Do you believe in God?

[FoRiZon]

They're often the same thing, no? You were equally baffled by the Bali 9 (or 8, or 1) thread, or so you said. Just roll up your sleeves and dig in

In not baffled with Bali 9. Its the polarising opinions that somewhat confuse me, and im appreciate it.

In this, some fundamentalist citing out of bible, some atheists shoving EVIDENCE and then proceed attacking whole religious member.

You know, this is supposed to be a Do you believe god? Thread. Not Reddit Atheists.

Is there a reason extremist fundamentalist and psychian without emotion tropes exists, this is it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In not baffled with Bali 9. Its the polarising opinions that somewhat confuse me, and im appreciate it.

In this, some fundamentalist citing out of bible, some atheists shoving EVIDENCE and then proceed attacking whole religious member.

You know, this is supposed to be a Do you believe god? Thread. Not Reddit Atheists.

Is there a reason extremist fundamentalist and psychian without emotion tropes exists, this is it.

Wow, not the thread for you then?

I think recent discussions have been polarised across those who devoutly believe that the Bible is the word of a God and that no other Truth exists and those who believe that science and evidence are the way to greater knowledge. The second are also pointing out that the Bible is the words of different men over many millenia and that proof for science exists, proof for God does not.

So, @FrzGT, do you believe in God?

 

[FoRiZon]

Wow, not the thread for you then?

I think recent discussions have been polarised across those who devoutly believe that the Bible is the word of a God and that no other Truth exists and those who believe that science and evidence are the way to greater knowledge. The second are also pointing out that the Bible is the words of different men over many millenia and that proof for science exists, proof for God does not.

So, @FrzGT, do you believe in God?

In the level of Senna and far from the level of @DCP .

Specifically moderate, and I admit I also nitpick some of the good book, though I see most of it as a value dissonance, not a gods rule. I also didnt reject any science proof, obviously. My opinion is that science is a god creation, including evolution (search for theistical evolution).

Sorry for blowing a fuse.

 

[JKgo]

....This thread needs another light relief.
As ever I shall be THE PROVIDER!!!

And finally.....

 

[CodeRedR51]

View attachment 361555

*You're

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Hitler, an avowed Catholic Christian, had a great role model in God.

In Mein Kampf, he said "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Of course, he was never able to kill on anything like God's scale, but he was certainly a moral person, following the Almighty's example of true morality.

I know of no Christian teachings that support his claim.
It appears that his statements were based on some perverted form of replacement theology.
In reality he was a great imposter(sounds familiar) who adhered to no moral code but his own.
Someone noted earlier, actions by Catholic priests that were contradictory to Christian teaching.
His example does show that even with the influence of a higher moral authority, man is not immune from justifying practically anything under his own derived moral code.

We derived all of mathematics without any help from the bible or god. Certainly, there is no mention in the bible about how to perform derivatives or integrals and what they mean, etc. Yet surely you would not say that any man's system of math is just as good as anyone else's. Someone claiming 2+2=5 does not have equal footing as anyone else, and the reason for that is very clear.

First you must assume, that God is not who he says he is or has done what he said he has.
Otherwise he would get the credit for mathematics.

Mathematics and morals do not necessarily run parallel.
The reference above is a good example.
Hitler's Germany was the most scientifically advanced of the time, in which mathematics played a key role.
However, he was morally corrupt and managed to convince a whole nation to follow him and use their advancements for destructive purposes.
So much for that theory.

No it can't, Buddhism doesn't have a "God" or "Deity". Simple fact.

What then is the source of the "enlightenment"?

Overall you seem to take the line that some Christianity forms a majority "control group" (it doesn't), that we have no way of seeing the effects of secularism on large portions of populations (we do), and that the bibble is a contemporary document to the activities of Jesus that leads into 2,000 years of directed worship (it isn't).

It is undeniable in Europe and the Americas, that Christianity has been an overwhelming influence for over a thousand years and consequently if you are a product generationally of those regions, you are a product of that influence.

To do an accurate comparison, as I've already pointed out multiple times, you would need to do the following with secular humanism:

Because it would have to be embraced with the same degree of influence and time of influence as compared to Christianity.
That is the only way to determine what a comparison group would yield as far as moral predisposition.

Otherwise you have no legitimate control group by which to do a comparison.

No it can't.

What then is the source of the "enlightenment"?

That's a presumption on your part, one that you haven't supported at all..

History supports it, but apparently you don't.
I'm not surprised.

I see, so your happy with you're own explanation so screw anyone else.

Again that's your interpretation.

Given that a negative can't be proven (how many times does that have to be explained to you) its up to you to provide proof that it did occur. To date none exists.

Perhaps you should consult the negative example listed below.

I've read you replies and I've addressed them, you simply repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't change the facts.

Reading and comprehending are two different things.

Its also not the only thing missing from Codex Sinaiticus (I'm amazed at just how ignorant you are of the history of your own religious text), the evidence for them being added at a later point by men is present (unless you now live in a universe in which time is non-linear), no evidence exists to support a claim that these bits added in afterwards were the words of Jesus.

And as I keep repeating, there is no conclusive evidence they are not.
There is no evidence that excludes that possiblity.
Do you know what conclusive evidence is?

To claim they were (as you are doing) is an extraordinary claim, please support it with evidence.

To the contrary, in light of inconclusive evidence, not at all.
See the example below, particularly the highlighted part.

And as and when new evidence comes to light I will be more than happy to re-evaluate it, that doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring the evidence that exists right now (because it doesn't support your beliefs) and pretending evidence exists that doesn't (to justify your beliefs)

Read the statements I made in my last post.
In light of this comment, I have to ask again, do you know what conclusive evidence is?

Wikipedia
Proving a negative
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".
Example
Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[11][12] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of belief/disbelief a person could hold is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as

1. The number of gumballs is even.
2. The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both. This is the default position. The justification for this zero-evidence epistemic position of non-belief is only over the lack of evidence supporting the claim. Instead, the burden of proof, or the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning for one claim or the other, lies with those seeking to persuade someone holding the default position or the null hypothesis.

Alternatively, these two mutually exclusive claims may be interpreted pluralistically, in a similar fashion to Schrödinger's cat. The two possible states are both considered true until measurements exclude one of the options. This pluralistic approach eliminates the need for the null hypothesis and sets the default as a superposition of all possible outcomes. Within this paradigm, the burden of proof lies with those seeking to remove consideration for one or more possible truths.

That burden would be yours not mine. The evidence in place already supports the words being added (and it goes well beyond just that line) by men over 400 years after the claimed death of JC.

The two possible truths here are:

1. Jesus did say it.
2. Jesus didn't say it.

You are the one seeking to remove consideration for one of the possible truths with inconclusive evidence, not me.
Therefore the burden is on you.

You are the one claiming that these words added were spoken by JC, given that 400 years passed as a minimum that claim is going to need some significant evidence. Please provide it.

Read the comments in my last post and compare them to the example.
You will find that is not the case.
Although I personally favor one, I do not exclude the possiblity of the other.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No it can't, Buddhism doesn't have a "God" or "Deity". Simple fact.

What then is the source of the "enlightenment"?

Bodhi doesn't quite mean enlightened... but that nirvana is in oneself. It doesn't come from a god, as I already pointed out there is no god or deity in Buddhism.

 

[GBO Possum]

I know of no Christian teachings that support his claim.
It appears that his statements were based on some perverted form of replacement theology.
In reality he was a great imposter(sounds familiar) who adhered to no moral code but his own.

The above is in reference to Hitler quoting divine inspiration for attempted genocide.

Well, @SuperCobraJet, your God was renowned for promoting genocide, either implemented by himself, or humans instructed by him to commit genocide.

Are you saying that Hitler's genocide attempt was not God's moral code but Hitler's alone, whereas God's achieved and attempted genocides were moral codes to aspire to? So we should condemn Hitler as being "perverted", whereas we should regard God's genocides as admirable?

Of course, I prophesy that you will ignore this just as you have ignored other such posts.

Your God is really such a horrible piece of work, and you won't or can't admit it.

 

[dylansan]

First you must assume, that God is not who he says he is or has done what he said he has.
Otherwise he would get the credit for mathematics.

Mathematics and morals do not necessarily run parallel.
The reference above is a good example.
Hitler's Germany was the most scientifically advanced of the time, in which mathematics played a key role.
However, he was morally corrupt and managed to convince a whole nation to follow him and use their advancements for destructive purposes.
So much for that theory.

I'm not equating math with morality, nor scientific progess with moral values. That's ridiculous.

You said without god all moral viewpoints are equally valid. They are not.

The reason not all math ideas are equally valid is because they're based on logic. In fact it's just applied logic. Math and morality are not equivalent obviously, but despite what you may think, morality can be and is derived from logic. That doesn't mean everyone does it correctly. Math is, after all, taught from a very early age whereas logic in general, and how it applies to morality, is not.

All it takes is a set of axioms and logic does the rest. I bet Danoff would be willing to explain it to you... except he's already done it many many times.

 

[Scaff]

I know of no Christian teachings that support his claim.
It appears that his statements were based on some perverted form of replacement theology.
In reality he was a great imposter(sounds familiar) who adhered to no moral code but his own.
Someone noted earlier, actions by Catholic priests that were contradictory to Christian teaching.
His example does show that even with the influence of a higher moral authority, man is not immune from justifying practically anything under his own derived moral code.

The no true Scotsman fallacy.

Nice try but the Bible sets precedent for both genocide and anti-Semitic behavior.

What then is the source of the "enlightenment"?

A man

It is undeniable in Europe and the Americas, that Christianity has been an overwhelming influence for over a thousand years and consequently if you are a product generationally of those regions, you are a product of that influence.

To do an accurate comparison, as I've already pointed out multiple times, you would need to do the following with secular humanism:

If it undeniable you will have no problem proving it.

Otherwise you have no legitimate control group by which to do a comparison.

Yes you do, you just ignore it.

History supports it, but apparently you don't.
I'm not surprised.

Then you will have no problem proving it.

Perhaps you should consult the negative example listed below.

The one you either didn't read or don't understand.

Reading and comprehending are two different things.

I know, you're a good example.

And as I keep repeating, there is no conclusive evidence they are not.
There is no evidence that excludes that possiblity.
Do you know what conclusive evidence is?

So conclusive proof is your new standard?

Please provide the conclusive proof for the Bible, as without that the foundation of your claims disappear.

To the contrary, in light of inconclusive evidence, not at all.
See the example below, particularly the highlighted part.

You missed a rather vital part it would seem:

"When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."

We do have evidence for one, you ignoring it doesn't change that.

The two possible truths here are:

1. Jesus did say it.
2. Jesus didn't say it.

You are the one seeking to remove consideration for one of the possible truths with inconclusive evidence, not me.
Therefore the burden is on you.

No its not, given that evidence exists for one and not the other, the burden remains with you.

Nice try, but try reading it next time.

Read the comments in my last post and compare them to the example.
You will find that is not the case.
Although I personally favor one, I do not exclude the possiblity of the other.

What I will find is that SCJ is once again attempting to redefine things to suit his worldview and as for the last sentence, your track record over the years would indicate that is simply not true.

 

[HP]

Wikipedia

Proving a negative

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

Example

Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[11][12] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of belief/disbelief a person could hold is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as

The number of gumballs is even.The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both. This is the default position. The justification for this zero-evidence epistemic position of non-belief is only over the lack of evidence supporting the claim. Instead, the burden of proof, or the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning for one claim or the other, lies with those seeking to persuade someone holding the default position or the null hypothesis.


Alternatively, these two mutually exclusive claims may be interpreted pluralistically, in a similar fashion to Schrödinger's cat. The two possible states are both considered true until measurements exclude one of the options. This pluralistic approach eliminates the need for the null hypothesis and sets the default as a superposition of all possible outcomes. Within this paradigm, the burden of proof lies with those seeking to remove consideration for one or more possible truths.


The two possible truths here are:


1. Jesus did say it.

2. Jesus didn't say it.


You are the one seeking to remove consideration for one of the possible truths with inconclusive evidence, not me.

Therefore the burden is on you.




Read the comments in my last post and compare them to the example.

You will find that is not the case.

Although I personally favor one, I do not exclude the possiblity of the other.

Anyone seeking to convince someone that there's an invisible boss of humans living in the clouds has the burden of proof, to assert otherwise is absurd.

 

[Mike458]

Try google and youtube. I know the schools were not allowed to teach these things, but now they are. People can then choose, not just be indoctrinated from one side. I always wonder what would happen if the scientists say, "there is a very strong reason to believe that there now is a GOD.

]

Old post, but still something that radical Christians like yourself cling on to:

Prayer is LEGAL in schools, it is not banned, however schools CANNOT force children to believe in one religion.

Ugh... how many times do I have to explain this to people...

 

[CodeRedR51]

]

Old post, but still something that radical Christians like yourself cling on to:

Prayer is LEGAL in schools, it is not banned, however schools CANNOT force children to believe in one religion.

Ugh... how many times do I have to explain this to people...

http://ffrf.org/outreach/item/14029-prayer-in-public-school

Individual, silent, personal prayer never has and never could be outlawed in public schools. The courts have declared government-fostered prayers unconstitutional - those led, required, sanctioned, scheduled or suggested by officials.

 

[HP]

12 painful facts about Christianity.

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/12-painful-facts-about-christianity-2/

Interesting read but not a surprising one for most.

No doubt some will ignore it

 

[LeMansAid]

12 painful facts about Christianity.

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/12-painful-facts-about-christianity-2/

Interesting read but not a surprising one for most.

No doubt some will ignore it

What's your aim here preacher man? Christians for the most part seem to be behaving themselves, so why not leave them be?

I think that the disgusting aspects of the big religions were pretty much just the consolidation of the disgusting aspects of the cultures that they were derived from. Before religion there were no religious people, rather simply.... people. Some of those people came up with the excuse called religion. Sadly, culture fed religion, now religion feeds culture - but the whole thing's bookended by culture. I blame the driver, not the vehicle.

So what if what they believe is nonsense. You can only expect a person to leave you alone if you leave them alone. The perils of the preacher man go both ways.

 

[HP]

What's your aim here preacher man? Christians for the most part seem to be behaving themselves, so why not leave them be?

My aim is to have input in the counter argument against the scourge of organised religion, and, to do so whilst abiding by the rules of this here forum.

I think that the disgusting aspects of the big religions were pretty much just the consolidation of the disgusting aspects of the cultures that they were derived from. Before religion there were no religious people, rather simply.... people. Some of those people came up with the excuse called religion. Sadly, culture fed religion, now religion feeds culture - but the whole thing's bookended by culture. I blame the driver, not the vehicle.

Since the vehicle is religion and the driver man? I also blame the driver. I will also add that it's an appalling vehicle at worst.

So what if what they believe is nonsense. You can only expect a person to leave you alone if you leave them alone. The perils of the preacher man go both ways.

If the deeds of a lot of the faithful weren't steeped in violence, sexual deviance and just plain greed then I'd agree. Unfortunately that's just not how it is, not even close.

Organised religion has grown fat by suckling the teat of the weak and impoverished long enough, too long has humanity suffered from its cancerous growth so yes I have a problem with it and a problem with those who use it to justify their own selfish greed and desires.

So if God exists then show him to me so I may (conveniently) repent my blasphemy and ascend unto his glorious bastion of the faithful.

 

[DCP]

Fnarr.



I hope he isn't using one of science's oxygen bottles, that'll teach him.

The bottle that was invented because of Gods creation of the brain, hands, and the raw materials of the earth?
Yep, that bottle.

Non-Christians aren't people? Certainly, you're not going that far...

Also, neither you nor any of your friends have demonstrated yet that morality requires religion. Care to take a crack at it?



Oh. You were going that far. Well then. You're quite an 🤬

I don't understand. Don't you believe you are an animal, or more precise, monkey / ape like?
Curse me all you need, I mean it was written afterall. I still forgive you...

Honestly, How can one who claims he is good and trying to live his life without sin and do good by his neighbors be such an asshole. You're view on homosexuality is not only disgusting, but quite literally goes completely against the loving nature you seem to act like you portray. You're a very hateful and spiteful person(like so called Father, like son, no?) no matter how much you try to disguise it.

This adds nothing to the discussion, I know, and might possibly get me in trouble but god damn the way you act towards this trump's anything that the "Devil" is doing. You sound evil, atleast in my opinion and probably most anyone that doesn't follow your religion. I have many homosexual family members and friends, and your view is disgusting, so much so that it offends me to this point. I'm sure if they could not be "converted" to be straight, you wouldn't care less if homosexuals get wiped from this planet.

I have to add; I think it was @Famine who brought up the theory of the Devil writing the Book, and what if he did? This religion seems to bring out a lot of hate in its followers, that seems to be overshadowed by the "good" teachings in it.

Thankfully I don't base my life and future on what if's and buts. That is each mans battle.
You have your opinion, and the free will to judge, but judging someone that is on Gods side, isn't really going to help you. It's like you worried about the spec in my eye, while you ignoring the log in your own eye.

Sometimes debating with a stray dog is a lot more productive and enjoyable than debating with some people. I'm now sure of it.

Put yourself in my shoes, and see how many stray dogs I'm genuinely concerned for, especially those fulfilling prophecy, but for the wrong reasons.

@DCP Why will you not answer my question?

Which NT verses state that you, as a devout Christian (and that you have made abundantly clear) should not be a member here?

Its frustratingly puzzling that you either will not or can not answer this.

What has this got to do with the NT anyways. This is just a material world, which will pass away inevitably.

👍 Yup. That works fine for me.

Who is to say that animals don't have a conscious anyway? Can you say for certain that they don't?

Well, if you stood before me, I would not bite you, but go and stand before a hippo. It has no sense of morality to not attack you for nothing. Remember, "Cursed are the animals".
I personally believe animals go to heaven, but whether it's all of them, I don't know. That's up to the Creator.

Oh yeah @DCP? I thought animals do have answer to god in their ways of speech.

So, did you just say animals go to hell? So whats Noahs purpose when he saved those damn animals?

Nope, I don't think I've ever said that.
I enjoy a mean lamb curry, and Nando's chicken. Thankfully Noah let them in...

So @DCP, something puzzles me here. You say that you wouldn't kill yourself for God, but the first words in this passage are "If He did, I would do it." Which you say would make you a mere Christian following a false God. So you wouldn't do it in that case even if He told you to? Doesn't that mean that you would be disobeying God? Perhaps I didn't understand this correctly?

In the Lords Prayer, or if you prefer, the instructions concerning prayer given by the Lord, I am to ask God to treat me the way I treat other people. Which I do ask, sometimes. Usually I just ask Him to keep me from embarrassing myself. Do Born-Again Christians obey this same instruction?

Edited to get it sorted out.

Read the question and answer again, but try without your worldview.
Dying is inevitable.
If God wanted me to kill people I would do it, but you see, God wants us to love people, and give them hope of eternal life. It's people who refuse to put their pride aside.
There are other religions that kill themselves for their gods, or allow their gods to tell them to kill.

Regarding the Lords prayer, from the God of the bible, here it is, so you know where us Born again Christians come from:

Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

In your worldview, you have no idea what this prayer is all about, but the beauty of it all is, you do have a choice, but if only you could put the scheme of man in your back pocket.

]

Old post, but still something that radical Christians like yourself cling on to:

Prayer is LEGAL in schools, it is not banned, however schools CANNOT force children to believe in one religion.

Ugh... how many times do I have to explain this to people...

Schools can teach all religions, just give the children choices.

Evolution is a religion, and forces children to believe in it.
Studying bones of the past mean nothing. Those bones could be anybodies. Why could bones of the past change from one animal into another, but not with animals alive today, or the last few thousand years?
No one in their right minds could ever "know" that those bones had ANY offspring.
One would have to have faith that something like that happened in the past, much the same for cosmic evolution.
So go ahead and teach evolution, but also teach the creation account of the bible.

Other religions don't have creation accounts that show scientific evidence.
Evolution has nothing to do with science, yet it is taught in science classes.
Children should be able to decide for themselves if they originally were created by God, from the soil, or if they came from nothing, to primordial soup, and a rock, else they just end up defending this like you do.

 

[HP]

Can someone remind my bank about Matthew 6:12

 

[ImaRobot]

Thankfully I don't base my life and future on what if's and buts. That is each mans battle.
You have your opinion, and the free will to judge, but judging someone that is on Gods side, isn't really going to help you. It's like you worried about the spec in my eye, while you ignoring the log in your own eye.

And what makes you think I do? It's odd that you say that because all of your teachings are what ifs and buts. GOD's side? I didn't realize you're able to appoint yourself to that position so easily. In that case I'm doing God's biding aswell.

 

[Com Fox]

If God wanted me to kill people I would do it, but you see, God wants us to love people, and give them hope of eternal life. It's people who refuse to put their pride aside.
There are other religions that kill themselves for their gods, or allow their gods to tell them to kill.

Yet the Bible says children should be put to death by their Parents if they swore, or you should die if you are working on Sundays.

I think you should come over to my place and kill me then

 

[Nexus]

Evolution is a religion, and forces children to believe in it.

Wait, what?

 

[HP]

Yet the Bible says children should be put to death by their Parents if they swore, or you should die if you are working on Sundays.

I think you should come over to my place and kill me then

The bible also teaches something about wealth and how there is only wealth to be found in the glory of God (or some such, can't recall the exact verse) and that it should be given away or something like that.

I think that Messrs Creflo A Dollar (love the surname), Hinn and Robinson et al missed that memo...

 

[Famine]

Evolution is a religion, and forces children to believe in it.
Studying bones of the past mean nothing. Those bones could be anybodies. Why could bones of the past change from one animal into another, but not with animals alive today, or the last few thousand years?
No one in their right minds could ever "know" that those bones had ANY offspring.


So go ahead and teach evolution, but also teach the creation account of the bible.

Other religions don't have creation accounts that show scientific evidence.

Someone still doesn't know what the scientific method is.

 

[KSaiyu]

Evolution is a religion, and forces children to believe in it.

Simple request. Explain MRSA

 

[The McMerc]

What has this got to do with the NT anyways. This is just a material world, which will pass away inevitably.

Oh my god are you being serious?

 

[Famine]

Oh my god are you being serious?

I think he's perhaps mixed up his madonnas.

 

[Scaff]

What has this got to do with the NT anyways. This is just a material world, which will pass away inevitably.

So the answer is no, you can't answer the question.

I was under the impression you knew the Bible and the verse in questions not even vague about this one?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Schools can teach all religions, just give the children choices.

Correct.

Evolution is a religion, and forces children to believe in it..

Utterly wrong, and utterly wrong.

Studying bones of the past mean nothing. Those bones could be anybodies. Why could bones of the past change from one animal into another, but not with animals alive today, or the last few thousand years?
No one in their right minds could ever "know" that those bones had ANY offspring.

Utterly wrong.

Children should be able to decide for themselves if they originally were created by God, from the soil, or if they came from nothing, to primordial soup, and a rock, else they just end up defending this like you do.

Yes, they should. Who said "made from soil" though? That's just you offering an even crazier alternative to the one you're proposing.

Why can't/won't you answer @Scaff's question?

Do you know anything about MRSA as asked by @KSaiyu? If it's the case that evolution doesn't happen (it';s happening now, remember, and always will), then it must be god who made antibiotics... so it must be god who changes viruses to be immune from those antibiotics... why does he do THAT?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Bodhi doesn't quite mean enlightened... but that nirvana is in oneself. It doesn't come from a god, as I already pointed out there is no god or deity in Buddhism.

Either way to reasonably accomplish such a state within one's own limitations seems contradictory or at the least implies you are your own God or Deity.

The above is in reference to Hitler quoting divine inspiration for attempted genocide.

The divine inspiration was of his own making.
Under grace or the New Testament, the temporary justifications and practices of the Old Testament were abolished.

Well, your God was renowned for promoting genocide, either implemented by himself, or humans instructed by him to commit genocide.

It was not promoted but implemented when necessary to simultaneously preserve autonomy and the plan of redemption.
In other words there was no other option available at the time to successfully accomplish both.
But I guess since you seem to fancy yourself as smarter and more righteous than God you could have done a better job with that.

Are you saying that Hitler's genocide attempt was not God's moral code but Hitler's alone, whereas God's achieved and attempted genocides were moral codes to aspire to? So we should condemn Hitler as being "perverted", whereas we should regard God's genocides as admirable?

There is nothing admirable about genocide from God's perspective.
Again under the New Testament those practices were abolished.
So Hitler was without righteous justification for such acts.

Of course, I prophesy that you will ignore this just as you have ignored other such posts.

I'm not aware of any posts I have ignored and I have addressed this subject at least once already.

Your God is really such a horrible piece of work, and you won't or can't admit it.

If it were actually true, perhaps I could.

You can't have it both ways.
With Dominion and autonomy you have to take the consequences that go with it.
Granted the cost of that is extremely high.
However without it, life is meaningless and valueless.

You said without god all moral viewpoints are equally valid. They are not.

That's not exactly what I said.
I said on a equal moral level of authority they are all the same.
Since all are derived from the same moral level of authority.
The same moral level justifies the same for all, and
validity is lost in the process.

The no true Scotsman fallacy.

Nice try but the Bible sets precedent for both genocide and anti-Semitic behavior.

In the Old Testament it was used temporarily when absolutely necessary to establish the New Testament.
And the New Testament superseded the Old.

A man.

Again how does a man enlighten himself beyond his own limitations without a higher source?

If it undeniable you will have no problem proving it.

If you cannot look upon the historical record and clearly see that, it would be an exercise in futility for me to attempt to prove it to you.
Likewise I don't see any proof from you, it is not undeniable.

Yes you do, you just ignore it.
Then you will have no problem proving it.

Likewise.

The one you either didn't read or don't understand.

Again likewise.

I know, you're a good example.

Well perhaps you have influenced me more than you know.

So conclusive proof is your new standard?

No not entirely.
Depends on the subject.

Please provide the conclusive proof for the Bible, as without that the foundation of your claims disappear.

I'm curious here.
If you want conclusive proof for the Bible, why do you bother with debating whether or not Jesus said or did not say something contained therein?

You missed a rather vital part it would seem:

"When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."

That is but one valid approach of two.

Under the acceptable, as so stated pluralistic examination both options are considered true.
The burden of proof being upon the one seeking to remove one of those options.
See my last post.

We do have evidence for one, you ignoring it doesn't change that.
No its not, given that evidence exists for one and not the other, the burden remains with you.

You have evidence of an inconsistency, nothing more.

Nice try, but try reading it next time.

I did read it, it's unmistakable.
You need to re-examine your position.
Under the acceptable pluralistic approach, the burden is clearly on you.

What I will find is that SCJ is once again attempting to redefine things to suit his worldview and as for the last sentence, your track record over the years would indicate that is simply not true.

And what pray tell have I redefined this time?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Either way to reasonably accomplish such a state within one's own limitations seems contradictory or at the least implies you are your own God or Deity.

That's your opinion and not one that any student of Buddhism seems to agree with. If you bind yourself by your estimation of your own limitations then you already have a problem.

Implying that having power over one's own understanding and growth is, in some form, akin to being god or a deity is to belittle oneself. You are your own master, there is no other.