Is there any real way to...

Hagane Kakashi
Theist
Hagane Kakashi's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Is there any real way to...

Is there any real way to convince everyone to believe in the same religion? I mean, religion is faith based...so....there's like no way to...
So I'm kinda confused about the point of this website.....I mean, yeah, it's good to discuss your beliefs. (I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A POINTLESS WEBSITE) I'm just saying if your point of the website is to convince theists than...you guys must not be very sucessful....


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
It's probably most useful

It's probably most useful for people who are questioning, and are looking for discussions on those lines of reason. Some folks might just be teetering, or not quite to the point where the brainwash took.  
But you are right, there does seem to be a point of no return for many believers.  (like for example the folks in the Jesus Camp film. )


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Hagane Kakashi wrote: Is

Hagane Kakashi wrote:
Is there any real way to convince everyone to believe in the same religion? I mean, religion is faith based...so....there's like no way to...

Were did you get that from? Do you think that atheism is a religion because it's not.
Quote:

So I'm kinda confused about the point of this website.....I mean, yeah, it's good to discuss your beliefs. (I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A POINTLESS WEBSITE) I'm just saying if your point of the website is to convince theists than...you guys must not be very sucessful....

Are you criticizing the RRS for not having a larger impact? Well, there is not much that they can do -- they are a small group and there are a huge number of theists. I can say that the RRS has been done a very good job so far.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
First, a person has to be

First, a person has to be willing to question his or her convictions by finding out if the basis of those convictions is real. No matter how stupid religion tries to make people, they'll still think to themselves, "That doesn't sound right." When a person is ready to find out, for instance, what evolution really means, or that the atheist position isn't a positive claim, they'll stumble upon a site like this. Or a Dawkins book, or a Sagan special, etc.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Religion is not faith

Religion is not faith based. If it was faith based, then there really wouldn't be any reason to choose one religion over the other. Many people have investigated Christianity and have went from athiest to Christian because they claim to have found proof Christianity is true and proof atheism is not true. No atheist has ever got up in the morning and decided to become Christian because he has developed faith during the night.

What is required is for a person to actually want to investigate if their religious beleifs are true. For myself, I don't believe in Christianity without proof. I have proof Christianity is true. If a Muslim or atheist would show me proof that they are right and I'm wrong, I would no longer be Christian. 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

Religion is not faith based. If it was faith based, then there really wouldn't be any reason to choose one religion over the other. Many people have investigated Christianity and have went from athiest to Christian because they claim to have found proof Christianity is true and proof atheism is not true. No atheist has ever got up in the morning and decided to become Christian because he has developed faith during the night.

What is required is for a person to actually want to investigate if their religious beleifs are true. For myself, I don't believe in Christianity without proof. I have proof Christianity is true. If a Muslim or atheist would show me proof that they are right and I'm wrong, I would no longer be Christian. 

Wow, you have real falsifiable proof?

 

Stop the presses guys, this "simple theist" guy has proof of God's existence!

 So what is it, hot shot? Personal experience? Because that is not going to cut it.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: Wow,

theotherguy wrote:

Wow, you have real falsifiable proof?

 

Stop the presses guys, this "simple theist" guy has proof of God's existence!

So what is it, hot shot? Personal experience? Because that is not going to cut it.

No its not Personal Experience, though that would seve as absolute proof that God is real (for me)or I have mental problems. I said that if any atheist, muslim, etc. could prove I was wrong and that they were right(for the non-atheist), I would change beleifs.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
 But you said you had

 But you said you had proof.

 

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, there is never ever going to be any proof that one god exists, and it is completley impossible to prove a negative so....

The default position is atheism. The burden of proof lies on the theist, so if there is no proof put forth by any theist, the only position that makes sense is atheism (or rather agnosticism).

Sure, if tommorow God revealed himself publicly and undeniably, and provided incontrovertible proof of his omnipotence, I would beleive also.

 I just don't see that happening.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: But

theotherguy wrote:

But you said you had proof.

 Anyway, the fact of the matter is, there is never ever going to be any proof that one god exists, and it is completley impossible to prove a negative so....

The default position is atheism. The burden of proof lies on the theist, so if there is no proof put forth by any theist, the only position that makes sense is atheism (or rather agnosticism).

Sure, if tommorow God revealed himself publicly and undeniably, and provided incontrovertible proof of his omnipotence, I would beleive also.

I just don't see that happening.

There is proof God exists. This website has many people that post such proof. No one ever really refutes that proof. You say it is wrong and then offer an alternative claiming it to be true. You never offer proof that the alternative is true. Sure you quote some people, however I can quote just as many people with equal qualifications to say that I'm right.

The borden of proof rests with you. I loose nothing by believing in God, but according to most religions (which claim a god) you will loose everything by not  believing in God.

The definition of faith (from dictionary.com) is belief that is not based on proof.  You said yourself that you can't prove God does not exist.  You have faith that there is no proof for God,  even though you don't know everything and there could be proof somewhere that you simply haven't heard.

I'm going to ask you some simple questions. If you actually answer this, I'll post my proof God exists.

If Jesus did not exist then why did Jewish people follow a false messiah that didn't exist? Why haven't they followed any false messiah that is in fact real? Jews today also claim Jesus didn't accomplish any of the Prophesies for the Messiah, yet there are Jews who followed Jesus claiming he was the Messiah. 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
  simple theist

 

simple theist wrote:
There is proof God exists. This website has many people that post such proof. No one ever really refutes that proof. You say it is wrong and then offer an alternative claiming it to be true. You never offer proof that the alternative is true. Sure you quote some people, however I can quote just as many people with equal qualifications to say that I'm right.

Cite some examples with theists that have scientific proof.

The borden of proof rests with you. I loose nothing by believing in God, but according to most religions (which claim a god) you will loose everything by not  believing in God.

Burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim. It is completley impossible to prove a negative. I can no more prove god does not exist than I can prove an invisible green lobster named bob is not holding the world in his ethereal claw. All the positive person has to do to "refute" a "proof" is add another condition. YOU are responsible for providing proof that your god exists. Don't beleive me? Study some basic logic.

*Sigh* Pascal's wager? Again? *adds 30 points to the theist meter*

The definition of faith (from dictionary.com) is belief that is not based on proof.  You said yourself that you can't prove God does not exist.  You have faith that there is no proof for God,  even though you don't know everything and there could be proof somewhere that you simply haven't heard.

No, again the burden of proof lies on you. I do not have faith that there is no proof. I am just not aware of any proof at this time. If someone making a positive claim would present evidence, then I would be able to verify it. As it is, I have not seen one shred of real evidence that is not "personal experience." I also have not seen evidence for the existence of the grim reaper, the great pumpkin, fairies, unicorns, allah, zeus, thor, athena, ghosts or the flying spaghetti monster. I do not beleive in these things for that reason. Why should I beleive in any god then?

I'm going to ask you some simple questions. If you actually answer this, I'll post my proof God exists.

Great.

If Jesus did not exist then why did Jewish people follow a false messiah that didn't exist? Why haven't they followed any false messiah that is in fact real?

I don't know whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. If he was real, they followed him for the same reason they would follow any cult leader: He had charisma, he made supernatural claims of happiness, and they were supersitious. They followed many other messiahs. Many of them were violent. Most died out or were crucified.   The Jesus cult survived because it incorporated a  religious doctrine through Paul, and spread through the Roman Empire, which gave it structure, and most importantly, swords. Another such messiah that came later was Mohammed. Billions of people now follow Mohammed. By your same logic, why would billions of people follow Mohammed if he was not the true messiah?

Jews today also claim Jesus didn't accomplish any of the Prophesies for the Messiah, yet there are Jews who followed Jesus claiming he was the Messiah. 

Because he claimed he would accomplish the prophesies. He did not. So they crucified him. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John later altered their versions of the gospel to make it look like he fulfilled messianic prophecy. We can see this through the contradictions among the scriptures (such as Jesus' place of birth, where he lived after that, how he got into Jerusalem, how he died, who came to his birth and by what means...etc.)

 

okay, now where's your proof?


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: The

simple theist wrote:
The borden of proof rests with you. I loose nothing by believing in God, but according to most religions (which claim a god) you will loose everything by not believing in God.

Which god?

Which god is real?

For which god do you have proof?

If you are christian and Vishnu is the real god then you have offended him more by believing in another god whilst I have chosen not to believe in any and can explain that I had not seen proof of whichever god's existence. I come out of it as the undecided vote with reasons. Will you be able to offer reasons to a different god as to why you follow the one that you do?

Congratulations for being theist #21 this week to offer Pascal's wager. Sorry, no door prize for you.

Your questions:

simple theist wrote:
If Jesus did not exist then why did Jewish people follow a false messiah that didn't exist?

Obviously, the package was appealing to them at the time.

simple theist wrote:
Why haven't they followed any false messiah that is in fact real?

huh? a false messiah that is in fact real? Oh you mean a false messiah that is/was a real person.

Elijah hasn't knocked on their doors and introduced the messiah yet.

simple theists wrote:
Jews today also claim Jesus didn't accomplish any of the Prophesies for the Messiah, yet there are Jews who followed Jesus claiming he was the Messiah.

Yes. People are gullible. Which jews followed jesus? Which sects? Which Judaic sects had specific prophesies that needed fulfilling?

You might be working under the false presupposition that all jews are/have been the same. That is false due to the evidence presented even in your own bible. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. were all different sects with different views and ideas.

And now, my question....

Would a true 'messiah' have problems getting people to believe he was the real deal?

I answered your questions, please post your proof that god exists now. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
.

I forgot to state that it is clear [ to us today ] that there were to be 2 comings, because of the lowly prophesies (coming to you on a donkey, a smoldering candle He will not snuff out, etc) vs the power ruler.

Trouble proving Himself?  Well, you wanted Him to come down and pull out a calculator and so on, but what if this God uses different ways than that ( lowly, and so on ).  However, the followers sure did come, didn't they.  From that one wonder-spun starry night and 12 rag tag disciples, to conquering an iron empire & transforming the world!  Peace, for down deep in your heart, to you.


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
(I WAs registering so I may

(I WAs registering so I may be a little behind in the conversation, but this was for the first big response given to simpotheist) 

I don't know, the response sounds sketchy. The various Jewish messiahs all died off because they didn't have Paul?  And do you mean the sword that Rome brought, as it were, to the necks of the vanguard Christians and Jewish/Christians?  Also, the muslim item is irrelevant about these first Jewish believers. And how do you mean that all the poetically breathed, beautiful, intricate prophesies of a first coming were not fulfilled. By the way, I like that Psalm about the three cord strand and about the nation, do you know that one?  Plus the one where God appears to Abraham as a trinity.  ( p.s., someone said there are a lot of drug users here and people with alternate lifestyles. Do you know about that? ).  Anyway, thanks for your consideration, great peace to you!


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: *Sigh*

theotherguy wrote:


*Sigh* Pascal's wager? Again? *adds 30 points to the theist meter*

Pascal's wager requires you to worship God. What I said is not Pasca's wager, because I was implying that you should investigate the proof and seek to make sure no god exists. Pascal's wager is worthless becasue what you actually think and actually believe, actually matters to God.

 

Quote:
Another such messiah that came later was Mohammed. Billions of people now follow Mohammed. By your same logic, why would billions of people follow Mohammed if he was not the true messiah?

 
No one in history claims that Mohammed is the messiah. Mohammed never claimed he was the messiah. (In fact I think Jesus is still considered the messiah promised to the Jews by muslims) Most specifically Islam was not founded by Jews. My question is why would Jews follow Jesus instead of one of the other false messiahs. Billions of people would follow Mohammed. Jews did not follow Mohammed when he founded Islam. Mohammed has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm not asking why a non-Jew would follow Jesus. I'm asking why would a Jew follow Jesus and more specifically if he wasn't real.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
brf wrote: And how do you

brf wrote:

And how do you mean that all the poetically breathed, beautiful, intricate prophesies of a first coming were not fulfilled.

If your referring to my comments, I was simply implying that Jews claim Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies about the comming mesiah. It is irrelevant as to which verses are actually prophetic towards the messiah and which versers aren't. The only thing that matters is what the Jewish people believed at that time, even if it was wrong.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
brf wrote: I forgot to

brf wrote:

I forgot to state that it is clear [ to us today ] that there were to be 2 comings, because of the lowly prophesies (coming to you on a donkey, a smoldering candle He will not snuff out, etc) vs the power ruler.

Trouble proving Himself? Well, you wanted Him to come down and pull out a calculator and so on, but what if this God uses different ways than that ( lowly, and so on ). However, the followers sure did come, didn't they. From that one wonder-spun starry night and 12 rag tag disciples, to conquering an iron empire & transforming the world! Peace, for down deep in your heart, to you.

Uhm who are you asking this to?


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
No Simpo, not talking to

No Simpo, not talking to you.  But right, so many in Israel believed, as the first followers, but the nation as a whole didn't.  I guess especially the ol' religious hierarchy, when Jesus Christ ( or, the real Hebrew, Y'shua Hamassiach ) comes to get past the beauracracy on the outside, and to get down to the heart - - heh, to OUR hearts, to get past the defenses and touch with healing.  With freedom and so on.  To get us out of our sort of stifling boxes.  Or more aptly, the brick walls we build up.  Yes, this lamb that walked this earth to reach us wants our hearts.  And to give real freedom that is not a stuffy religion!  The first followers though, and the followers through the synagogues of that powerful roman empire, carried the torch on down to, well, the eyes that are reading these words tonight, didn't they!   Smile  Great peace come to you.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Which god?

Which god is real?

For which god do you have proof?

It doesn't matter. If you don't use the Bible or the Koran, etc. there is no differecnce in Yeweh or Allah.

Quote:

If you are christian and Vishnu is the real god then you have offended him more by believing in another god whilst I have chosen not to believe in any and can explain that I had not seen proof of whichever god's existence. I come out of it as the undecided vote with reasons. Will you be able to offer reasons to a different god as to why you follow the one that you do?

How do you know I would offend him. Maybe he will be glad that I actually investigated the possibility of him being real instead of saying those who worship Vishnu must prove him to me.

Quote:

Congratulations for being theist #21 this week to offer Pascal's wager. Sorry, no door prize for you.

Not pascall's wager. I'm simply stating you should investigate God instead of me having to prove him to you.

 


Quote:
huh? a false messiah that is in fact real? Oh you mean a false messiah that is/was a real person.

Elijah hasn't knocked on their doors and introduced the messiah yet.

But they did follow Christianity (at least some of them) and nothing says Elijah knocked on their doors and introduced Jesus to them.

 

Quote:
Which jews followed jesus? Which sects? Which Judaic sects had specific prophesies that needed fulfilling?
It depends on the individual and not sects. Anyways can you show me proof that any sect didn't believe in the comming of a messiah? The only thing that matters is that none of the sects believed that the messiah would do what Jesus did.


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Well of course I was

Well of course I was talking to the vishnu guy above, and to "theotherguy" as well.  But looks like we scared them away.  I guess the thing to remember is that the arms of God are wide open in this phase of history, since the coming of Christ.  And that all the powerful prophesies pointed to Christ.  But the offer to come on in to the ark could only go on until the ark's doors had to be closed, only for a season of time.  Within the ark is all the presence of God.  It is SO GOOD to be in a solid, secure, ark of safety, buoyed by the weight of evidence in all those century spanning writings.  Well, I better get to bed.  May prevading peace come into your heart.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: If you are

Quote:
Quote:
If you are christian and Vishnu is the real god then you have offended him more by believing in another god whilst I have chosen not to believe in any and can explain that I had not seen proof of whichever god's existence. I come out of it as the undecided vote with reasons. Will you be able to offer reasons to a different god as to why you follow the one that you do?

How do you know I would offend him. Maybe he will be glad that I actually investigated the possibility of him being real instead of saying those who worship Vishnu must prove him to me.

I explained why I thought that your belief in a different god than the 'true' god (whichever that one is this week) would be more offensive. 

Quote:
Not pascall's wager. I'm simply stating you should investigate God instead of me having to prove him to you.

I HAVE! I STILL DO! Thank you for being theist #5,000,000 to say that I haven't and don't.

You're the one making the fucking claim that a god(whatever your true one is) exists. 

And Yes it was Pascal's wager. Almost verbatim.

My previous questions exist: 

Which god? 

 


Quote:
Quote:
huh? a false messiah that is in fact real? Oh you mean a false messiah that is/was a real person.

Elijah hasn't knocked on their doors and introduced the messiah yet.

But they did follow Christianity (at least some of them) and nothing says Elijah knocked on their doors and introduced Jesus to them.

They believed. Fine. People are gullible. 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Which jews followed jesus? Which sects? Which Judaic sects had specific prophesies that needed fulfilling?
It depends on the individual and not sects. Anyways can you show me proof that any sect didn't believe in the comming of a messiah? The only thing that matters is that none of the sects believed that the messiah would do what Jesus did.

How do you know this?

There are sects which believe the 'messiah' still hasn't come.

Yes. Some of the sects were led to believe that magic jesus was the one coming or had already come in the form of John the baptist who was supposed to be Elias heralding the coming of the 'messiah'. Many others believed that Elijah would come back and tell them when the 'messiah' was coming.

Again. You are the one lumping jews all into one bunch.

I answered your questions. Where is the proof of your god that you promised. Don't pull that shit about not looking either. You're the one that said you had the proof so pay up or admit to lying about your proof. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
brf wrote: Well of course

brf wrote:

Well of course I was talking to the vishnu guy above, and to "theotherguy" as well. But looks like we scared them away.

Nope. Still here. Same questions. You guys are asserting that allah/yahweh is the same god, but you're failing premise is that it might not be that god. Same old bet.

Quote:
I guess the thing to remember is that the arms of God are wide open in this phase of history, since the coming of Christ. And that all the powerful prophesies pointed to Christ.

Same question. You know this How??? 

Quote:
But the offer to come on in to the ark could only go on until the ark's doors had to be closed, only for a season of time. Within the ark is all the presence of God.

Soooo, god fits into an ark?

Again. You know this how?? 

Quote:
It is SO GOOD to be in a solid, secure, ark of safety, buoyed by the weight of evidence in all those century spanning writings.

Century spanning writings that get changed and reinterpreted and added to whenever the need arises. Yep. I'll bet that is just the most comfortable feeling. NOT!!!

If it is so true then why are there apologists at all? Why do you feel the need to defend it?

Quote:
Well, I better get to bed. May prevading peace come into your heart.

HUH? So now you want my heart to stop??? That would be peace to it right?

What is 'prevading'??

Anyway, okay here's to hoping the rest of your existence is spent reading the rest of the site like your buddy simple theist needs to do.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16458
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hagane Kakashi wrote: Is

Hagane Kakashi wrote:
Is there any real way to convince everyone to believe in the same religion? I mean, religion is faith based...so....there's like no way to...
So I'm kinda confused about the point of this website.....I mean, yeah, it's good to discuss your beliefs. (I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A POINTLESS WEBSITE) I'm just saying if your point of the website is to convince theists than...you guys must not be very sucessful....

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

I guess 200 years pluss and I am quoting him. But I guess that was pointless that he said that wasnt it? Crap all the man did was help write a Constitution that prevents religious sects from killing each other. 

I guess that Thomas Jefferson equating the birth and death of Jesus in the same class of Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter would make him a loser?

THE JIG IS UP SAPIENT! THIS SITE IS POINTLESS, LETS GIVE UP AND ASSIMILATE.

Ok, we'll set a date to end this site. Is never a good time for you? 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:


 

Pascal's wager requires you to worship God. What I said is not Pasca's wager, because I was implying that you should investigate the proof and seek to make sure no god exists. Pascal's wager is worthless becasue what you actually think and actually believe, actually matters to God.

Yes it is. That is pascals wager to the letter.

"Investigating God" includes looking for evidence. But I have no more reason to actively seek evidence of god than I have of seeking evidence for any possible god. There are thousands of human-made gods and an infinte number of conceivable gods. None have any evidence, and until one presents real evidence there is no reason to take any of their doctrine as anything other than meaningless babble.

Quote:
No one in history claims that Mohammed is the messiah. Mohammed never claimed he was the messiah. (In fact I think Jesus is still considered the messiah promised to the Jews by muslims) Most specifically Islam was not founded by Jews. My question is why would Jews follow Jesus instead of one of the other false messiahs. Billions of people would follow Mohammed. Jews did not follow Mohammed when he founded Islam. Mohammed has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm not asking why a non-Jew would follow Jesus. I'm asking why would a Jew follow Jesus and more specifically if he wasn't real.

No, my point is, Mohammed was a prophet and people followed him. What you are saying is that since people followed Jesus, he must have been telling the truth. I am pointing out that this is a logical fallacy. If that logic made any sense then every faith healer, demagouge and cultist who has a following is correct. Like I said, Jews followed Jesus because he made grandiose promises, claimed to be the son of god, and they were extremely gullible. The same goes for Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious and every other demagouge and cult leader. People follow them for their own reasons, mainly because they desire connection and meaning and are gullible.

 

now, where's your proof?

{FIXED QUOTES}


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: simple

theotherguy wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Religion is not faith based. If it was faith based, then there really wouldn't be any reason to choose one religion over the other. Many people have investigated Christianity and have went from athiest to Christian because they claim to have found proof Christianity is true and proof atheism is not true. No atheist has ever got up in the morning and decided to become Christian because he has developed faith during the night.

What is required is for a person to actually want to investigate if their religious beleifs are true. For myself, I don't believe in Christianity without proof. I have proof Christianity is true. If a Muslim or atheist would show me proof that they are right and I'm wrong, I would no longer be Christian. 

Wow, you have real falsifiable proof?

Stop the presses guys, this "simple theist" guy has proof of God's existence!

 So what is it, hot shot? Personal experience? Because that is not going to cut it.

 

It's funny, but I understand exactly what Simple Theist means when he says he has "proof".

I have the same "proof".

I have a 22 old month son, Brandon - I couldn't possibly provide the kind of proof that would stand up in either a criminal or civil court of law that he "loves" me - but I know he loves me and I'm able to 'prove" it to myself.  And that "level of proof" is sufficient for me and my needs. 

And guess what - it has nothing to do with science or rational thought or logic or any of those things..!

 

 


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I have a

Broncosfan wrote:

I have a 22 old month son, Brandon - I couldn't possibly provide the kind of proof that would stand up in either a criminal or civil court of law that he "loves" me - but I know he loves me and I'm able to 'prove" it to myself. And that "level of proof" is sufficient for me and my needs.

And guess what - it has nothing to do with science or rational thought or logic or any of those things..!

 

Let's look at it logically, even though you don't think it has anything to with logic.   In your son's short life he has learned to depend on YOU.  Food comes from YOU.  When he's uncomfortable, YOU come to help.  He sees YOU more than anyone else, hence trust develops, and he trusts YOU.

This same interaction can be view in many other mammals between infant and parents as well.  There is nothing mystical about it.

Even if one lacks the mental capacity to understand it, chooses not to understand it, or simply is ignorant to it, thefact remains that the interaction you are speaking of can be studied and understood with logic, science, and rational thought.

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I can't understand why so

I can't understand why so many theists don't understand how the burden of proof works.  It's always on the positive assertion. If you make a claim about the world, it's up to you to provide the evidence to back up this claim in order for people to find it credible.
Example of a positive claim:  My neighbor stole my car.  You might need to prove such a claim to a judge, jury, police officer, etc.  You'd need things like witnesses, fingerprints, a video or photos to convince someone of your claim.


The typical theist "proof" is more like this: My car is missing, therefore my neighbor stole it.  My proof is that the car is missing.



The atheist viewpoint is not a positive claim.  It's simply a rejection of the theist's claim, because they've offered us nothing to support them that can be tested or verified. Theists and atheists seemingly agree in the stance that we can reject Oden, Thor, Unicorns, Leprechauns, Ra, the Boogeyman, Santa Claus and any number of imaginary concepts that don't have enough evidence to believe in.   It just seems odd, that logic doesn't carry one imaginary being further. 



Wanting something to be true because you like believing it, doesn't make it so.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: No, my

theotherguy wrote:

No, my point is, Mohammed was a prophet and people followed him.

I'm not talking about people or prophets. I'm talking about Jews and the Messiah. The question again is Why would Jews follow a messiah that never lived, when they have never followed a messiah which has actually lived?

 

 

Quote:
What you are saying is that since people followed Jesus, he must have been telling the truth. I am pointing out that this is a logical fallacy. If that logic made any sense then every faith healer, demagouge and cultist who has a following is correct. Like I said, Jews followed Jesus because he made grandiose promises, claimed to be the son of god, and they were extremely gullible.
Not what I"m saying at all. All I said was since that Jews following Jesus is proof there was a real Jesus. This offers no proof he told the truth. This simply gives evidence that there must have been a historic Jesus.

 

Quote:

The same goes for Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious and every other demagouge and cult leader. People follow them for their own reasons, mainly because they desire connection and meaning and are gullible.

AND THEY WERE REAL. My point is Jesus was real, not that he told the truth or was God. There is no evidence of a large number of people following a made up myth guy to death.

 

Quote:

now, where's your proof?

Almost seems pointless since you guys are already twisting what I'm saying right now. In this conversation, I have yet to say Jesus was God, Jesus always told the truth, or Jesus was not a cult leader. I have only implied that he was a real historical person.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh, terribly sorry simple

Oh, terribly sorry simple theist. I do not debate that Jesus was a real person. It seems more logical to assume so. I'm not arguing that Jesus himself is not real. I think it would make more sense for him to have been a real, historically based person than not. I am arguing that he was delusional and people followed him because they were gullible, just like David Koresh was delusional, beleived himself to be the son of God, and people followed him because they were gullible.

 


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: Broncosfan

Andyy wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I have a 22 old month son...  I couldn't possibly provide the kind of proof that would stand up in either a criminal or civil court of law that he "loves" me - but I know he loves me and I'm able to 'prove" it to myself. And that "level of proof" is sufficient for me...

 

Let's look at it logically... Food comes from YOU... He sees YOU... he trusts YOU. 

...interaction can be view in many other mammals between infant and parents...

 Even if one lacks... the interaction... logic, science,.. rational...

 

Yes Andy, I think that's a big thing for the rrs site!  In many respects, the modern western world  has turned backwards.  All the tribes have always known there is "an entity."  That certain knowing, which, in a hypermodern world, we are suppressing,  just might be as much a part of us, as much a part of being human as is every other single portion of our make up -- but its drowned out in the glare of this somewhat out of control west which has developed, and which now insisits on dethroning that "entity," as this theme is touched on in the verse in Revelations speaking of the western empire that was to come, 'you led the world astray with all your charms.'

Nontheists of course think our minds conceived theism -- modelling it all after our own concepts.

But what if, just what if, it actually IS the other way around.  This thing of growing, and the interesting balance of what was innate vs. what was left for sharing & passing on to the young, which also afforded these unique human worlds of creativity & art & invention & knowledge, and the feeling of the parent looking down at the young with joy & with care, likewise the feeling of the small young one looking so high up to the parent.  If there is a Creator, just think of the statement, of the reflection on the Creator in this wondrous thing that is incorporated in some of the most important human experiences.

 But the main point is, our all powerful western world  now wants "science" as its God.  And on these boards so many grind out the words logic, proof, science -- demanding God snap down into the limited & finite rules we have.  You actually could compare it with this:  yes, with a rebellious kid with his/her parents, heh heh, with that brazen need of self expression, that boastful insistence that his/her great learning is all there is!

And here at the rrs site, so many snap that the whole question must be approached on their own terms.  But if the God of all Creation exists, we can assume that this God's is immensely high above.

 But anyway, Andy, really what happened above was, the  miracle & wonder  of a child and the delight & pride of a parent, got stripped down,  for the sake of this debating,  to icicles of logic!  The fact is that you & I PURPOSELY dispense with that sort of logic readout process, wouldn't you agree?  When we are experiencing the joys of a child!  If we demanded that our experiences of wonder, joy, pride and love be reduced to science formulas it just might end up, well, a meaningless, or maybe you could even say a dead & cold place! 

 And imagine, my friend, if there is a God, who, if God existed, would be the very author of  all love & art, of poetry & passion, of wonders beyond our imagination, and of love, to say to that One to, so to speak, slap down to any ice cold exam table!  So we can stick probes in!  So we can get our data readouts for our question!  Andy, I can tell you truly, that approach often will not work.  "my ways are not your ways"

 

 

 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: Broncosfan

Andyy wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I have a 22 old month son, Brandon - I couldn't possibly provide the kind of proof that would stand up in either a criminal or civil court of law that he "loves" me - but I know he loves me and I'm able to 'prove" it to myself. And that "level of proof" is sufficient for me and my needs.

And guess what - it has nothing to do with science or rational thought or logic or any of those things..!

Let's look at it logically, even though you don't think it has anything to with logic. In your son's short life he has learned to depend on YOU. Food comes from YOU. When he's uncomfortable, YOU come to help. He sees YOU more than anyone else, hence trust develops, and he trusts YOU.

This same interaction can be view in many other mammals between infant and parents as well. There is nothing mystical about it.

Even if one lacks the mental capacity to understand it, chooses not to understand it, or simply is ignorant to it, thefact remains that the interaction you are speaking of can be studied and understood with logic, science, and rational thought.

 

Could the child not be simply comming to Broncosfan out of hunger and not love? Depending on someone doesn't mean they love you. You can not logically prove that someone loves you.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
brf wrote:   Yes Andy, I

brf wrote:

 

Yes Andy, I think that's a big thing for the rrs site! In many respects, the modern western world has turned backwards. All the tribes have always known there is "an entity." That certain knowing, which, in a hypermodern world, we are suppressing, just might be as much a part of us, as much a part of being human as is every other single portion of our make up -- but its drowned out in the glare of this somewhat out of control west which has developed, and which now insisits on dethroning that "entity," as this theme is touched on in the verse in Revelations speaking of the western empire that was to come, 'you led the world astray with all your charms.'

Ancient peoples also thought the world was flat, burned people for being witches, knew nothing about medicine, died in pointless, terrible wars and beleived in a whole host of nonsense myths and superstitions. No, my friend I am afraid it is you who is backwards.

 

Nontheists of course think our minds conceived theism -- modelling it all after our own concepts.

Hit the nail right on the head. We are evolutionarily predispositioned to beleive in intentioned actions for everything  in the universe and are dualist in nature to interpret the thoughts of others. Religion rose out of these two concepts.

 

But what if, just what if, it actually IS the other way around. This thing of growing, and the interesting balance of what was innate vs. what was left for sharing & passing on to the young, which also afforded these unique human worlds of creativity & art & invention & knowledge, and the feeling of the parent looking down at the young with joy & with care, likewise the feeling of the small young one looking so high up to the parent. If there is a Creator, just think of the statement, of the reflection on the Creator in this wondrous thing that is incorporated in some of the most important human experiences.

You can beleive that if you want, but I have no need for such an untestable and unverifiable hypothesis.

But the main point is, our all powerful western world now wants "science" as its God. And on these boards so many grind out the words logic, proof, science -- demanding God snap down into the limited & finite rules we have. You actually could compare it with this: yes, with a rebellious kid with his/her parents, heh heh, with that brazen need of self expression, that boastful insistence that his/her great learning is all there is!

Science is not God. We use science to understand how things work. Science actually gives us results. It's a process based on logic and reason that actually works. We don't worship science, we use it.

And here at the rrs site, so many snap that the whole question must be approached on their own terms. But if the God of all Creation exists, we can assume that this God's is immensely high above.

If god is "not natural" and is "high above" any means of getting at him with logic or science, then he might as well not exist at all. If god interacted witht he world he would have to leave physical traces of that connection. If he leaves no testable physical traces then he does not interact with the world and can be written off for all practical purposes outside the realm of theology.

But anyway, Andy, really what happened above was, the miracle & wonder of a child and the delight & pride of a parent, got stripped down, for the sake of this debating, to icicles of logic! The fact is that you & I PURPOSELY dispense with that sort of logic readout process, wouldn't you agree? When we are experiencing the joys of a child! If we demanded that our experiences of wonder, joy, pride and love be reduced to science formulas it just might end up, well, a meaningless, or maybe you could even say a dead & cold place!

So you admit you'd glady throw out reason and beleive in nonsense for the sake of it, because it makes you feel better. Well la di da. If the child can be reasonably shown to love you for real, solid reasons, then anything else, any hair-brained, untestable poetic hyposthesis is completley worthless. You don't like it? Read poetry. But don't bring your poetic nonsense into the debate over the existence of a physical entity.

And imagine, my friend, if there is a God, who, if God existed, would be the very author of all love & art, of poetry & passion, of wonders beyond our imagination, and of love, to say to that One to, so to speak, slap down to any ice cold exam table! So we can stick probes in! So we can get our data readouts for our question! Andy, I can tell you truly, that approach often will not work. "my ways are not your ways"

But, fortunatley, it is the only approach that will give you real answers. Science and thought was dead until galileo preformed the first scientific experiment. Before that all was thought games. Just because something makes you feel good about yourself or seems poetic doesn't make it any truer. And whether you like it or not, the only way to investigate the universe is through careful observation and reasoning.

 

 

 


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
cqdx5a7o ( test send 1 )

cqdx5a7o ( test send 1 )


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
G'mornin', Otherguy! A

G'mornin', Otherguy! A Grrrrrrrrreat Good Marnin to ya,
and a beauty of a marnin it tis,  this marnin, my friend!
Here's the note I wrote for your very first comment on here long ago!  But by then you'd gone on, hee hee, your tirade!  But here it is . . . . . . . . . .

Otherguy, I really wanted to write to you.  Way to go, friend.  A beautiful step you have acheived in your heart, by your saying the best logical conclusion was that he was indeed an historical figure.  

WHO ACTUALLY BECAME a hingepost in history, and, for example, brought in a world free of endless human & animal sacrifices, a world where our consciences could get all clear, with the groundwork laid for an era of massive advancements to come. 

Well Otherguy, about a Jesus of history, I expanded on your words a bit!!!!!!!!  Smile

But just think, though Otherguy, of what it would mean to you if these thoughts of Jesus being false or exaggerated were not at all the case.

What if the POWERFULl fulfillment of scores of intricate prophesies, massive prophesies for which no one could really figure ways for them to all come together....  what if they all culminated during one starry night, with hope, after setting down (as its written in isaiah & elsewhere) this one "stumbling block" for the world and for all generations to come, afterwards with the hope of seeking, 'Otherguy,'  to reach even all the way.... into your own heart, as well as the hearts of many others here. And hey, its not a club, no no, this One doesn't want to hit you over the head with a club, not out to GIT you.  Whatever else you've heard, no, its a journey, its love for ya. It is a matter of our hearts, and not for bad, but for something beyond, and for healing. "With the heart.." a verse says.  Its for all good for ya this morning.


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
BRONCOS: "I have a 22 old

BRONCOS:

"I have a 22 old month son..,"
Broncos goes on to speak of love.

{post repeated below in white font}


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
How To Use The Quote

Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
brf:  Please do not use

brf:  Please do not use colored text as it is almost impossible to read with some browsers.

Please stay with the default colors when using the comment function.

Thanks!

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Appreciate about the quote

Appreciate about the quote function.  But I didn't want to do the extra work.  But thanks much for the help.

And thanks Susan.  Actually, the grey & white was kind of poor on my screen, so I made it bigger and colored.  And also, I wanted variety too. ; - )   

But here it is in gray & white.

 


brf
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-06-06
User is offlineOffline
BRONCOS: "I have a 22 old

BRONCOS:
 
"I have a 22 old month son..,"
 Broncos goes on to speak of love.

ANDY:

"look at it logically... interaction...in many other mammals between infant and parents... the interaction... logic...science...rational..."

BRF:

LAB COATS  for all situations. Looking to over exalt science/technology. In a west that is losing its value. The great substitute. A substitute pushing out the true heart down inside. And the heart of love. 

Most of us know or have known some OVERJOYED young parents of little ones, or we have ourselves delighted in a child.  Come on, now.  What is it like? Come on, ask em!

There could be THINGS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than science, it just might be.

Truly, we all devalue science WHEN WE SIMPLY WANT TO FEEL  --  when we just want TO LOVE  --  and when we WANT LOVE.  And then . . . . . .

A continual TICKER TAPE OF DATA readouts, samples, formulas has to just be slammed off.  Otherwise science might suffocate one's life.  So science DOES fade out then. Also, I don't think atheists really are hot against poetry.

So this was just some summing up why I was thinking about the hypermodern west possibly getting drowned too much in tech & science, and losing touch with or just plain LOSING SOME HUMANITY sometimes.

 

 

 

OTHERGUY:  Ancient people died in pointless terrible wars.

 

BRF: We've come a long way, haven't we, Other!

I mentioned to you that the event 2k ago cleared some things toward the modern world -- the great universities of the west ( hey now, get used to this down in your heart, my friend! ) remember, had acknowledgement of Christ as part of their foundation. But Other, you're putting up the bad & twisted.  What of the large general thrust, a behind the scenes presence & tempering & essence, and all the advancement you spoke of which was born in the Judeo Christian west. Compare it with other parts of the world -- some eastern patriarchal places still burn alive their own people and devalue women tons more bitterly than west. 

 

 

BRF:
 
"...THE FEELING of the parent looking down at the young WITH JOY & WITH CARE..

likewise the feeling of the SMALL YOUNG ONE LOOOKING UP SO HIGH to the parent..."

 

OG:
 
"I have no need for such an untestable and unverifiable hypothesis."

BRF:  Okay, okay.  But think about it man. 
ITS PRETTY COOL ISN'T IT, FRIEND.
Pretty cool to think about, Other.

 

 

BRF:

"so many grind out the words logic, proof, science -- demanding God snap down into the limited & finite rules we have... compare...with this, yes, with a rebellious kid with his/her parents, heh heh, with that
brazen need of self expression, that boastful insistence that HIS/HER GREAT LEARNING IS ALL THERE IS  ...on their own terms..."

OTHERGUY:  "science...logic...science...physical..."

 

 

BRF:

'...if God existed, would be the very author of all love & art, of poetry & passion, of wonders beyond our imagination, and [most especially] of love, to demand to that One to, so to speak, SLAP DOWN ON TO OUR ICE COLD EXAM TABLE...so we can stick probes in...get our data readouts for our question"

OTHERGUY:  "...until Galileo...all was thought games."

 

ABOUT GALILEO.....

Galileo quote:  "Mathematics is the language of God."  Though, of course, I don't think its God's greatest language. Wink

 

 

THE ONE.....

wrote to you, wanting to go beyond the satisfaction of debate points.  To see past a focus just glued on the 'bad christians' out there and the hammering creationists and really, just things that have 'rubbed us the wrong way.'  Something is more important.  Here.  Now.  As God wrote,  "my ways are not your ways."  And its not a club over the head, its not an angry God against your life, its not even the negating of science, discovery, knowledge.  But no, there's something new today. Seeking deeper.  Seeking for your heart even now, seeking for good & healing into the heart, for all good down inside for you, amidst a world that's hurting.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
 Please learn how to use

 Please learn how to use the quote feature!

brf wrote:

BRF:

LAB COATS for all situations. Looking to over exalt science/technology. In a west that is losing its value rapidly. The great substitute. A substitute pushing out the true heart down inside. And the heart of love.

Most of us know or have known some OVERJOYED young parents of little ones, or we have ourselves delighted in a child. Come on, now. What is it like? Come on, ask em!

There could be THINGS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than science, it just might be.

Truly, we all devalue science WHEN WE SIMPLY WANT TO FEEL -- when we just want TO LOVE -- and when we WANT LOVE. And then . . . . . .

A continual TICKER TAPE OF DATA readouts, samples, formulas has to just be slammed off. Otherwise science might suffocate one's life. So science DOES fade out then. Also, I don't think atheists really are hot against poetry.

So this was just some summing up why I was thinking about the hypermodern west possibly getting drowned too much in tech & science, and losing touch with or just plain LOSING SOME HUMANITY sometimes.

but you see, all of your emotions, everything you think of as your "humanity", ultimatley comes from natural processes. If you look at it from terms of emotions and "humanity", you are looking at too high a level. You are, in effect, missing the point. So yes, you do have to lose your "humanity" to objectively look at the universe. That is the only way to subtract from your mind the clutter and get to the details, the facts. 

 

 

 

brf wrote:

OTHERGUY: Ancient people died in pointless terrible wars.

BRF: We've come a long way, haven't we, Other!

I mentioned to you that the event 2k ago cleared some things toward the modern world -- the great universities of the west ( hey now, get used to this down in your heart, my friend! ) remember, had acknowledgement of Christ as part of their foundation. But Other, you're putting up the bad & twisted. What of the large general thrust, the behind the scenes presence, and all the advancement you spoke of which was born in the Judeo Christian west. Compare it with other parts of the world -- some eastern patriarchal places still burn alive their own people and devalue women tons more bitterly than west.

There was a time, the middle ages, when the Middle East and the Far East were far, far ahead culturally and scientifically to their backwards, Christian neighbors of the west. You have to realize that it is not at all Christian values that make the west so much more advanced, it is the secular values of science and reasoning. When the Middle East succumbed to radical fundamentalism, it lost its place in the world as a global leader, and was replaced by the quickly secularizing West during the Rennaisance and later the Enlightenment.

We can clearly see a pattern here. Wherever religious fundamentalism takes hold, progress culturally and scientifically stalls, and wherever Englightenment ideals take hold, you see an explosion of new knowledge, new culture, new advancements that were stifled by the dogma of the past. Those countries which you declare "burn alive their own people" do so 100 percent because of religious fanaticism and racial prejudice. The Christian religion would serve just as well if it were so fanatically practiced.

Those instututions were founded on the Christian religion simply because their adherents wanted them to read the bible. They focused on the nonsense of theology mixed with latin and greek. It was only after those schools were later secularized and taught science that great things started coming out of them. You simply don't see scientific advancements coming out of schools that teach theology and greek. So, while the Christian religion may have founded institutions like universities and libraries, they most certainly were not responsible for the success of those institutions. 

 

brf wrote:

BRF:

"...THE FEELING of the parent looking down at the young WITH JOY & WITH CARE..

likewise the feeling of the SMALL YOUNG ONE LOOOKING UP SO HIGH to the parent..."

 

OG:

"I have no need for such an untestable and unverifiable hypothesis."

BRF: Okay, okay. But think about it man.
ITS PRETTY COOL ISN'T IT, FRIEND.
Pretty cool to think about, Other.

Great. Well its cool to think about invisible sea monsters having tea parties under my bed but it doesn't make it any more true; 

 

brf wrote:

BRF:

"so many grind out the words logic, proof, science -- demanding God snap down into the limited & finite rules we have... compare...with this, yes, with a rebellious kid with his/her parents, heh heh, with that
brazen need of self expression, that boastful insistence that HIS/HER GREAT LEARNING IS ALL THERE IS ...on their own terms..."

OTHERGUY: "science...logic...science...physical..."

Again, if this god charachter is unbound by things physical he might as well not exist. Any interaction God would have with the universe would yield physical results. Those results would be visible and testable.If God is nontestable, as you say he is, then he cannot interact in any way, not even to observe, the universe we live in. If he can't do anything to the universe, then he is not God.

brf wrote:

 

BRF:

'...if God existed, would be the very author of all love & art, of poetry & passion, of wonders beyond our imagination, and [most especially] of love, to demand to that One to, so to speak, SLAP DOWN ON TO OUR ICE COLD EXAM TABLE...so we can stick probes in...get our data readouts for our question"

OTHERGUY: "...until Galileo...all was thought games."

 

 

ABOUT GALILEO.....

Galileo quote: "Mathematics is the language of God."
But of course I don't think its God's greatest language! Wink

Well, that was the 1500's for you. I'm not saying Galileo is opposed to the idea of God, I'm saying he freed our minds from the cluttering nonsense of philosophy so we could get at the real facts.