57:09.0941808-06:00
You don't have to murder 42 men to stop them from killing elisha which i doubt they would have done anyway.
Kashmead says2013-12-01T22:58:05.4382657-06:00
Oh an FYI i found your whole post you copied and pasted from the internet by googling "justification for 2 kings 2:23"
Kashmead says2013-12-01T22:58:07.1121831-06:00
Oh an FYI i found your whole post you copied and pasted from the internet by googling "justification for 2 kings 2:23"
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:07:02.4078050-06:00
Murder by definition is "unlawful killing". God did not murder, he was protecting another human life. Which is Elisha. That is called self-defense. If 42 men tryed to attack your brother, and made threates at them would you protect him by any means? Really? So if 42 men threatened you and started making remarks at you. You are telling me that they wouldn't try and hurt you?
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:07:44.5673812-06:00
Oh. Is that what he does? It takes a lot of time to write up these arguments, one of mine was destroyed yet I'm trying to rebuild half an hour's worth of thought. So anyways: When an atheist says: Why are people being raped in India? And a Christian says: Because that would be inflicting the rapist's free will. Then that basically conflicts with the arguments about why god killed the 42 men. Either way, there is a contradiction, is their not? Is their a different reason god doesn't smite down all crime/Evil doers? Or better yet, teach them that what they're ding is wrong! More moral than killing them right? I don't agree with you, so I write this post! I would **never** consider killing someone. Thank s you
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:09:59.7994489-06:00
What does that have to do with God protecting Elisha from being murdered? So when Soldiers kill terroists, that is murder? Killing is lawful in self-defense.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:14:28.7904449-06:00
Okay, picture this: A woman is walking down the street. Her son is killed, and she has gotten raped. This has happened before, so it is therefor it is valid. Why does god not stop them?
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:14:31.8133632-06:00
Okay, picture this: A woman is walking down the street. Her son is killed, and she has gotten raped. This has happened before, so it is therefor it is valid. Why does god not stop them?
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:22:35.9046454-06:00
Then ask yourself the next question: Why can't that be applied to the 42 guys?
Kashmead says2013-12-01T23:39:22.4477816-06:00
God murdered them because he could have stopped them in any way shape or form. He's god remember? Instead of making elisha invulnerable, moving them somewhere else, making them nice, he killed them with bears. Also you argued that these were basically men, but how on earth would two bears kill 42 men? Especially when you said the were part of a larger group. Children is what they were if this even happened.
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:42:47.8529816-06:00
To *
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:42:52.0958713-06:00
I'm an atheist. Wasn't sure who you were responding it just now...
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:42:54.0929816-06:00
To *
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:43:26.6033816-06:00
Okay that is just faulty logic. Using a straw man here. What is your point? You keep justifiying these 42 men as "innocent" when the text says otherwise. That is called dishonesty. God did not murder them understand. Murder is unlawful killing. God was protecting Elisha from 42 young men who were going to murder Elisha. That is called self-defense "the defense of one's person or interests, esp. Through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime." You just assumed they were children, without any evidence. That is ad hominem against God.
Kashmead says2013-12-01T23:43:32.7653816-06:00
It was to janetsanders haha
Kashmead says2013-12-01T23:43:37.8353816-06:00
It was to janetsanders haha
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:48:36.0137816-06:00
@Janetsander733, there are reasons god shouldn't have done that though.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:52:30.9510436-06:00
Name one
DudeStop says2013-12-01T23:53:20.4874332-06:00
@ Janetsanders please listen to me: Okay, picture this: A woman is walking down the street. Her son is killed, and she has gotten raped. This has happened before, so it is therefor it is valid. Why does god not stop them? Then all I have to do is apply that reason to the 42 men. Bam.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:55:46.3827066-06:00
What does that have to do with 42 men getting ready to assault Elisha?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-01T23:58:33.7433816-06:00
So what your saying is that God does not have the right to punish evil? But God is Good. See ya'll are justifying their actions. These 42 men were not some boy scouts. God didn't want them to get harmed. He wants all men to repent and believe in him. Sadly, men bring justice upon themselves. They suffered the consequences of their actions.
Kashmead says2013-12-02T00:00:09.7301816-06:00
God should not have killed the youths because it was easily avoidable. He did not have to kill them to stop elisha from being murdered. If someone threatens you it is against the law to just kill them. Your definition of self defense even says "as an answer to the charge of violent crime"
Kashmead says2013-12-02T00:00:14.2229816-06:00
God should not have killed the youths because it was easily avoidable. He did not have to kill them to stop elisha from being murdered. If someone threatens you it is against the law to just kill them. Your definition of self defense even says "as an answer to the charge of violent crime"
Kashmead says2013-12-02T00:01:18.6821816-06:00
He was not justified in KILLING them for THREATENING the man. The punishment does not fit the crime.
Kashmead says2013-12-02T00:01:22.9409816-06:00
He was not justified in KILLING them for THREATENING the man. The punishment does not fit the crime.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T00:04:32.8160258-06:00
It was much more than a threat. They were about to hurt him, and harm him. Imagine 42 gangstars came up to your brother and they were taunting, mocking, threating to hurt him. And, then they all crowded around you. Are you just going to let them murder your little brother? No your going to protect your brother because he has moral value from getting murdered. No, murder is unlawful killing. Killing in self-defense is not wrong. I guess when the military kills evil terroists its murder.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T00:33:28.8857816-06:00
It was much more than a threat. They were about to hurt him, and harm him. On what standard? Your an atheist there is not good or evil.
Kashmead says2013-12-02T00:43:55.4617634-06:00
Morality is not based on religion. You can have good and evil without it. Im done arguing with you you are unreasonable and continue to stray off topic. Goodnight.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T00:46:17.4508974-06:00
Wait a minute you still didn't answer my question. Please asked on what standard is what God did wrong? When you ask a question like that, you are acting inconsistent with your worldview. I did not stray off topic. On atheism there is no foundation for good and evil.
yay842 says2013-12-02T00:46:21.5225816-06:00
Well, another person to come and go. How many mo' left here fightin'?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T00:48:33.1991158-06:00
Me sorry. I can pm the others so you won't get updates.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T00:48:39.4718786-06:00
Me sorry. I can pm the others so you won't get updates.
yay842 says2013-12-02T01:30:39.6845816-06:00
Aw naw, I dont care, just kep doing whatever is happinin here. Ignore me
Kashmead says2013-12-02T02:07:20.7509816-06:00
Like ive said multiple times already, God killed people when he could have resolved the issue nonviolently. Things can be morally wrong without tenants from god. Society is structured on rules and separated from church. Kantian theory, utilitarianism, and many others lay the foundations for moral right and wrong without a god. Even some smarter animals have a moral compass and i dont see chimpanzees going to church every sunday
Kashmead says2013-12-02T02:07:39.2969361-06:00
Like ive said multiple times already, God killed people when he could have resolved the issue nonviolently. Things can be morally wrong without tenants from god. Society is structured on rules and separated from church. Kantian theory, utilitarianism, and many others lay the foundations for moral right and wrong without a god. Even some smarter animals have a moral compass and i dont see chimpanzees going to church every sunday
Haroush says2013-12-02T15:29:19.0273272-06:00
@Kashmead, All of this turns into a debate of right and wrong which is duality. That being said, this means G-d exists. Why? You are either hot or cold. You can't be lukewarm because you can't play both sides.
Haroush says2013-12-02T15:29:26.9796975-06:00
@Kashmead, All of this turns into a debate of right and wrong which is duality. That being said, this means G-d exists. Why? You are either hot or cold. You can't be lukewarm because you can't play both sides.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T15:34:54.5640975-06:00
Those are pragmatic. No, animals don't have a moral compass. Animals don't murder, steal, rape, torture, etc. Animals don't know moral good or moral evil because there is no moral good or evil in the animal kingdom. What you are referring to is survival, not moral values. Survival has nothing to do with objective moral values. Science can only tell you the is not what ought to be. Well being and moral values are two different things. When a shark copulates with another shark its not raping it. When a lion kills a zebra it kills it, not murders it. You as atheist can not make the claim that God should not have judged people, because it is inconsistent with your worldview. You must give me an objective standard of wrong and right. Not pragmatic, or subjective. Animals don't have a moral obligation to one another.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T15:35:02.0052975-06:00
Those are pragmatic. No, animals don't have a moral compass. Animals don't murder, steal, rape, torture, etc. Animals don't know moral good or moral evil because there is no moral good or evil in the animal kingdom. What you are referring to is survival, not moral values. Survival has nothing to do with objective moral values. Science can only tell you the is not what ought to be. Well being and moral values are two different things. When a shark copulates with another shark its not raping it. When a lion kills a zebra it kills it, not murders it. You as atheist can not make the claim that God should not have judged people, because it is inconsistent with your worldview. You must give me an objective standard of wrong and right. Not pragmatic, or subjective. Animals don't have a moral obligation to one another.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T18:12:51.0198609-06:00
Faith: Religion is a faith. Faith means to have belief in one that is unproven existence. You ethier have faith or you don't. End of story.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T18:12:53.1812134-06:00
Faith: Religion is a faith. Faith means to have belief in one that is unproven existence. You ethier have faith or you don't. End of story.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T18:12:59.3513289-06:00
Faith: Religion is a faith. Faith means to have belief in one that is unproven existence. You ethier have faith or you don't. End of story.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T18:13:51.7428449-06:00
No, that's called blind faith. I have true faith because I believe in the evidence. Atheists have blind faith. Can you prove the non-existence of God to me?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:03:34.9628134-06:00
That doesn't prove god. The actual burden of proof is on you to show us that god is real, but god (Wizard) is not accepted as actual fact is because your faith requires magic. There are scientific ways the universe could have come to be as well. Why not simultaneous causation? A b and C, cause each other simultaneously. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. They all have casual explanation. Why accept god over this?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:03:44.1668134-06:00
That doesn't prove god. The actual burden of proof is on you to show us that god is real, but god (Wizard) is not accepted as actual fact is because your faith requires magic. There are scientific ways the universe could have come to be as well. Why not simultaneous causation? A b and C, cause each other simultaneously. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. They all have casual explanation. Why accept god over this?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:03:55.5392134-06:00
That doesn't prove god. The actual burden of proof is on you to show us that god is real, but god (Wizard) is not accepted as actual fact is because your faith requires magic. There are scientific ways the universe could have come to be as well. Why not simultaneous causation? A b and C, cause each other simultaneously. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. They all have casual explanation. Why accept god over this?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:04:04.5404134-06:00
That doesn't prove god. The actual burden of proof is on you to show us that god is real, but god (Wizard) is not accepted as actual fact is because your faith requires magic. There are scientific ways the universe could have come to be as well. Why not simultaneous causation? A b and C, cause each other simultaneously. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. They all have casual explanation. Why accept god over this?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:04:05.2394028-06:00
That doesn't prove god. The actual burden of proof is on you to show us that god is real, but god (Wizard) is not accepted as actual fact is because your faith requires magic. There are scientific ways the universe could have come to be as well. Why not simultaneous causation? A b and C, cause each other simultaneously. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. They all have casual explanation. Why accept god over this?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:10:16.5536134-06:00
@Dudestop Never said it did. I don't believe in Magic, magic's not real. I believe in the supernatural because it is real. Since the universe began to exist, it plausibly requires a cause of its origination, even if the initial cosmological singularity is not an "event" in the technical sense of that term in GTR. Since the cause cannot be physically prior or subsequent to the Big Bang, it must be simultaneous or coincident with the Big Bang, a conclusion which is in no way obviated by the want of a generally accepted criterion of causal directionality.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:13:20.3216134-06:00
I stopped trying to convince non believers to believe because only god scan do that. I some doesn't want to change they won't. Only god can do that. We believers can only "plant the seed". To me the world existing is enough evidence that the world exists. I couldn't have seen it any other way.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:15:27.5727582-06:00
I'm sorry about the grammar.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:16:27.9272134-06:00
@SONOFGOD2013 I agree. I was just trying to answer some of Con's objections.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:16:35.0408134-06:00
@SONOFGOD2013 I agree. I was just trying to answer some of Con's objections.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:17:17.6756134-06:00
Ya. Dude your a great debater.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:17:55.1780134-06:00
It is possible to disprove the existence for a God and it is equally impossible to prove one does exist. There are just logical steps you can take to assume one does not exist. If you do not need a deity in order to explain why the universe works, the most rational and logical assumption is to assume one does not. Atheist are claiming either, They don't know, or there probably is not a God. The burden of proof always lies with the theist, as he is taking the pro claim in saying a God does exist. We just don't care, or assume it is highly improbable.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:18:01.4492134-06:00
It is possible to disprove the existence for a God and it is equally impossible to prove one does exist. There are just logical steps you can take to assume one does not exist. If you do not need a deity in order to explain why the universe works, the most rational and logical assumption is to assume one does not. Atheist are claiming either, They don't know, or there probably is not a God. The burden of proof always lies with the theist, as he is taking the pro claim in saying a God does exist. We just don't care, or assume it is highly improbable.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:18:41.9412822-06:00
Impossible*
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:19:44.0736924-06:00
So are you saying that you don't care if god is real?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:21:13.7702424-06:00
Saying I don't know is Agnosticism. Atheism is simply belief that there is no God. By saying there is no God, you are essentially making a knowledge claim that also requires the BoP as well. Atheism can not explain the four questions Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:21:18.9648426-06:00
I am saying I have no need or cause to believe in one, so in a way I don't care. I still am always open to the possibility, but everything that we know about the universe shows there is no need for a God. So until that time, that is the conclusion I lie with.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:21:22.1159214-06:00
Saying I don't know is Agnosticism. Atheism is simply belief that there is no God. By saying there is no God, you are essentially making a knowledge claim that also requires the BoP as well. Atheism can not explain the four questions Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:21:26.2185636-06:00
I am saying I have no need or cause to believe in one, so in a way I don't care. I still am always open to the possibility, but everything that we know about the universe shows there is no need for a God. So until that time, that is the conclusion I lie with.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:22:04.7802804-06:00
So your agnostic then?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:22:14.6703000-06:00
So your agnostic then?
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:23:49.5476134-06:00
Any rational atheist would never claim "A God does not Exist", it impossible to argue a negative. We say the probability of a God is slim, so until evidence supports it there is no reason to believe in it. Which boils down to I don't care. We have been around for millions of years, and there has never been empirical evidence to support theism, but piles of empirical evidence to contradict it. Which is why I really don't care.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:24:42.5096134-06:00
No need for a god!!! With all the stuff happening in the world. We're looking away from god and judgement will come( I don't know when) and when it's does...., well you know.
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:25:11.4008134-06:00
But why assume the cause is god? Even if there is no way we know of, is it better to pretend that we do? Really? There is no proof of a god, not only because god isn't real but mostly because god was created when man didn't have the slightest clue on what was going on around him. It is the most simple reason it explain everything. Thunder, earth quacks, disease... All explained by a "god" Or some mythical demon lord. Yet as we find more answers to these problems we dismiss the gods, and I think we will eventually find a way that we could have been created. We also know for absolute fact that a really big chunk of the world is crazy, because not everyone can be right on what god they think we have, but people claim to have had messages send through meditation, or some experience. These people are form different religions, and can't all be right. We can therefor assert that people have a natural tendency to make up a fake relationship with something that they are told is real. When anyone claims to have a relationship with god, it is fake. No way to prove this otherwise, and the evidence points against it. You must provide evidence, not faithsonofgod,
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:25:33.8434392-06:00
But why assume the cause is god? Even if there is no way we know of, is it better to pretend that we do? Really? There is no proof of a god, not only because god isn't real but mostly because god was created when man didn't have the slightest clue on what was going on around him. It is the most simple reason it explain everything. Thunder, earth quacks, disease... All explained by a "god" Or some mythical demon lord. Yet as we find more answers to these problems we dismiss the gods, and I think we will eventually find a way that we could have been created. We also know for absolute fact that a really big chunk of the world is crazy, because not everyone can be right on what god they think we have, but people claim to have had messages send through meditation, or some experience. These people are form different religions, and can't all be right. We can therefor assert that people have a natural tendency to make up a fake relationship with something that they are told is real. When anyone claims to have a relationship with god, it is fake. No way to prove this otherwise, and the evidence points against it. You must provide evidence, not faithsonofgod,
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:27:15.2492134-06:00
The term Atheism is drastically misleading. A - meaning negative or without, Theism meaning God. All it means is without a God in basic terms. It is also only used when it is directly related to religion. You never see a version of this for santa claus or the cookie monster. A - Santaclause. It is just logically assumed there is no such being. No difference in between that and the belief in a God. Same logical process is used.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:27:40.7913564-06:00
The term Atheism is drastically misleading. A - meaning negative or without, Theism meaning God. All it means is without a God in basic terms. It is also only used when it is directly related to religion. You never see a version of this for santa claus or the cookie monster. A - Santaclause. It is just logically assumed there is no such being. No difference in between that and the belief in a God. Same logical process is used.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:29:18.4591998-06:00
Haven't you notice that most true Christians are very good people. Not perfect because nobody is but good people. There always happy and joyful. It's because they have the Holy Spirit.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:29:30.1587498-06:00
@Dude that is the primary reason to support the non existence of a God. With all the stuff going on in the word, why would he let it happen. That is the exact principle behind the POE (Problem of Evil)
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:29:51.7171206-06:00
@son not dude my bad
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:29:59.5484134-06:00
Now you are correct that atheists can't prove there is no God. As a worldview there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. There are lots of ways to prove a universally quantified, negative statement, for example, show that the concept under discussion involves a logical contradiction. Many atheists in the past have tried to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent (“Can God make a stone too heavy for Him to lift?”), from which it would follow that God does not exist. So when you say, “As a weak atheist i assert that the burden of proof is on you since i cannot proof a negative,” you’re shirking your share of the burden of proof. (1) is a knowledge claim and therefore requires justification. Now I think that you, as a weak atheist, would be prepared to offer some sort of case by way of justification for (1).
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:30:37.7665494-06:00
Now you are correct that atheists can't prove there is no God. As a worldview there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. There are lots of ways to prove a universally quantified, negative statement, for example, show that the concept under discussion involves a logical contradiction. Many atheists in the past have tried to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent (“Can God make a stone too heavy for Him to lift?”), from which it would follow that God does not exist. So when you say, “As a weak atheist i assert that the burden of proof is on you since i cannot proof a negative,” you’re shirking your share of the burden of proof. (1) is a knowledge claim and therefore requires justification. Now I think that you, as a weak atheist, would be prepared to offer some sort of case by way of justification for (1).
yay842 says2013-12-02T19:30:45.1160134-06:00
Woopee! We have a returning challenger!
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:30:46.6114092-06:00
Now you are correct that atheists can't prove there is no God. As a worldview there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that 1. There is no God. That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist. The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. There are lots of ways to prove a universally quantified, negative statement, for example, show that the concept under discussion involves a logical contradiction. Many atheists in the past have tried to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent (“Can God make a stone too heavy for Him to lift?”), from which it would follow that God does not exist. So when you say, “As a weak atheist i assert that the burden of proof is on you since i cannot proof a negative,” you’re shirking your share of the burden of proof. (1) is a knowledge claim and therefore requires justification. Now I think that you, as a weak atheist, would be prepared to offer some sort of case by way of justification for (1).
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:30:50.8388466-06:00
*other ways to universe could've came to be, going in the second sentece
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:30:56.8290162-06:00
You can never claim the right to call someone a "True Christian". That is entirely subjective.
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:30:59.3717184-06:00
*other ways to universe could've came to be, going in the second sentence
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:36:52.0897518-06:00
Some people say their Christian but don't try to live a godly life. The true Christians try and have a relationship with god. Which to me is awesome. Of course you can't hear him clearly but he speaks to your heart. I know you say it's not true but it's your choice to believe or not. The devil doesn't want you to believe.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:37:38.6071626-06:00
The true Christian is someone who has Christ. You either have Christ or you don't. That is not subjective.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:38:37.3077048-06:00
That is precisely why I said "no rational atheist would never say a God does not exist", simply that is logical to assume one does not. That classifies as disbelief in a God sure, but also submits to empirical evidence. If (x) evidence is ever shown to support a God, it should be taken under consideration. However since that has and probably never will happen, it is most logical to assume a God does not exist. It is also not shrinking the BOP. When someone says the cookie monster does not exist, do I share the BOP to show why or does that person need to provide valid evidence to support the claim? The issue is the piles of empirical evidence that point to the fact there is no God, compared to an argument of faith. If people want to believe out of faith, that is fine but that does not classify as empirical evidence in any way, shape, or form. I can claim (x) exists, and literally assign anything as the value of (x). X could = an invisible chair, an imaginary friend, thor, odin, or any other deity or nonsensical being every to exist in the minds of pagans. When I claim this, the BOP is on me to prove they do exist. The same principle and logic applies.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:39:17.3357652-06:00
@Mikal" that is the primary reason to support the non existence of a God. With all the stuff going on in the word, why would he let it happen. That is the exact principle behind the POE (Problem of Evil)" Are claiming as epicurus did, that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world?
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:39:24.2462994-06:00
@Mikal" that is the primary reason to support the non existence of a God. With all the stuff going on in the word, why would he let it happen. That is the exact principle behind the POE (Problem of Evil)" Are claiming as epicurus did, that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world?
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:41:37.7147658-06:00
People claim to have seen other gods in the same way Christians do. They have the same amount of reason you do, therefor all religions are correct. False. We should only assume that they are all liars. No proof means you have not done your BOP, meaning we should dismiss all religions.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:42:35.7913320-06:00
Yes that is subjective. You or any other Christian can not judge or assume if someone has Christ. A Catholic could believes he has Christ but according to you may not. What separates his belief and commitment to God outside of you. For this statement to be true, there would have to be a way to objectify God and the bible, and seeing how it is all based on perception there is no way to objectively call someone a "True Christian". During the crusades I would assume almost every Catholic thought they were a "true Christian" and doing Gods work. Actually it was almost objective in the world in which they lived. Why then was it wrong? What makes someones interpretation of scripture right, and another wrong? Biblical interpretation is entirely subjective. There is nothing objective about it. People take what they want, and bend it to fit their lifestyle. That will never change.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:45:40.3064134-06:00
Either you have to accept that God allows evil to happen to good people, and allows us all to suffer for his Glory, or you have to accept there is no God. There is no logical or rational reason to assume the first. Even if I were to assume a God does exist(and I never will until empirical evidence is shown) why would I care to worship a deity that allows my friends and family to die, and turns deaf ears to every prayer that has even been uttered. That is someone whom is not worth of worship even if he hypothetically existed.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:45:52.9833474-06:00
People who have true insight from god understand the bible. Yes some people do twist it to make it sound right but not all people. People read the bible for help in their life or sometimes just for wisdom. As long as you repent and have faith and pray and talk to god. You are a true Christian.
2-D says2013-12-02T19:46:41.7236134-06:00
@janetsanders733 I have heard this so many times, I don't know why this is difficult or what theists think they'll get out of this misrepresentation. If there is a gumball machine then the number of gumballs is either odd or even. Let's say you are convinced the number is odd but fail to offer a sufficient reason to convince me. I don't believe the number is odd. Is that the same a a claim that the number is even? Also try replacing God with Alien abduction, which is likely closer to the average atheist position. I've never seen any good evidence for alien abduction. So many people have tried and the issue has been examined so many times that I am comfortable saying that alien abduction claims are likely false.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:47:08.0320608-06:00
@Mikal But, their acting inconsistent with what Jesus taught and who he is. Jesus before pilate said" My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would be fighting for me." Obviously they aren't true followers of Christ. They were acting inconsistent with Christ. It doesn't depend on my interpretation, it depends on what the text says. Don't go by what I say go by what the text says if you don't believe me.
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:48:04.8092134-06:00
@mikal: Right. Like gay marriage for example, a poll was shown showing that over 5?% amount of Christians believe in gay marriage. Then the bible contradicts with this. The sad thing is that most people aren't true a Christians, and the true ones are still pretty bad.
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:48:24.1883316-06:00
@mikal: Right. Like gay marriage for example, a poll was shown showing that over 5?% amount of Christians believe in gay marriage. Then the bible contradicts with this. The sad thing is that most people aren't true a Christians, and the true ones are still pretty bad.
DudeStop says2013-12-02T19:48:33.4022100-06:00
@mikal: Right. Like gay marriage for example, a poll was shown showing that over 5?% amount of Christians believe in gay marriage. Then the bible contradicts with this. The sad thing is that most people aren't true a Christians, and the true ones are still pretty bad.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:48:45.1220153-06:00
Exactly my brother. Exactly.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:49:06.7088085-06:00
@Mikal So, back to the problem of Evil. I was hoping you could if you don't mind answer my question. Are claiming as Epicurus did, that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil and suffering in the world?
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:49:15.4616134-06:00
@ Son no offense but that is one of the most illogical statements I have ever read. Saying someone can have true insight, is no different than claiming they are a true christian. There is a process called hermeneutics which is the art of how to read the bible. What scriptures are to be taken literally , and which ones are not. Even if you were to break the bible back to Greek and Hebrew. Each person whom reads the bible will receive a different meaning. Could there be a way to objectively read the bible? Sure they can be, every author intended for a passage to be read a certain way. That however will never be a reality. Every person will pick and chose what they want Scriptures to mean. That is even under the assumption scriptures are literal and not a metaphor.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:49:37.0009025-06:00
@ Son no offense but that is one of the most illogical statements I have ever read. Saying someone can have true insight, is no different than claiming they are a true christian. There is a process called hermeneutics which is the art of how to read the bible. What scriptures are to be taken literally , and which ones are not. Even if you were to break the bible back to Greek and Hebrew. Each person whom reads the bible will receive a different meaning. Could there be a way to objectively read the bible? Sure they can be, every author intended for a passage to be read a certain way. That however will never be a reality. Every person will pick and chose what they want Scriptures to mean. That is even under the assumption scriptures are literal and not a metaphor.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:49:51.1323114-06:00
That was for janetsanders733. My bad.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:50:57.4388134-06:00
Can God and evil Coincide? Yes theoretically any deity and evil can coincide. The two are mutually compatible.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:51:50.3228134-06:00
@2-D But, Jesus left the proof. The 4 facts the empty tomb, post-mortem apperances, origin of disciples belief, and Rapid spread of Christianity within 1st Century Jerusalem under a hostile environment. BoP is on you to explain the best explanation of these historical facts naturally.
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:53:26.6684134-06:00
I could argue either side of the POE. It does not disprove a God, but it gives a very strong foundation as to why there probably is not one. Just as evolution an Theism can been mutually compatible, but it is just adding an unnecessary factor.
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:54:23.6935003-06:00
@Mikal Okay, because if you said no, then you are presupposing some sort of hidden assumption that would bring out that contradiction and make it explicit. These statements are not contradictory. No philosopher has shown that these two are logically incompatible with each other. I will give you a third proposition. God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering in the world.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:55:12.0633001-06:00
What's BOP?
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:55:17.3563687-06:00
All 4 of those facts are no more viable than farmers saying they were abducted and witnessed crop circles.
SONOFGOD2013 says2013-12-02T19:56:14.2592134-06:00
I'm sorry you feel that way @mikal
janetsanders733 says2013-12-02T19:57:34.4880307-06:00
@Mikal no their not. They meet the historical criteria. What is the best explanation of these four facts?
Mikal says2013-12-02T19:57:39.4976134-06:00
Historical facts would also show evidence of miracles. If people were raised from the dead, cured from blindness, etc. Don't you think there would have been other authors or historians to write it about it. The only thing we have is the bible and brief acknowledgement from Josephus whom lied about 3 events in his literature. Simply put, I walk into a morgue and I raised someone from the