Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Because to say there isn't, (IMO) you must deny the realities of your own exsistence.

I know why you think that. The question was directed at someone who is undecided.

Besides, there's only one reality of my existence. I exist.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I know why you think that. The question was directed at someone who is undecided.

Besides, there's only one reality of my existence. I exist.

You really tempt me with this one, but if you would rather not go there, I won't. Besides as you indicate, we've been there before.

 

[orimarc]

Lets say...that you can prove god does not exist to the world. That you have some sort of undeniable, foolproof..proof that god does not exist...would you tell everyone..or not?

How we have to say it: YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST. The scientific thinking goes like this:
"God does not exist until proof (not belief, faith, or anything like that) shows otherwise."

 

[Sureboss]

You really tempt me, we've been there before.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Just a reminder, you shouldn't yield to temptation.

 

[Duke]

I don't know for sure if that is literal. On the other hand I think it is more likely than evolution.

That's a position I'll never understand, though there is a different (and even longer) thread to discuss it in specific.

These apparent contradictions are clearly explained.

No, not really.

All men are called to repent and be saved. Homo, Hetero, Shmomo, or other wise.

If the Bible is perfectly correlated, why is being gay sometimes a capital crime and other times merely a sin to be renounced and then forgiven?

Again I don't know about religion, but even so, you are quick to point out any shortcomings, but do you ever stop to consider the positive restraining and orderly influence it has and has had in the World.

I think that in the dawn of civilization, religion helped bolster enforcement of a moral code. However, in no way was religion required to generate that moral code. It's perfectly possible to create a fair and logical code of ethics directly from basic human rights.

So I understand the initial point of religion, but I also think it has outlived its usefulness by about a thousand years. I'd say since then it has done more harm in the way of instigating violence and causing repression than it has helped.

Again that is a single incident, Obviously carried out under false pretenses.

NOT "obviously false" at all. And it is a "single incident" of literally epic proportions. Pretty cavalier of you to dismiss it like that.

For you or me it sure is improbable, but if he is who he says he is then I don't see the problem.

So you just accept it at face value, then. Why not accept other deity's claims at face value also?

And I will repeat once again, since he(GOD) clearly states he is a "Spirit" being and no man has seen him, other than as represented in the person of Jesus Christ, you will have to adjust your criteria to accommodate him.

Why should I have to adjust my criteria? He's the one who is omnipotent. He was perfectly capable of showing himself to Moses and Saul, among others.

And that's leaving aside the question of why I should want to violate my own integrity and reason, just in case there is a God who can't be bothered to show himself to me.

So you are saying, all Data is the same, and there is no way to discern between it, or you are saying the content of what is written is inadvertently unanalyzable and/or undiscernable. Neither sounds objective or logical to me.

I'm saying there is no way to discern between it. It's all just words on a page. Yehova could exist with equal validity as Ganesha - both have scripture dedicated to them. So there is no way to choose between them. You can choose which one you like better, sure. That's no problem. But that still doesn't prove either one is more likely to actually exist than the other.

Why is that not objective? Your definition of "objective" is incorrect. "Objective" does not mean "weighing all things with equal merit" as you seem to think it does. "Objective" means "without regard to the frame of reference". Thinking that Yehova sounds like a better God than Ganesha is most assuredly not decided "without regard to the frame of reference".

I'm not dismissing anything, I'm only testifying about the one I know.

You only know the one because you've already dismissed the others. Why did you do that? That is why I dismiss all of them.

Either that ....or..... GOD did define it just as he claims he did.

That's possible, yes, but hardly probable. With a complete lack of actual evidence to support it, why choose the option that is far less probable?

It doesn't sound like you do either.
He tricks you by the very thing you think is so strong and impenetrable.
When in fact it is often weak, frail, and powerless.

Logic is weak, frail, and powerless when people apply it incorrectly. But then it's not logic, either.

According to GOD the problem started when they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Therefore acquisition of knowledge and discernment with application of it are obviously two different things.

Huh? Adam and Eve were forbidden Knowledge by God. In other words, they were supposed to remain ignorant and dependent. Daring to want knowledge and independence was the Original Sin! Damn right I'm guilty, if the alternative is a life of non-understanding and an existence granted only by the whim of a non-understandable deity.

I know you're gonna love this next one:
Proverbs 3:5 (Amplified Bible) Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.

Why do you think he would make such a statement as that?

Isn't it clear? It's like crystal to me - that's the absolute best way to keep someone under your control. Make sure the victim remains ignorant, does not trust his own thinking, and relies utterly on you as the authority figure to supply all knowledge. that way you can feed him whatever you want him to know, and only what you want him to know.

It's classic subjection/repression, as carried out by every tinpot dictator from the dawn of time to Kim Jong Ill. Read Animal Farm or 1984 some time.

It didn't. Although I think you may have just answered my question.

Huh?

To a degree you are correct. I said its up to each person to determine for themselves whether it is true or not. The only way I know to do that is read it for yourself.

If each person gets to decide whether it is "true" or not, then it is not truth. Remeber that whole "regardless of the frame of reference" objectivity thing? Each person is welcome and capable to decide if they like it or not, but that doesn't affect the truth of it.

To some also it is a convenient and excusatory refuge from conscience or financial commitment.

I think religion has been a scam for so long that most of the people who now operate the scam don't even realize it's a scam any more. Kind of like Amway.

I've got a clear conscience because I have a clear moral code I follow. The success is mine, the failures are mine, and the code is mine, but it is fair to all. And it is not divinely inspired in any way.

It seems like many people only "truly believe" when they realize that, oops, they just did something they probably shouldn't have done, like screamed at their kid, or broke the law, or picked up the quarter someone dropped and walked away with it. So basically they only "believe" when they want an easy way out.

Some do that, but some are actually committed believers and are not cynical. That doesn't make them any more correct. It just makes them less hypocritical.

 

[teh_noob]

As weak as mankind is today i beileve there is a higher being, But that being said, Mankind has come along way by hunting,biulding,and thinking. Us as humans have al the power as our creator let us live our life. So i may not believe in "god" or the holy spirit. i Believe in a Father or Mother that may have started it all.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I don't mean to take things too far off topic, but this is a great video.

thats brilliant!

and i just happen to come across quite possibly the best ever youtube comment..

"when you fold something that exists in the 2nd dimension, you're manipulating it through the 3rd dimension. The way a fly in the 2nd dimension would seem to disappear and then reapper is similar to how a person would disappear and reappear if it was manipulated in the 4th dimension (time travel). The people physicists behind these theories are building off of quantum theory - which is responsible for every electronic device on the planet - i wouldn't be so quick to write them off if i were you "

But this is going off topic lol. Sorry

 

[Duke]

Great. I have a headache now.

I got about halfway through that before the 10,000th annoying popup completely obliterated any chance I might have of understanding what the narrator was saying.

 

[Omnis]

Great. I have a headache now.

Why? The tenth dimension is just a single point. A really really big point.

 

[SomeStrangeSin]

You've mixed up a couple of theories in one there. Exorcet is partially correct to say String Theory, but that has been superceded by M-Space Theory.

Note that Theory != Belief just because it seems complex - and that this is an example of a situation where there are conflicting scientific views (there were 5 different String Theories) where good evidence supports all views. It's also an example of scientists changing their viewpoint based on new evidence - the situation was resolved by a wholly new theory (M-Space) which, as it turned out, meant that all of the different theories were actually right all along despite looking like they were mutually exclusive.

yea thats what it was string theorys. i randomly came acrossed it one day on youtube. i will look up the m-space theory one day.


Dimensions are not made of "gases and atoms and neutrons". Dimensions aren't made of anything.

The four dimensions we all find familiar are forwards, sideways, up and time. What is forwards made of*? How many neutrons are there in time**?

who made time? how does time exist? where did time come from?

*Nothing
**None

The other seven require a considerable amount of thought - and I get a headache just thinking about thinking about them. But, importantly, that doesn't make them a "belief".

yea i just dont even want to think about that stuff anymore. i feel like when we die we will know the answer of whether there is a god a hell a heaven. of if we just sleep for eternity. or we release energy into the planet or spacer and do whatever.... death is our definite answer.

Sadly even classical physics agrees that "something" is an inevitable result of "nothing".

interesting....


Why?

maybe i am just blind but for me for something to be made it has to have someones hand in putting the peices together but that is just me. i still dont understand how we have 20 billion species of animals/insects/mammals/fish that some how created themselves?

 

[SomeStrangeSin]

sorry about my bad quoting lol

 

[Famine]

maybe i am just blind but for me for something to be made it has to have someones hand in putting the peices together but that is just me. i still dont understand how we have 20 billion species of animals/insects/mammals/fish that some how created themselves?

See, to me that's not a good enough reason. You don't understand how something happened so therefore a higher power had to have done it?

There's lots of stuff I don't understand how it happens. Like how Sheffield Wednesday keep buying some strikers who are actually quite good at putting the ball in the net, but yet they somehow can't manage it while they're at our club. Doesn't mean Zeus does it...

 

[orimarc]

See, to me that's not a good enough reason. You don't understand how something happened so therefore a higher power had to have done it?

Well, I have questions for that reflexion: If God made life, who created God? And who created the guy that created God? And who created the guy that created the guy that created God? And who created the guy that created the guy that created the guy that created God?

 

[Duke]

maybe i am just blind but for me for something to be made it has to have someones hand in putting the peices together but that is just me. i still dont understand how we have 20 billion species of animals/insects/mammals/fish that some how created themselves?

There is a thread about this topic in specific - see "Creation vs. Evolution" on this board. It's actually quite a simple concept.

Well, I have questions for that reflexion: If God made life, who created God? And who created the guy that created God? And who created the guy that created the guy that created God? And who created the guy that created the guy that created the guy that created God?

[Ultimate Evil] "I created myself!" [/Ultimate Evil]

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's a position I'll never understand, though there is a different (and even longer) thread to discuss it in specific.

I didn't bring it up, you did.

If the Bible is perfectly correlated, why is being gay sometimes a capital crime and other times merely a sin to be renounced and then forgiven?

Simple, prior to that which was perfect (the perfect sacrifice in the person of Jesus) there was a temporary system to punish sin under the law. Once the perfect was established, all sin was put under the Son(Jesus) or is now dealt with through the Son.

I think that in the dawn of civilization, religion helped bolster enforcement of a moral code. However, in no way was religion required to generate that moral code. It's perfectly possible to create a fair and logical code of ethics directly from basic human rights.

They didn't need a Religion do to that?
In reality, all ethics and human rights have originated from and through Religion. One in particular.

So I understand the initial point of religion, but I also think it has outlived its usefulness by about a thousand years. I'd say since then it has done more harm in the way of instigating violence and causing repression than it has helped.

I think you err considerably on that first part.... and the second part as well.

NOT "obviously false" at all. And it is a "single incident" of literally epic proportions. Pretty cavalier of you to dismiss it like that.

False in the "True reality" sense, not in the belief of those who carried out.
(They truly thought they were doing the right thing)

So you just accept it at face value, then. Why not accept other deity's claims at face value also?

I've explained this at least 3 or 4 times already.

Why should I have to adjust my criteria? He's the one who is omnipotent. He was perfectly capable of showing himself to Moses and Saul, among others.

Sometimes it astounds me how you can make a statement, and then totally ignore the implication of it.

If he is the one thats omnipotent, guess who gets to call the shots, and it ain't you.

And that's leaving aside the question of why I should want to violate my own integrity and reason, just in case there is a God who can't be bothered to show himself to me.

The tradeoff might be well worth it.

I'm saying there is no way to discern between it. It's all just words on a page. Yehova could exist with equal validity as Ganesha - both have scripture dedicated to them. So there is no way to choose between them. You can choose which one you like better, sure. That's no problem. But that still doesn't prove either one is more likely to actually exist than the other.

I guess I've been under an illusion all these years. I thought the purpose of language and words was to "say something' or "communicate something".

Why is that not objective? Your definition of "objective" is incorrect. "Objective" does not mean "weighing all things with equal merit" as you seem to think it does. "Objective" means "without regard to the frame of reference". Thinking that Yehova sounds like a better God than Ganesha is most assuredly not decided "without regard to the frame of reference".

I believe you are the one that has it reversed. Your conclusion that all religious or Deity references are as valid as any single one is "weighing all things with equal merit". In objectivity, the object must project the validity "without regard to the frame of reference" and apart from the partiality or bias of the individual's thoughts, feelings or logic. You have stated that 5 of the ten commandments you agree are beneficial. You then immediately turn "Subjective" and attempt to part them out and refit them within your "reguarded frame of reference" or logic bias. The majority of your statements are from this same MO.

You only know the one because you've already dismissed the others. Why did you do that? That is why I dismiss all of them.

I haven't dismissed them. I can find some level of validity in most of them.
I just can't find the same complete depth, length, and breadth of validity in but one.

That's possible, yes, but hardly probable. With a complete lack of actual evidence to support it, why choose the option that is far less probable?

Probable with reguard to what or who? On what scale or standard?
Remember you must maintain Ojectivity.
Probability will require additional examination.

Logic is weak, frail, and powerless when people apply it incorrectly. But then it's not logic, either..

Thats the whole point isn't it. If you are a people, then you are subject to misapplication. Logic is still logic whether its right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent. It likewise is not the all powerful end all, do all, answer to eveything, as it appears you think it is. I'm suddenly reminded of Famine's statement about the Gun. Its the same principle.

Huh? Adam and Eve were forbidden Knowledge by God. In other words, they were supposed to remain ignorant and dependent. Daring to want knowledge and independence was the Original Sin! Damn right I'm guilty, if the alternative is a life of non-understanding and an existence granted only by the whim of a non-understandable deity..

I think your assesment is way off here. This is merely a mirror image of the "Parent-Child" relationship. He was instructing them from the " I know something about these things" or Parent perspective, just as we experience growing up. Likewise it was given from a care and love vantage point, but also knowing that ultimately they will have to decide for themselves. I believe that if the original course of obedience had been allowed to progress, the introduction of knowledge and discernment of it would have been at some point an inevitable part of the process. Thats JMO on that aspect.

To me, this is also a good example of the "correlatable" qualities of the Bible in relation to the "realities of our exsistence".

Isn't it clear? It's like crystal to me - that's the absolute best way to keep someone under your control. Make sure the victim remains ignorant, does not trust his own thinking, and relies utterly on you as the authority figure to supply all knowledge. that way you can feed him whatever you want him to know, and only what you want him to know.

See above.

Certainly over the ages many have sought to enforce that method for their own alterior motives. It does not however inadvertently confirm motive in everything.(post #1098) Although, it is one reason why I say read it for yourself.

It's classic subjection/repression, as carried out by every tinpot dictator from the dawn of time to Kim Jong Ill. Read Animal Farm or 1984 some time.

In those cases, I have to agree.

Huh?

Somehow I'm not surprised this one went right past you.

If each person gets to decide whether it is "true" or not, then it is not truth

How so? The truth in something, is not dependent on or altered by who (numerically) may or may not recognize it as such. Although the more that do numerically claim it does lend some credence to the possiblity and even probability of truth being contained therein. However it is still no guarantee.

Remeber that whole "regardless of the frame of reference" objectivity thing? Each person is welcome and capable to decide if they like it or not, but that doesn't affect the truth of it.

I think you just contradicted yourself as to the prior statement.
Otherwise with the exception of your use of the word "Like", I would say: Exactly.
As you, I and others have pointed out, you are not necessarily going to "like" everything it says. But then again that doesn't have any bearing on the "truth" of it. If anything it may add validation to it.

I think religion has been a scam for so long that most of the people who now operate the scam don't even realize it's a scam any more. Kind of like Amway..

Oops, I think you may have just slipped into subjective cynicism.

I've got a clear conscience because I have a clear moral code I follow. The success is mine, the failures are mine, and the code is mine, but it is fair to all. And it is not divinely inspired in any way..

So you are your own GOD, so to speak. Tell me, if you are your own GOD then why do you need a moral code and from where did you derive it?
Also tell me how you deal with these failures you speak of, and how you came to be an expert involving matters of fairness?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

They didn't need a Religion do to that?
In reality, all ethics and human rights have originated from and through Religion. One in particular.

Or perhaps religion originated from ethics and human rights?

 

[Wenders]

False in the "True reality" sense, not in the belief of those who carried out.
(They truly thought they were doing the right thing)

These guys and you are supposedly believing in and being "spoken to" by the exact same god. So if they got the message wrong then what's to say that you have got it right?

 

[Famine]

These guys and you are supposedly believing in and being "spoken to" by the exact same god. So if they got the message wrong then what's to say that you have got it right?

Especially given the bit where they read the same text one to three translations earlier - some of them even in its original language.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

These guys and you are supposedly believing in and being "spoken to" by the exact same god. So if they got the message wrong then what's to say that you have got it right?

Whenever I try to do that I always end up thinking that many followers of Christ are not sufficiently fanatical. If I truly believed that Jesus was who he said he was, I would devote my entire life to religion.

As History has shown and Danoff points out here, it is very easy to become so zealous in something, particularly that you have received in a revelation of truth, that you go off half cocked, so to speak and end up discrediting the whole thing. Just because what you know is the truth, doesn't mean you know all truth, or does it justify going around trying to beat people up with it. This is a somewhat common mistake, I think everybody makes to some extent. Peter was a good example of this.

The problem is we are so steeped in our own carnality (its all we have operated with up until you receive his operating system) it generally takes some time to learn you can't sucessfully apply his ways with carnal methods. This has been true Historically as well. As far as I know he does not approve or condone of such methods. It is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.

Ephesians 4:15 (King James version) says it this way:
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Romans 12:2 (Amplified)Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

EDIT:BTW for the sake of simplicity and unverifiable evidence as to what party actually did destroy the Library at Alexandria, I haven't argued the real possibility that it was not destroyed by Christians. No doubt Carl Sagan (avid atheist) is Dukes source for this proclaimed bonified fact. Again in reality there is no verifiable evidence as to who or how it actually met its demise.

 

[Danoff]

As History has shown and Danoff points out here, it is very easy to become so zealous in something, particularly that you have received in a revelation of truth, that you go off half cocked, so to speak and end up discrediting the whole thing.

My point was actually that the existence of eternal life on another plane makes the short time we have here unimportant. I would focus my life entirely on spirituality and the supernatural if I believed it existed - as that would easily become the most important knowledge.

EDIT:BTW for the sake of simplicity and unverifiable evidence as to what party actually did destroy the Library at Alexandria, I haven't argued the real possibility that it was not destroyed by Christians. No doubt Carl Sagan (avid atheist) is Dukes source for this proclaimed bonified fact. Again in reality there is no verifiable evidence as to who or how it actually met its demise.

...now you need verifiable evidence.

Since you don't know that it wasn't the Christians, you should believe it was right? Just like if I can't prove God doesn't exist, I should believe in him.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Romans 12:2 (Amplified)Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

This age? do you mean now? 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? or 500 years from now? (the future) How do you know it means this age? Or just the current age (time) for the reader?
Honestly, SuperCobraJet - What do you think people would have said in Jesus' time, if Criss Angel was doing his thing? You think he could've convinced masses he was a God? You figure some people wouldn't have believed him, (like so many didn't believe in Jesus), but if devoted followers did, and they wrote about him, and their "scriptures" were found hundreds or thousands of years later, maybe people would believe them then?

Do you believe in the book(s) of mormon? If not, why not? If so, why so?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

My point was actually that the existence of eternal life on another plane makes the short time we have here unimportant. I would focus my life entirely on spirituality and the supernatural if I believed it existed - as that would easily become the most important knowledge..

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you would "go burn down a Library".
I was just using your comment to point out that "fanatacism" can lead to an unintended or misguided course, particularly when it developes into a "Us verses Them" mentality. Not just in matters of Religion as well.

...now you need verifiable evidence.

Since you don't know that it wasn't the Christians, you should believe it was right? Just like if I can't prove God doesn't exist, I should believe in him.

Not exactly. Even if they did not do this particular deed, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find one they did do. Either way, principly Duke's complaint is still a real and valid point to consider. See what I mean.

 

[Duke]

I didn't bring it up, you did.

True enough, but only in the context of pointing out areas where the Bible is not 100% correct, as you claim. Not as an opening to discuss evolution.

Simple, prior to that which was perfect (the perfect sacrifice in the person of Jesus) there was a temporary system to punish sin under the law. Once the perfect was established, all sin was put under the Son(Jesus) or is now dealt with through the Son.

I thought the Bible was 100% perfect? That was your claim a few days ago. If the New Testament is perfect and replaces the "temporary" system, why is the Old Testament still part of the Bible? And why was the punishment just under the Old Testament but not under the New Testament? Did God change his mind and decide to lighten up a little?

They didn't need a Religion do to that?

No, they didn't. Why would they? As I said, they most likely invented religion to scare the locals into following the rules, but they did not need a deity to create the rules in the first place.

In reality, all ethics and human rights have originated from and through Religion. One in particular.

This is a wildly unsubstantiated statement, and completely inaccurate. It's no wonder you think that the US is a Christian nation.

I think you err considerably on that first part.... and the second part as well.

It's my considered opinion that I'm right. Of course, this is a mere opinion on my part and I can't calculate an exact date upon which religion became more bad than good.

False in the "True reality" sense, not in the belief of those who carried out. (They truly thought they were doing the right thing)

I know they thought they were doing the right thing. And since you only have your own belief to say they were not following the True Reality, who are you to say they were wrong?

Sometimes it astounds me how you can make a statement, and then totally ignore the implication of it.

If he is the one thats omnipotent, guess who gets to call the shots, and it ain't you.

If He expects me to believe in Him, then He can show me some proof of His existence. He is the one claiming to be God, not me. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the one hearing the claim. If I claim you owe me a thousand dollars, is it up to you to prove that you do not?

The tradeoff might be well worth it.

Might being the operative word, here. I don't see any possible benefit in it. I already have every advantage that people tell me their faith offers. And I see zero evidence of an afterlife, so I see zero reason to bet on its existence.

Frankly, if I was God, I wouldn't want a whole bunch of followers who were willing to throw away their own integrity and everything they thought was good and right and true on the merest chance that it might be worth it.

You know, if somebody betrays themselves once, they're likely to do it again.

I guess I've been under an illusion all these years. I thought the purpose of language and words was to "say something' or "communicate something".

It is. Your Bible and numerous other holy books all communicate that they are the words of their respective gods. But that's all they do. None of them actually demonstrates it; they just claim it.

I believe you are the one that has it reversed. Your conclusion that all religious or Deity references are as valid as any single one is "weighing all things with equal merit". In objectivity, the object must project the validity "without regard to the frame of reference" and apart from the partiality or bias of the individual's thoughts, feelings or logic.

It's weighing them with equal merit because the amount of proof and evidence supporting each one is equal: zero. That's different from giving all types of criteria (rational and non-rational) the same weight.

You have stated that 5 of the ten commandments you agree are beneficial. You then immediately turn "Subjective" and attempt to part them out and refit them within your "reguarded frame of reference" or logic bias. The majority of your statements are from this same MO.

But that's because logic is impersonal and functions the same way for everyone. If it is not functioning the same way then it is not pure logic. If you insist that relying completely on rational criteria is being subjective I cannot agree with you. Once you step into the non-rational realm, everything becomes subjective, and there's no way to be objective and subjective at the same time.

I haven't dismissed them. I can find some level of validity in most of them. I just can't find the same complete depth, length, and breadth of validity in but one.

Fair enough. Just understand that I do not see any more validity in yours.

Probable with reguard to what or who? On what scale or standard?
Remember you must maintain Ojectivity.
Probability will require additional examination.

See above. You are fundamentally mistaken in what objectivity is.

Thats the whole point isn't it. If you are a people, then you are subject to misapplication. Logic is still logic whether its right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent. It likewise is not the all powerful end all, do all, answer to eveything, as it appears you think it is. I'm suddenly reminded of Famine's statement about the Gun. Its the same principle.

What, that the fault is not in the gun itself but how you use it? Logic is the same way. You can misuse it. The only difference is a gun is still a gun no matter what you point it at, whereas logic is no longer logic if you misuse it.

I think your assesment is way off here. This is merely a mirror image of the "Parent-Child" relationship. He was instructing them from the " I know something about these things" or Parent perspective, just as we experience growing up. Likewise it was given from a care and love vantage point, but also knowing that ultimately they will have to decide for themselves. I believe that if the original course of obedience had been allowed to progress, the introduction of knowledge and discernment of it would have been at some point an inevitable part of the process. Thats JMO on that aspect.

Why? God didn't tell Adam and Eve not to eat the Fruit of Knowlege YET. He didn't give any indication at all that they might later be allowed to eat it when he deemed them ready. It was the strictly the Forbidden Fruit. Permanently off-limits.

Certainly over the ages many have sought to enforce that method for their own alterior motives. It does not however inadvertently confirm motive in everything.(post #1098) Although, it is one reason why I say read it for yourself.

True, it does not guarantee or prove that was the motive. But it certainly casts doubt on it. Why would this one instance be different from all the others? Others have claimed to be divinely inspired as well.

How so? The truth in something, is not dependent on or altered by who (numerically) may or may not recognize it as such. Although the more that do numerically claim it does lend some credence to the possiblity and even probability of truth being contained therein. However it is still no guarantee.

Correct. So the social fact that a lot of people believe in the Bible cannot outweight the physical fact that there is no real evidence that the Bible is true.

I think you just contradicted yourself as to the prior statement.
Otherwise with the exception of your use of the word "Like", I would say: Exactly.
As you, I and others have pointed out, you are not necessarily going to "like" everything it says. But then again that doesn't have any bearing on the "truth" of it. If anything it may add validation to it.

How have I contradicted myself? See my statements about objectivity versus subjectivity above.

Oops, I think you may have just slipped into subjective cynicism.

Possibly. I never said I didn't have an opinion on the matter. However, that opinion was arrived at as logically and rationally as possible, not jumped to and then post-rationalised.

So you are your own GOD, so to speak. Tell me, if you are your own GOD then why do you need a moral code and from where did you derive it?

I need a moral code to guide my actions through life and navigate through my dealings with other people, the same reason anyone else does.

I derived it from the basic inalienable rights I have, of which the Founding Fathers made a fairly accurate description. Every other person on Earth has those same rights. Simply recognizing those rights for others and defending them for myself generates a framework of ethics that can be used to answer any moral question that arises.

Also tell me how you deal with these failures you speak of, and how you came to be an expert involving matters of fairness?

I deal with failures by trying to rectify the situation wherein I failed and return it to fairness. And every person who follows the logical process I outlined above can become an expert in fairness. There's no magic to it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

This age? do you mean now? 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? or 500 years from now? (the future) How do you know it means this age? Or just the current age (time) for the reader?

I beleive it means "all of the above" with the exception of the "future" as in, at the appointed time this existence will be closed out and another ushered in.

Honestly, SuperCobraJet - What do you think people would have said in Jesus' time, if Criss Angel was doing his thing? You think he could've convinced masses he was a God? You figure some people wouldn't have believed him, (like so many didn't believe in Jesus), but if devoted followers did, and they wrote about him, and their "scriptures" were found hundreds or thousands of years later, maybe people would believe them then?

I have no idea about all that.

Do you believe in the book(s) of mormon? If not, why not? If so, why so?

No I don't. Mainly because I don't believe in Denominationalism.

 

[Famine]

No I don't. Mainly because I don't believe in Denominationalism.

But... you're a Catholic?

 

[Sureboss]

Is that an ideology based on denominators?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But... you're a Catholic?

No I'm not. Why do you say that?

 

[Famine]

Because you tithe and give equal weight to the Old Testament. Together, these are pretty much unique to Catholicism.


However, even assuming that you aren't Catholic, you do belong to a certain sect of Christianity - and that sect is a product of denominalisation, in which you don't believe. Which kinda cements the fact that belief isn't relevant to reality

 

[Duke]

Not to mention the fact that Christianity itself is a denomination, regardless of flavor.

If I was forced at gunpoint to go to church, I would probably choose Unitarian Universalists, but it would still be under protest.