Some religions must be false.

[GenSeneca]

The reason is more likely that there are sociological pressures to worship false gods, some of which are: It gives a sense of belonging. It is reinforced by being in the company of those who believe the same dogma., etc.

Speaking of False Religions....

There is one particular sect that's vicious, vehement, and vitriolic: Obamabots

 

[Dr.Who]

God in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
Men of the Biblical time usually had beards.
Source of "God existing in three persons": King James version of Bible, et. AL. (include Catholic "crossing" themselves).

I stand corrected. I should have said I have no conception of God the Father in heaven...

Obviously I should have considered Jesus if I had been right to use that other wording. But since Jesus was not a spirit but a corporal being like us when He was with us everyone knew that I was not thinking of Him.

 

[Dr.Who]

Show me that from the Bible.
The only rule is: "Believe upon the lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved."
and, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no man shall enter the kingdom of God but by me."
Nothing about "...appreciating the gift of life or showing homage...".

[/QUOTE]

You have a better understanding of Christianity than most.

Still the verses given were specifically said the the Jewish audience and they are the means by which that Jewish audience must approach God.

For the noble savage who has never heard anything from the Jewish scriptures he approaches God based on the knowledge of God that God has placed in his heart. In a nutshell that probably comes pretty close to "appreciate the gift of life and show homage". I say this based on the Shema one of the most fundamental Jewish passages that says "love the lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength, i.e. show homage. I would disagree slightly about the reason to give homage. I would not say that it is primarily because God has given one life but because God in His nature deserves it. 'Course His nature impelled Him to give us life. Just my thoughts. And thanks for sharing yours.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Listen guys.

Father xmas doesn't exist, nor do fairies, elves, goblins, the bogey man or god.

It is time to put away childish things

 

[Dr.Who]

Listen guys.

Father xmas doesn't exist, nor do fairies, elves, goblins, the bogey man or god.

It is time to put away childish things

The existence of one thing is generally not relevant to the existence of another thing. As an example, the existence of Dawkinsrocks does not effect in any way the existence of Dahermit.

We understand that you are making an analogy:That since Santa Claus does not exist that therefore God must not exist. But it fails as an analogy and it is just not a logical syllogism.

Yet this is the strongest argument you can make against the existence of God - Whew that's a relief! Someone might have thought that you had something important to say.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think you are overstratching yourself intellectually in that post.

The analogy works perfectly well.

In the same way that father xmas is an invention of mankind to make underdeveloped minds feel warm and cosy so the idea of god is exactly the same.

I hope that helps.

BTW, considering the strength of your response it may be an idea to provide some supportive evidence for the existence of god.

And don't just come up with that trite old answer of nature because you would have to demonstrate a causal connection. Amd saying 'so where did it come from then?' is not an answer, it's a question.

Right, over to you big boy (tip, don't worry if you can't, nobody else has ever been able to)

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you are overstratching yourself intellectually in that post.

The analogy works perfectly well.

In the same way that father xmas is an invention of mankind to make underdeveloped minds feel warm and cosy so the idea of god is exactly the same.

I hope that helps.

BTW, considering the strength of your response it may be an idea to provide some supportive evidence for the existence of god.

And don't just come up with that trite old answer of nature because you would have to demonstrate a causal connection. Amd saying 'so where did it come from then?' is not an answer, it's a question.

Right, over to you big boy (tip, don't worry if you can't, nobody else has ever been able to)

That was really funny.

have you ever thought about writing comedy?

 

[Dr.Who]

BTW, considering the strength of your response it may be an idea to provide some supportive evidence for the existence of god.

And don't just come up with that trite old answer of nature because you would have to demonstrate a causal connection. Amd saying 'so where did it come from then?' is not an answer, it's a question.

Right, over to you big boy (tip, don't worry if you can't, nobody else has ever been able to)

I believe in God because of my personal experiences (evidence of things unseen) . I have never said that the existence of God is a objectively proven fact so there is no need for me to support it.

You on the other hand have claimed that God does not exist which is not only unsupported but can never be proven. Open every door you want to and proclaim that God is not behind that door but there will always be a door you have not knocked on.

My claim while outside of the experience of some people is at least logical while your claim is completely unsupportable and therefore ludicrous.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I say that there is not a shred of credible evidence to indicate that god exists.

In normal parlance this is sufficient to say he doesn't exist.

He is also logically impossible which doesn't help.

re 'your experience of god' when people claim experiences of the same kind but of anything but god we generally cross the road and give them a wide birth.

There is no reason to treat claims of experincing god with any more credibiltiy.

You are just deluded.

I know that sounds rude but it is the only rational explanation.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is also a good job that usually in a court of law somehwat more robust evidence is required than personal supernatural experience don't you think?

In fact I am willing to bet that you would not feel comfotable if on trial for a crime where the prosecution's case was based on someone else claiming to have had a supernatural experience of you commiting the crime and that the judge accepted this as proof.

 

[Dr.Who]

I say that there is not a shred of credible evidence to indicate that god exists.

Which is because you start with the bias that there is no such thing as a supernatural. But this is an assumption and there is no more reason to think that there is no supernatural than to think that there is one - except for all the people throughout history who have made claims of a supernatural. Claims that you discount because you know there is no supernatural. Which you know to be true because they are not credible. Which you know because there is no supernatural...

In normal parlance this is sufficient to say he doesn't exist.

Which in logic would be saying that a lack of evidence is actually evidence - and that is not logical. But again there is not really a lack of evidence. Just a lack that you find credible.

He is also logically impossible which doesn't help.

Your version of God may be logically impossible but then again you do not understand God at all as indicated by your, well, just wrong, posts.

re 'your experience of god' when people claim experiences of the same kind but of anything but god we generally cross the road and give them a wide birth.

Which is of course why over 85% or 90% or whatever the real number is, of Americans believe in God. I suppose 85% of us are avoiding the other 85%.

There is no reason to treat claims of experincing god with any more credibiltiy.

No need to treat it with more credibility than anything else. Just a need to accept that even evidence that is not objective is still evidence. We have a situation where there is zero evidence that there is no God and there never will be any evidence that there is no God because that kind of evidence cannot be found. Which is juxtaposed against a situation in which there is tons of very subjective evidence that there is a God. As much as you may not rate subjective evidence as the best kind it is still better than the amount of evidence to support the other view.

You are just deluded.

I invite all of you out there to ask if I sound like a man who is deluded.

I know that sounds rude but it is the only rational explanation.

Well when you start with a anti-supernatural bias then of course it is the only explanation. But when the only explanation forces you to conclude that millions of people are deluded the least you should do is to question the assumptions behind it.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is also a good job that usually in a court of law somehwat more robust evidence is required than personal supernatural experience don't you think?

In fact I am willing to bet that you would not feel comfotable if on trial for a crime where the prosecution's case was based on someone else claiming to have had a supernatural experience of you commiting the crime and that the judge accepted this as proof.

In a court of law we start with the presupposition that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to go to jail. There are no second chances for men who have paid the price wrongly. We cannot undo the time they have spent in jail or undo an execution.

A search for truth is different. Would you want 10 true things to be rejected so that one false thing is never accepted? Truth is different than executions. We can always undo a mistaken idea. There is no need for a 10 to 1 rejection of wrong ideas to right ones.

I think we can do better than that. I think we can start by just not saying things that are illogical and can never be supported.

1) We can start by never saying that there is not a God because it can never be tested and never proved. To believe things that are not proven is faith.

2) We can start by never saying that our reason for rejecting a belief in God is because that is what science says. Because then we have made a faith based assertion and claimed that it is not faith based. Which is illogical.

3) We can start by saying that when people make a claim for the existence of God that it is faith based and not forget that.

4) We can test faith based assertions in the only way they can be tested. We can look for internal inconsistencies. And I don't mean we should make them up where they don't exist but we should honestly look for undeniable errors and flaws. But when none can be found that should give us reason for pause and consideration.

Do you all see how these last four points have a hope of advancing truth. But slander and name calling, illogical statements, appeals to analogy, circular reasoning, and reaching conclusions without remembering the assumptions behind them, all lead to nothing but what we have seen from atheist.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That was a great post.

Until point 4.

Faith based claims are evidentially worthless.

Considering the demands most christians have made over time for proof of evolution for which there is a ton of evidence I think that their expectation that their own claims are supportable by faith is both ludicrous and hypocritical.

 

[bododie]

Show me that from the Bible.

Who said it was from the Bible? My faith in God is personal. I also don't listen to people who come to my door, who have read every word of the Bible and therefore believe they know more about God than I do. They know the Bible. They also judge me. Where does it say in the Bible that some old woman can judge me? You speak of religion. I speak of faith.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your experience of god is a delusion.