why do we blank out the word god?

Well this thread is becoming very circular.

I am going to leave this debate now, I think if some of you people conducted true non-biased research you would at the very least see how both christianity and atheism can both be just as aplaudible.

I am still willing to explain my experiances to people on msn or any other questions regarding this topic, but i feel most of you will not bother as you think you already know.

Which is fine by me.

Take care everyone :)
 
I asked you to explain experiences (of proof that god exists) here but you refused and backed out of the thread- because you cannot proove that your experiences are unique or a miracle. The typical response by a religious person.
 
I asked you to explain experiences (of proof that god exists) here but you refused and backed out of the thread- because you cannot proove that your experiences are unique or a miracle. The typical response by a religious person.

I can be fairly sure they were far from normal occurances.

If I post anything you believe to be unbeleivable you would simply try to deny it happened or explain how it wasn't anything special, so it would be a waste of time and effort.

but if you want to discuss this further in a civilised non militant way then feel free to mail me.
 
Last edited:
I can be fairly sure they were far from normal occurances.

If I post anything you believe to be unbeleivable you would simply try to deny it happened or explain how it wasn't anything special, so it would be a waste of time and effort.

but if you want to discuss this further in a civilised non militant way then feel free to mail me.

So give explanation. For example, your child was ill and you prayed, and within a week she healed. If she died, either way it would have gone 50/50. Nothing to do with "the big man" so if something bad happens then god wanted it to be that way....errr ok..

Throw a ball against the wall, on one throw it might bounce twice before stopping, on another it might bounce three times. Does that mean god made it bounce three times, because it didn't bounce twice that must mean god exists? No it's just random. Praying it bounces three times, and when it does bounce three times isn't proof your prayers have been answered, as it could bounce twice. But you'll accept it that it should have bounced three times, and also accept when it bounces twice too.

So by not providing your "proof" you viewpoint is still right, even though you haven't given any information?

wow.

I believe the easter bunny exists. Because.
 
infact theres even Roman acounts of the crucifiction and all that happened.

Are there? Mind providing a link to this, I was under the opinion that there were still no documented accounts of Jesus outside of the bible written at the time of the crucifiction.
 
well theres nothing to say that they didnt live within walking distance, especially as that would have been a few weeks, as it took him a while to build the boat (acording to the bible)

Ah, Ok then! I just didn't realise that the Koala Bear was within walking distance of Noah.
 
Last edited:
Are there? Mind providing a link to this, I was under the opinion that there were still no documented accounts of Jesus outside of the bible written at the time of the crucifiction.


There isn't - it around 80 years later. Therefore, a totally ridiculous source of "evidence."

Remember folks, the next time your child is being naughty, you have to stone it death. God says so!
 
So there is no proof in anything ever?

You're making less and less sense with every post.

Actually there is sense in this.

Just for the record, I believe the only rational stance is that of Agnostic-Atheism which is what I define myself as.

Yantorsen, you seem to believe (yes, an assumption) that you are well read, but from my objective reading of this thread -- you only seem to be versed within literature that conforms to your own ideals.

I think but I do not believe (belief here being defined as having more weight than simple thought) that the bible (although historically accurate in the sense that there may be some correlations with scientific fact) or rather belief systems were created as a foundation to answer the unknowable, similar to what an earlier poster suggested. I think that perhaps these answers are manifestations created to ease the cognitive dissonance we experience in our quest for answers. Simply put; we do not like to be left without closure.

You assume that the burden is on others to prove there is a god(s) simply because you've been raised as a Christian -- you are the son of Christian parents. The natural state of affairs is atheism. When you are born you do not hold any prejudice, ideals or wants other than the instinctive need for survival. I'm afraid the onus is on you, as a theist to present the atheists (atheism being a-theism; a = without, theism = knowledge -- the term itself being somewhat bias, reflective of our historical past) with proof.

What people are trying to explain to you, and you've completely missed the point (which has in turn put doubts in my mind for any reasonable debate with you on that matter) on the original analogy of the FSM. Theists are the ones who are presenting atheists with a somewhat profound claim of the existence of a deity. It is therefore your responsibility to produce the associated evidence; this is how you argue with a sceptic. In your mind, god gave us free will -- in my mind, this free will is to question everything. If it means breaking the "unforgivable sin", then so be it. It amuses me really; why would god create me if he ultimately knew that I would mature to question such things? It seems like somewhat of a fool's errand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Two more things -- how do you know that god is not evil? The bible seems to suggest otherwise and this isn't an assumption. The trump card of the New Testament doesn't change this either. Did you even recognise this in all your years or was it more convenient to ignore it?

Also, have you ever even considered that you're wrong? You were brought up by a Christian parent and I'm not surprised at Gilly's amusement. Your brain is wired, through evolutionary workings to take what an authoritative figure tells you as truth because it would quite simply lead to death otherwise; it is natural selection in its essence. I seriously recommend that you educate yourself on what exactly evolution is, as it really isn't just an "offensive" remark of descending from Apes. Do you not find it strange that in embryology that we still have a lizard's tail, or how if the eye isn't perfect? Do you think a designer would deliberately leave these 'inefficient' flaws in?

Let me ask you; why do you think or believe that Christianity is the one true religion? Is it because of the bible, because of your own personal deluded experiences, or is it because you were raised as such? I would quite reasonably wager a sum of money on the notion that should you have been born in the Middle East that you'd probably be Muslim and shrug Jesus as simply a prophet rather than the son of god.

I don't like belittling others but you are still very young, and when I was 16 I thought I was pretty clued up too, but you really have a lot to learn and your first lesson is this; be more sceptical. Do not believe everything you read and that doesn't mean pick and choose which suit your current beliefs, but actually seek out the truth. Let me ask you; in those videos you uploaded, did you believe anything Dawkins had to say or did you simply dismiss it? I don't agree with everything he has to say, but to a sceptic he makes far more sense than simple rhetoric. Since you seem to enjoy ancient wisdom, Socrates put it quite nicely; "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." and the older you get, the more you'll realise the merit to this sentiment.

The bible is not proof, it is simply evidence but the evidence in favour and against is highly skewed. When viewed completely objective (something which you seem incapable of doing at the moment) the bible is very dubious. You need to think; who, what, why, where and when?

I would assume that you're probably afraid of what it means to be an atheist, but there really is beauty in truth. Just because there is/are no god(s) doesn't make life meaningless or people inherently selfish; I personally subscribe to the Humanistic rationale. The universe is absolutely beautiful, right from the scale of things, to its age and even to its mysterious workings.

Quite simply, you're looking in the wrong places. You couldn't read all the books ever written in your lifetime so the trick is to read the right ones. For starters I suggest you read these:

Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

...and if you like those, I have plenty more suggestions to whet [edited for the pedantic] your appetite.

OT: The spelling in this thread makes baby Jesus want to cry. :p

PS: The Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old with a 1% margin of error, the story of which is explained within Bryson's book. IIRC it was discovered through the use of carbon dating on meteorites, someone may correct me if I'm wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
Obviously sources in the bible can't be provided as evidence. History is written by the victors. All the bible may show is the majority view or the view after those disagreeing were killed or silenced.

It is evidence. It is however, a poor example of evidence.
 
...and if you like those, I have plenty more suggestions to wet your appetite.

OT: The spelling in this thread makes baby Jesus want to cry. :p

While you are pointing out about spelling and just because it amuses me, it should be whet. :p

PS: The Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old with a 1% margin of error, the story of which is explained within Bryson's book. IIRC it was discovered through the use of carbon dating on meteorites, someone may correct me if I'm wrong. :)

From what I recall of Bryson's book you are correct but as always with the caveat that it is really just a 'best guess' because it makes the (fairly reasonable) assumption that carbon dating is accurate. However it doesn't disprove the idea of (a) god as such, it goes against YEC claims if you believe it to be entirely accurate but their God could conceivably interfere with every carbon dating test so that the results appear consistent even though the World is only 10,000 years old or whatever and it merely appears older to test peoples faith. The point of this being that if you rely on science to provide truth you have to make certain assumptions about it being able to explain and that is where faith steps in, science is designed to be predictively accurate and that is all it needs to be - if someone or something interferes with every test to render them consistent then it wouldn't matter to science as long as it retained it's predictive quality.

I'm not sure if you've yet checked out the Atheism thread in SC but you might find it interesting, not least for the fact that an awful lot of it is about semantic musings on the meaning of the word atheist and whether it is a natural state.
 
I'll look at it when I have some time again. I must admit, I've grown quite tired of religious debate recently. I've exhausted myself trying to reason with band-wagon jumping Christian Apologetics who resort to "well that's your opinion" and then the same old debates which never reach a conclusion. I think I only really replied in this thread as it might benefit Yantorsen, even if it only gives him something to muse over but for some reason I doubt it.

If you're interested in similar debates, there's some on another forum with a couple threads I was involved in here and here.
 
Last edited:
If you're interested in similar debates, there's some on another forum with a couple threads I was involved in here and here.

Cheers for the links, some interesting debates but I can easily see why it gets frustrating. The problem with religious debates is that you will scarcely ever change anyones mind and perhaps that is just as well, about the best that will normally happen is that people consider a new idea or at least from a slightly different viewpoint - I know that nothing tends to get resolved yet I just can't help myself from debating anyway. :o
 
In the second link I gave you, if you skip to the end as it's slightly long winded, I guess I kind of 'saved' the OP, at least in the sense she began to think for herself. Although saying that, I don't feel it's my place to change anyone's belief, merely challenge them.
 
I couldn't resist coming back to this thread :p


but at the moment I'm slightly busy, but I do intend to reply and comment on all of the above when I get the time, might not be today though to comment on all of it.

and just a small favour, could people stop asuming what I belive. I havn't stated what i do or don't beleive, so don't tell me what i beleive. Thanks.
 
and he does not preach what is right and wrong, your clearly naive and base what you think you know on catholic and anglican services.

I do wish you'd stop bandying this term around. It is not us being naive.
the mistakes are present because it was written through lots of different men, the chances of one making a slight mistake somewhere is likely, but there are no critical mistakes, because anything critical they all agree on.
What about the bits left out? How do you know they don't contradict the big things that were put into the bible?
I asked you to explain experiences (of proof that god exists) here but you refused and backed out of the thread- because you cannot proove that your experiences are unique or a miracle. The typical response by a religious person.

He did that with me too, which leads me to believe that it isn't proof and is no more than somoene saying something happened.

Well I won the lottery last night and am now a millionnaire, I chartered a flight last night and went to meet santa and his elves, got my end away with mrs santa, had a fight with Mohammed Ali, had a kickabout with Eusebio and had a quick philosophical discussion with Socrates before returning home :)
In the second link I gave you, if you skip to the end as it's slightly long winded, I guess I kind of 'saved' the OP, at least in the sense she began to think for herself. Although saying that, I don't feel it's my place to change anyone's belief, merely challenge them.

Excellent! Brilliant work then, and not a waste of time as most religious debates are. I told a fellow member here on MSN who accused me of baiting yantorsen that all I wanted him to do was start questioning things. Find out why his religion is his religion. What it entails, how it was formed, what they have done, and whether having looked into it and garnered worthwhile knowledge, whether he still subscribes to it. If he does then that is absolutely fine, if not that is fine too. At least he has questioned it.
 
Excellent! Brilliant work then, and not a waste of time as most religious debates are. I told a fellow member here on MSN who accused me of baiting yantorsen that all I wanted him to do was start questioning things. Find out why his religion is his religion. What it entails, how it was formed, what they have done, and whether having looked into it and garnered worthwhile knowledge, whether he still subscribes to it. If he does then that is absolutely fine, if not that is fine too. At least he has questioned it.

I will get back to the rest later.

But this point just shows your complete naivity I'm sorry.

I have questioned my religion many a time, based on scientific things etc.. that supopsedly don't agree.

But what you seem to not understand is that being a Christian is nothing to do with having an explantion for how things began etc.. or even having a set of rules or morals, it's about, what God has done for you, jesus, eternal life, etc... how you get there.
 
What about the bits left out? How do you know they don't contradict the big things that were put into the bible?

My dad has copies of most of the books that are known to have not been included in the bible.

He didn't find anything in them that contradicted the rest of the bible, he actually found them helpful for opposite reasons.


like I say i will get back to other points made in the thread later, sorry for the wait.
 
Back
Top Bottom