Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

That is why there is only one "Christian" religion and why there is no such things as: Catholic, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon, Episcopalian, Jehovah Witness, Amish, Quaker, Nazarene, et. al.

You fail to miss the point that the documents they have in common themselves are the same documents. The written word is static and unchanging and can only mean one thing. Yes people disagree. That is the fault of the people not the documents.

There is only one Christian religion:

Catholic, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Amish, Quaker, these are all Christians and all agree on the main points despite that fact that they disagree on how to interpret parts of the bible. There are far more agreements among them than disagreements. If the Babtists want to think that dancing and card playing is sin and worship in separate churches from the others they can do that they are free.

When disagreements arise that does not mean that the codex sinaiticus is significantly different than the bible we have today which is where this line began.

 

[Dr.Who]

I was pointing at the following...

The claim "you can't prove a negative" is often used as a shorthand in discussions to refer to the difficulty of gathering experimental evidence to "prove" that something does not exist. Proving that a phenomenon isn't real takes a lot more time and effort than it takes to demonstrate it. This is especially true when the definition of the phenomenon can be changed at will by its believers. Its very difficult to prove the general non-existence of a phenomenon, and this difficulty is used by believers of many kinds of phenomena to give the appearance of credibility to their beliefs. [/COLOR]

Which is why I said 'if you mean that one cannot presently prove that god exists is true."

So that means ghosts exist and big foot exists and for little children Santa Claus exists. You're not winning me over.

I never said or implied that. I even said that one cannot presently prove that god exists.

It would be illogical to jump to the conclusion that since something cannot be disproven it must be true. It is merely not disproven meaning one must look for more evidence if one wants to find out.

Ah but their Radical Evangelist wings are constantly trying to infringe in on the lives of those of different beliefs or on just plain non-believers. The evangelical snake oil salesman is often disingenuous and dangerous. Often the prey on the weak or desperate and try to push their religious agenda politically.

Yes, well everybody is trying to infringe on the lives of everyone else - just human nature and the nature of our political system.

I don't see where I said that so I can't respond.

You implied it very strongly when you said:

Secondly: Until you could prove that God exists (which you can't because believing in God is purely a "FAITH" based activity) it would be totally wrong & unfair to enslave people to one particular religious doctrine.

And since you just argued that "shorthand in discussions' i.e. implications are valid one must assume that you find many implied meanings to be valid.

But they wanted in fact rightfully from experiance saw the great need for both. Which is my point. [/QUOTE]

Mine too.

 

[top gun]

Which is why I said 'if you mean that one cannot presently prove that god exists is true."

I never said or implied that. I even said that one cannot presently prove that god exists.

And you never ever will... because it's a complete and utter man made notion.

It's very easy to figure out how this happened and you can substantiate it by looking at the locations where various religions sprang up and the spred.

Religion developed as a combination of three things.

A) almost a type of government. A way to control the individuals in a particular tribe. A way to enact rules for men to follow.

B) It was a way to try and explain (at that time) the scientifically unexplainable. A tornado or dust storm or magnetism for that matter was GOD LIKE!

C) It was used a a protection mechanism. Every tribe wanted to be the best. What better way to be the best than to say GOD is on OUR side.

And just like many either completely make up heroes or regular people that were embellished up to hero status the saintly people of religion are no different.

I seriously wish this were not the case. The idea of God & heavan and all of that is great. And many of the rules to live by are great. But when you look into it open mindedly and aggressively search out truth from fiction, follow the trail of the stories themselves (all of the stories) one simply cannot find the evidence needed to say ANY man made religion is a path set forward by the one and only God.

I was raised and studied the Christian religion the whole time growing up and into my young adulthood. Even though most of my family is Protestant I even have some devote Catholics mixed in there.

Religion is all about holding a faith in something with no evidence that it exists whatsoever... and I truly believe God would just let us know for sure. There's no advantage for God in trying to cloak & dagger it.

As a sidebar let me say this to you though Who. I don't want to appear to want to stop you from your beliefs. Not because I'm of like mind but because I'm an American.

I know I come across as seriously anti-religion. This is actually not the case. I am however EXTREMELY anti-evangelist. Sometimes my disdain for one bleeds over to the other.

I respect your right to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Dr.Who]

And you never ever will... because it's a complete and utter man made notion.

It's very easy to figure out how this happened and you can substantiate it by looking at the locations where various religions sprang up and the spred.

Religion developed as a combination of three things.

A) almost a type of government. A way to control the individuals in a particular tribe. A way to enact rules for men to follow.

B) It was a way to try and explain (at that time) the scientifically unexplainable. A tornado or dust storm or magnetism for that matter was GOD LIKE!

C) It was used a a protection mechanism. Every tribe wanted to be the best. What better way to be the best than to say GOD is on OUR side.

And just like many either completely make up heroes or regular people that were embellished up to hero status the saintly people of religion are no different.

I seriously wish this were not the case. The idea of God & heavan and all of that is great. And many of the rules to live by are great. But when you look into it open mindedly and aggressively search out truth from fiction, follow the trail of the stories themselves (all of the stories) one simply cannot find the evidence needed to say ANY man made religion is a path set forward by the one and only God.

I was raised and studied the Christian religion the whole time growing up and into my young adulthood. Even though most of my family is Protestant I even have some devote Catholics mixed in there.

Religion is all about holding a faith in something with no evidence that it exists whatsoever... and I truly believe God would just let us know for sure. There's no advantage for God in trying to cloak & dagger it.

As a sidebar let me say this to you though Who. I don't want to appear to want to stop you from your beliefs. Not because I'm of like mind but because I'm an American.

I know I come across as seriously anti-religion. This is actually not the case. I am however EXTREMELY anti-evangelist. Sometimes my disdain for one bleeds over to the other.

I respect your right to believe whatever you wish.

You seem to have an almost superhuman grasp of the facts of history and prehistory to be able to draw the conclusion that the various concepts of god are so clearly man made.

I think it is much more likely that you have drawn a conclusion on pretty shaky evidence. A conclusion that is akin to a faith.

 

[top gun]

You fail to miss the point that the documents they have in common themselves are the same documents.

If dehermit FAILED TO MISS THE POINT... that means he got to point right. Of which I agree... he was correct.

There is only one Christian religion:

Catholic, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Amish, Quaker, these are all Christians and all agree on the main points despite that fact that they disagree on how to interpret parts of the bible. There are far more agreements among them than disagreements. If the Babtists want to think that dancing and card playing is sin and worship in separate churches from the others they can do that they are free.

Well let me tell ya I've been in a lot of churches! And when the Jehovah's Wittinesses say the Catholics are completely wrong and the Catholics say the Baptist are completely wrong on a whole host of very important issues... issues that if not somehow reconciled would ABSOLUTELY mean that there is not a likely story here but rather just a general fable that has twisted several different ways over time.

The only thing in common was the belief there was a Jesus and he was the son of God.

When disagreements arise that does not mean that the codex sinaiticus is significantly different than the bible we have today which is where this line began.

The truth is one cannot even reconcile the Old and New Testament.

 

[top gun]

You seem to have an almost superhuman grasp of the facts of history and prehistory to be able to draw the conclusion that the various concepts of god are so clearly man made.

I think it is much more likely that you have drawn a conclusion on pretty shaky evidence. A conclusion that is akin to a faith.

I wish that were the case because as I've said I'd liked to be convinced. But this is what I did. See if this seems radical or reasonable.

I was brought up in a Christian home, baptized, went to the Lutheran Church and studied at the Sunday School right across the street from my house my whole childhood. Liked it fine.

Some in my family were Catholic so in my late teens I wanted to know what that was about, how it was any different. Found that was really a much different procedural concept than the Protestant thing.

About this same time frame say early 20's I had a good friend that was Jewish and a good friend that was from India a Muslim. So I spent a lot of time with them breaking down and analyzing all of their beliefs.

So now I have this wider spectrum of knowledge so I try and reconcile what I've learned both through science (like that whole the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old thing) and through mapping out where every major religion first sprang up and the procession of development from that point on (actually did a paper on it).

What I was forced by all the evidence I could find without starting in with any preconceived religious preference was to conclude exactly what I've presented to you.

I don't see that as any superhuman grasp nor a faith. Just a non-biased search for facts and the conclusions that followed by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well let me tell ya I've been in a lot of churches! And when the Jehovah's Wittinesses say the Catholics are completely wrong and the Catholics say the Baptist are completely wrong on a whole host of very important issues... issues that if not somehow reconciled would ABSOLUTELY mean that there is not a likely story here but rather just a general fable that has twisted several different ways over time.

The only thing in common was the belief there was a Jesus and he was the son of God.

I had to eliminate the Jehova's witnesses from that list when I posted it because they do indeed differ from the rest significantly. All the rest are Christians and all the rest agree in every major element of the faith.

The Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. They do not believe that Jesus is the one God. And as further proof that it is not the bible that is the source of the disagreement I would point out that this is the only group from that original list that decided that they needed to re-write the bible because it was not consistent with their views as everyone else reads it. The Witnesses have their very own versions (The new world translation) which is blatantly reworked.

The truth is one cannot even reconcile the Old and New Testament.

Perhaps you are right and all the baptists and methodists and catholics, etc. of the world are wrong. Or maybe it is you who are wrong.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I had to eliminate the Jehova's witnesses from that list when I posted it because they do indeed differ from the rest significantly. All the rest are Christians and all the rest agree in every major element of the faith.

The Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. They do not believe that Jesus is the one God. And as further proof that it is not the bible that is the source of the disagreement I would point out that this is the only group from that original list that decided that they needed to re-write the bible because it was not consistent with their views as everyone else reads it. The Witnesses have their very own versions (The new world translation) which is blatantly reworked.

Perhaps you are right and all the baptists and methodists and catholics, etc. of the world are wrong. Or maybe it is you who are wrong.

How about Mormons? And it would be good to note that at one time all the Christians believed the world was flat too, but the 3 people on Earth who said it was a sphere were right and EVERYONE else was wrong.

 

[Dr.Who]

How about Mormons? And it would be good to note that at one time all the Christians believed the world was flat too, but the 3 people on Earth who said it was a sphere were right and EVERYONE else was wrong.

I later forgot that Mormons were on that list, but I left them off in restating ti as well. I also don't really know who the Nazarenes are.

It is blatantly false that at one time all the Christians thought the world was flat. In one part of Europe, large parts of early China and a few small countries, many people thought the world was flat but not even all of them thought that. And of course Europeans are not the same as Christians.

There is no evidence at all that there was a time when only three people thought the world was a sphere.

Sadly your views of Christianity are largely based on myth. Here is a link:

"The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Here is another line from that:

"From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.[27]"

 

[PLC1]

I later forgot that Mormons were on that list, but I left them off in restating ti as well. I also don't really know who the Nazarenes are.

It is blatantly false that at one time all the Christians thought the world was flat. In one part of Europe, large parts of early China and a few small countries, many people thought the world was flat but not even all of them thought that. And of course Europeans are not the same as Christians.

There is no evidence at all that there was a time when only three people thought the world was a sphere.

Sadly your views of Christianity are largely based on myth. Here is a link:

"The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[1] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Here is another line from that:

"From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.[27]"

Here is an interesting book on the same (general) subject:

Synopsis:

Most of us would have been told at school that Galileo’s work was suppressed by the Church and that the Catholic Church was unable to accept that the Earth goes round the Sun as this conflicts with the Bible. Even Catholics have many misconceptions about this, leading then to feel uncomfortable with scientific enquiry in general.

This book sets out what Galileo did and did not prove, the Church’s reasonable though cautious approach to his work and that of other eminent scientists of the time, and shows that much of what we are told is based on over-simplistic and dishonest history. The attitude of the Catholic Church to the Bible is contrasted with the Protestant insistence on the literal interpretation of Scripture as the only source of truth.

This is ideal for older school children and students who inevitably have to deal with the ‘Galileo problem’ at sometime during their educational careers. It will also be of great help to parents, teachers and anyone who finds themselves called on to defend the Church past and present from accusations of being ‘anti-science’. The informal style makes it easy for the non-expert to understand and enjoy.

Note that the Catholics, unlike some of the "fundamentalist" protestant churches, have no problem with evolution.

 

[Dr.Who]

Note that the Catholics, unlike some of the "fundamentalist" protestant churches, have no problem with evolution.

Thank you for your supportive statements on an issue that is not a personal issue of yours.

I too have no problem with evolution in general even though I would align myself most closely with fundamentalists in a theological sense though certainly not a political sense.

Fundamentalism is great in theory (adhering to the fundamentals of the faith) but not so much in practice (blindly rejecting some things based on a faulty interpretation of the bible).

 

[top gun]

I had to eliminate the Jehova's witnesses from that list when I posted it because they do indeed differ from the rest significantly. All the rest are Christians and all the rest agree in every major element of the faith.

The Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. They do not believe that Jesus is the one God. And as further proof that it is not the bible that is the source of the disagreement I would point out that this is the only group from that original list that decided that they needed to re-write the bible because it was not consistent with their views as everyone else reads it. The Witnesses have their very own versions (The new world translation) which is blatantly reworked.

I'm glad you saw that about Jehovah's Witnesses... this does indeed happen. And similarly just not to that great of an extent the Catholic Church picked and choose gospels to suit their own vision, not God's... or maybe I should say not necessarily God's.

Perhaps you are right and all the baptists and methodists and catholics, etc. of the world are wrong. Or maybe it is you who are wrong.

Well no one really knows for sure until they die... and then they can't tell anybody about it.

This is my belief. If religion gives one good guidance and makes them feel better and more aware they should take full advantage of that. I think that's what you do and that's to be admired.

I just hope you can help others to see that having a religion or respecting a religion has to be a totally unpressured choice. I think it actually hurts the good things about religion when evangelists start trying to push a political agenda or crusade for religion to be more a part of government.

I'm anti-evangelist not anti-religion. That's why I'm now an agnostic and not and atheist. I leave the door open to proof, I don't dismiss God out of hand. The preponderance of the evidence just leads me to not sign back on, again... who knows what the future might hold?

Good discussion... take care.

 

[top gun]

How about Mormons? And it would be good to note that at one time all the Christians believed the world was flat too, but the 3 people on Earth who said it was a sphere were right and EVERYONE else was wrong.

Good catch on the Mormons Mare. Although I must say the idea of "magic underwear" does somehow intrigue me!

That's what I'm saying. When you don't just pick a side and align but stand back and study & compare... you often come to the conclusion that something is quite amiss when it comes to all man made religion.

 

[PLC1]

Good catch on the Mormons Mare. Although I must say the idea of "magic underwear" does somehow intrigue me!

That's what I'm saying. When you don't just pick a side and align but stand back and study & compare... you often come to the conclusion that something is quite amiss when it comes to all man made religion.

Mormons don't dismiss evolution, nor do they believe that their underwear is "magic".

The purpose of the special underwear is two fold: It has symbols relating to faith in Christ and in the second coming, and it discourages immodest dress, as outer garments have to be sufficient to cover it.

Mormonism has to be the most misunderstood religion on the planet.

 

[Pandora]

Its also fire resistant/retardant

Are you LDS?