Prove that God doesn't exist.

[top gun]

Yep. Same is true for secular humanists and atheists and free thinkers as well.

Remaining uncommitted until proof is given is not the same as proselytizing and trying to convert people into a particular sect that inside its own self varies widely on something as relevant as when the earth began.

Given how clear those ten are if you are a practicing Jew then you better obey them.

Well I'm a Lutheran Christian turned agnostic and my point still remains.

Consider every wrong thing you have ever done. Every selfish or harmful act, every malicious thought, every thing that was less than fully loving. If you are anything like me then it numbers into the tens of thousands. Surely god will be fair if you were not clear our were uncertain one some of them. But there only needs to be one in which you were very clearly aware of the wrong you were doing and you would be guilty. Assuming a just God, how will you be forgiven for the wrong you have knowingly done?

It's not about that I don't feel bad and remorsefull for every single wrong I've ever knowingly done... I do. It's that without any preconcieved prejudice I simply do not see any legitimate evidence of nor do I believe any of the man made religions are connected in anyway to a God.

Now if that has honestly not been made clear to me and I did go along not truly believing... then that would be a sin in and of itself.

 

[top gun]

Top Gun, I'm sorry for interrupting you on this topic but replace the word "religious" with "ideological" and you understand why we don't get along so well...

There should be a separation of 'economy and state', as well as a separation of 'earth and state', for the exact same reasons we need a separations of church and state... I just want to be left alone and I don't want to follow Progressive teachings or rules I don't believe in.

If you could understand and respect that, we would probably get along famously.

OK, sorry to take you off topic, you may continue with your regularly scheduled topic.

I understand that you might "like" that but that is not the case. There is no specified separation of "economy & state" or "earth & state" just Church & State".

I might "like" nothing even remotely Conservative to be able to creep into my life. But that's not the way it's set up.

The government was set up to where representatives elected by the people move the country in various directions as times and conditions dictate. It's a pendulum that swings back & forth hopefully never too far out in either direction.

So that being the case the reality is to some extent either your wanted policies will bear unfavorably against what I want or mine onto yours. That's why I tend to like moderates more and not so much the extremes.

As far as getting along I know from my perspective I prefer to go after and make fun of the other Party or the other end of the political spectrum or public figures and not individuals posting.

If you stuck to going after the public figures in our posts and not personally attacking the messengers that is what I believe would create a more cordial atmosphere.

 

[top gun]

I suppose the advice about casting pearls before swine goes both ways. I would just state my case and walk away.

And I just laugh and don't waste my time...

unless I'm just feelin' extra confrontational or I think maybe this person just hasn't sat down and done the math on how scientifically ridiculous their position truly is.

 

[dahermit]

If every cryptic message in the bible were removed what was left would be enough for a person to know right from wrong.

If the whole bible did not exist what can be seen in nature is enough to know right from wrong.

If nature were cryptic too what is impressed upon the heart is enough to know what is right and wrong.

If a person is mislead by people teaching false religion God has still provided each thinking person with enough information to know right from wrong and to be held accountable for what they choose to do wrong.

Toddlers know enough to know right from wrong. People who are mentally retarded also know enough. yes, below some age there are people who do not know and below some IQ there are people who do not know. They are not held accountable. But what about you? You are neither below the age of reason nor a *****.

Right from wrong is not a necessarily a Biblical concept. It is more likely social/cultural. Unless toddlers have been reading the Bible.
According to your Bible, just knowing right from wrong will not result in salvation.

Note: the only thing "impressed upon the heart" ("hardened your heart", such phrases are silly Church talk), are arteries and veins.

Right from wrong was not what I was referring to in my post. What I was referring to was the intellect to actually rationalize the existence of God, and that the Christian god is the "true" religion. In my experience, most persons of faith, when asked: "At what point did you come to the understanding that there is actually a God? And what led to that realization, they have a blank stare of a deer in the head lights...and cannot provide an answer. Obvious to me that there was no such decision but just have always accepted it without much question.

What about me? With all the known gods, I just believe in one less than you do. I have considered the possible existence for years and concluded that there is much more evidence that the belief is based on social/cultural influences than there is evidence of the existence of a deity (or demons, or devils, or witches ("...suffer a witch not to live...")etc.)

 

[Dr.Who]

COLOR="Navy"]Remaining uncommitted until proof is given is not the same as proselytizing and trying to convert people into a particular sect that inside its own self varies widely on something as relevant as when the earth began. [/COLOR]

Which is probably why I did not lump agnostics in with the others. The agnostics are the only ones who do not make a statement of faith and who do not have statements that conflict with others. Of course for the most part just saying nothing is not very pragmatic.

Well I'm a Lutheran Christian turned agnostic and my point still remains.

Your point being that there are things in the bible that are not fully explained. Yet there are many others that are fully explained. And compared to agnosticism much more is explained even ignoring that which is not completely agreed upon by the various proponents.

If you distilled the bible down to only that which was explained clearly it would still describe God's plan of salvation and that is all you need. knowing when the earth was created is really of no importance once you get to heaven.

It's not about that I don't feel bad and remorsefull for every single wrong I've ever knowingly done... I do. It's that without any preconcieved prejudice I simply do not see any legitimate evidence of nor do I believe any of the man made religions are connected in anyway to a God.

A very honest approach. As long as you, unlike so many others, are not throwing out the evidence of Christianity in a preconceived way then all should be right in the end. Is it possible that when you decide what evidence is legitimate and what is not that you have a bias? Ok I stated that wrong because we all have biases. I guess the question should be are any of your biases such that your rejection of God would be an offense to God?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you distilled the bible down to only that which was explained clearly it would still describe God's plan of salvation and that is all you need. knowing when the earth was created is really of no importance once you get to heaven.

If you distilled the Bible down that way you would still have not a single shred of proof that any of it was true.

I believe that there is a Creative Force or God, but I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have any proof of it. There's no proof of any religion.

 

[Dr.Who]

Right from wrong is not a necessarily a Biblical concept. It is more likely social/cultural. Unless toddlers have been reading the Bible.

If there is a God of the universe and He created morality then that would be an objective right and wrong. It appears that you know that since you did not say there "is not" right and wrong and you said it is "more likely" social. It just could be that such a God did make such an objective morality.

According to your Bible, just knowing right from wrong will not result in salvation.

Yep. In fact if one really did not know right from wrong one would not be guilty to begin with.

Note: the only thing "impressed upon the heart" ("hardened your heart", such phrases are silly Church talk), are arteries and veins.

You could dig deeper. Clearly they are metaphors, or figurative or whatever kind of speech it is other than literal. I would add that in many of these instances the word translated as "heart" was originally "liver" but the translators rightly knew that while middle easterners thought of the liver as the seat of the soul westerners think of the heart as the seat of the soul.

Right from wrong was not what I was referring to in my post. What I was referring to was the intellect to actually rationalize the existence of God, and that the Christian god is the "true" religion. In my experience, most persons of faith, when asked: "At what point did you come to the understanding that there is actually a God? And what led to that realization, they have a blank stare of a deer in the head lights...and cannot provide an answer. Obvious to me that there was no such decision but just have always accepted it without much question.

While there most certainly are people who rationalize all sorts of things it remains unknown to you how many have not rationalized their faith at all and actually have solid reasons for what they believe.

I see a general prejudice in you to assume that Christians as a whole are unscientific and rationalizing. Might this cloud your ability to determine which evidence is legitimate and which is not?

I fail to see how not knowing the moment of belief means that it has always been. That would mean that all believers grew up in the religion since childhood. Actually quite a lot convert later in life. And yet of those who convert many change their views gradually and grow in their faith thus do not have a particular moment.


Aw shucks! i just realized that I was thinking of Top Gun when I responded but you are Dahermit.

Well take from it what applies and ignore the rest.

 

[dahermit]

I see a general prejudice in you to assume that Christians as a whole are unscientific and rationalizing.

This comes from years of listening to the unscientific and rationalizing of the religious community.

Might this cloud your ability to determine which evidence is legitimate and which is not?

They do not have as much evidence as they do religious dogma. "Why, I can see God in all things, in that leaf over there for instance." Where I see chlorophyll, fiber vascular bundles (they were looking a celery leaf), and stoma. Such is the common rhetoric of the average believer.

Might the fact that you are a believer cloud your ability to determine which evidence is legitimate and which is not?

I fail to see how not knowing the moment of belief means that it has always been. That would mean that all believers grew up in the religion since childhood.

Most have been indoctrinated since childhood. Some do not make the commitment until later. Few if any ever challenge the concept of the existence of a God itself.

 

[PLC1]

Everyone is shown enough to know or they would not be lawbreakers. One cannot break a law one does not know. Each of us has a conscience and if one is sentient enough to understand their own conscience then they have no excuse.

Consider the person who has heard the words from the bible all his life. He still probably misunderstands something about Christ. Would we say that Christ is the only way and since he does not understand Christ he has missed his chance? NO. consider now the person who has understood almost everything he has heard about Christ. Can he not be either held accountable or forgiven for what he has understood correctly? Sure. Perfection of understanding is not required. Now consider the person who has never heard a word about Christ but has been given a conscience by God. Does his conscience not convict him of wrongdoing? Sure. And when he responds to God in love and trust is he not forgiven of such wrongdoing? Sure again.

Would anyone who followed his/her conscience, then, and tried to be kind and giving to fellow human beings, be just as likely to be rewarded whether or not he chose to attend a Christian church?

That may be your belief, but is it the belief of the evangelical Christians?

 

[top gun]

Which is probably why I did not lump agnostics in with the others. The agnostics are the only ones who do not make a statement of faith and who do not have statements that conflict with others. Of course for the most part just saying nothing is not very pragmatic.

Maybe I like the agnostic view because it seems old school common sense...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln

Your point being that there are things in the bible that are not fully explained. Yet there are many others that are fully explained. And compared to agnosticism much more is explained even ignoring that which is not completely agreed upon by the various proponents.

If you distilled the bible down to only that which was explained clearly it would still describe God's plan of salvation and that is all you need. knowing when the earth was created is really of no importance once you get to heaven.

It's the contradiction and intentionally unprovable vagueness that sinks that ship for me. We don't know everything through science... but we can prove and tests and grow in knowledge that way provably. Not the same with a fable. Sure it's a plan. Every fable has a plan, an outcome and not surprisingly it's most often a good wins out over evil story.

A very honest approach. As long as you, unlike so many others, are not throwing out the evidence of Christianity in a preconceived way then all should be right in the end. Is it possible that when you decide what evidence is legitimate and what is not that you have a bias? Ok I stated that wrong because we all have biases. I guess the question should be are any of your biases such that your rejection of God would be an offense to God?

Bottom line: If I've studied religion. And have no reason to reject anything. Actually would want it to be true (which is the case by the way). But can find no evidence other than someone else telling me I should just do this because it's true. And I honestly don't believe only on the basis of all the evidence I've searched for and can or cannot find.

Then to be an honest person and not simply commit the sin of lying and probably a multitude of other sins I cannot commit.

 

[numinus]

Would anyone who followed his/her conscience, then, and tried to be kind and giving to fellow human beings, be just as likely to be rewarded whether or not he chose to attend a Christian church?

That may be your belief, but is it the belief of the evangelical Christians?

A moral good is its own reward.

 

[numinus]

If you distilled the Bible down that way you would still have not a single shred of proof that any of it was true.

Nonsense.

Lots of passages in the bible have been proven to be historically accurate.

I believe that there is a Creative Force or God, but I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have any proof of it. There's no proof of any religion.

I'm curious -- on what do you base your belief on, then?

 

[numinus]

This comes from years of listening to the unscientific and rationalizing of the religious community.

As opposed to the unscientific and rationalizing of theoretical physicists, I suppose.

They do not have as much evidence as they do religious dogma. "Why, I can see God in all things, in that leaf over there for instance." Where I see chlorophyll, fiber vascular bundles (they were looking a celery leaf), and stoma. Such is the common rhetoric of the average believer.

And I suppose you think theoretical physics has more evidence than theory?

And yet, you'd rather hear a scientific-sounding dogma as opposed to a religious-sounding one?

Its amazing how people arguing from the alleged 'scientific' point of view is actually clueless on its methods.

Might the fact that you are a believer cloud your ability to determine which evidence is legitimate and which is not?
Most have been indoctrinated since childhood. Some do not make the commitment until later. Few if any ever challenge the concept of the existence of a God itself.

Dr. who is spot on about you. Your prejudices reek to high heaven. You have no idea how the scientific community goes about their business and still, you have the cheek telling people what is or isn't scientific.

Unbelieveable nonsense!

 

[numinus]

Maybe I like the agnostic view because it seems old school common sense...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln

Agnosticism is a high-faluting word for 'I don't know'. For somebody who admits 'he doesn't know', you talk too damn much.

It's the contradiction and intentionally unprovable vagueness that sinks that ship for me. We don't know everything through science... but we can prove and tests and grow in knowledge that way provably. Not the same with a fable. Sure it's a plan. Every fable has a plan, an outcome and not surprisingly it's most often a good wins out over evil story.

So, why should anyone put much stock on the opinions of someone who doesn't know, hmmm?

You don't know everything through science but I guess you know everything about religion -- enough to give a judgement of its truth-value, eh?

Bottom line: If I've studied religion. And have no reason to reject anything. Actually would want it to be true (which is the case by the way). But can find no evidence other than someone else telling me I should just do this because it's true. And I honestly don't believe only on the basis of all the evidence I've searched for and can or cannot find.

Then to be an honest person and not simply commit the sin of lying and probably a multitude of other sins I cannot commit.

It really is sad that your prejudice towards the belief of others should prompt you to say things that undermine your own beliefs. The truth of the matter is, almost everything you know has no direct, first-hand evidence except for someone else telling you it is so.

 

[top gun]

Agnosticism is a high-faluting word for 'I don't know'. For somebody who admits 'he doesn't know', you talk too damn much.

And that's the wonderful thing about being an American. You don't get forced into a religion by someone like you that doesn't know either!

Plus we get to say out loud what we don't believe and why.

So, why should anyone put much stock on the opinions of someone who doesn't know, hmmm?

Because my estimations are based on science... much very provable with more knowledge gained this way every single day.

You have a fable... and faith in that fable and nothing more.

By a preponderance of the evidence the science wins out huge!

You don't know everything through science but I guess you know everything about religion -- enough to give a judgement of its truth-value, eh?

That is correct. I've never been hit by a speeding bus... but I know through science being hit by a speeding bus would be hurtful.

Sprouting angle wings and flying off to heaven. There's no testing that is there?

It really is sad that your prejudice towards the belief of others should prompt you to say things that undermine your own beliefs. The truth of the matter is, almost everything you know has no direct, first-hand evidence except for someone else telling you it is so.

As is the case with almost all learnable (teachable) knowledge. One doesn't have to create the experiment that proves a point... one only has to be able to recreate it. I can do that through geological studies and carbon dating and a host of other things.

You have an old story.

I have no problem with you believing that old story. Just don't get upset when others don't.