Do you believe in God?

[FoRiZon]

Well Danoff, if morals could be calculated the same as math, you might be on to something.
But of course they cannot.
Math comes with it's own exacts.
Morals don't.
Morals have to be calculated without the benefit of numbers.
There is one thing they do have in common.
There is only one right answer.
But the exacts have to be added to determine it.

Well, not really.

Like you said, moral doesnt have an absolute logic as math or science...... Which also means that the moral does not have one right answer.

Which also means everyone has its own standards. Which means that anyone cant force their beliefs to others. It depends on the individual to choose.

 

[DQuaN]

This all seems like a long-winded, convoluted way of trying to get a point across so I'll just cut to the chase.

I DON'T NEED GOD TO HAVE MORALS.

There.

 

[Jet Badger]

I DON'T NEED GOD TO HAVE MORALS.

But then you must be running around raping and killing people! Durr. THE THINGS GOD HAS NEVER DONE AND DOES NOT WANT YOU TO! Hurr durr.

 

[Danoff]

Well Danoff, if morals could be calculated the same as math, you might be on to something.
But of course they cannot.
Math comes with it's own exacts.
Morals don't.
Morals have to be calculated without the benefit of numbers.
There is one thing they do have in common.
There is only one right answer.
But the exacts have to be added to determine it.

There is an understanding that can be gained about the subject of morality through logic.

It won't tell you that gay marriage is wrong (for example), but it will weigh in on the subject - unfortunately it's not what many religious people want to hear. Logic tells us that when you want to prevent two gay people from entering into a marriage contract using the force of law, that that force being imposed on two people who have not themselves initiated force against you is a subjective value judgement. It demonstrates that you're willing to use force to enact subjectivity. Now the logical conclusion from that is that when others use force against you, it is playing by your own voluntarily-subscribed-to rules.

Pretty simple. Also, essentially, the original basis of the US government (though naturally it wasn't implemented perfectly).

Here's the kicker, if you'e enacting God's word on the subject, then suddenly it's not your own subjective value judgement, but the value judgement of a higher being. Now, why that judgement is superior to our own is a little unclear. For example, the Devil is a higher being as well, and I think you would not assume the Devil's judgments to be superior to your own. So it's not inherently that the being is more powerful than you (that would also be a form of might makes right). There has to be some other attribute... most religious people would say that God is perfect so God's law is perfect. That's fine except God is not perfect, as clearly demonstrated in the OT and NT. A perfect God never commands a rapist to marry his victim, or to stone the nonbelievers to death.

What happened in that last sentence? I invoked a higher moral authority than God. Where did I get it from? Logic.

The concept of logic is a more powerful one than God. In fact, I'd credit logic as the reason most people stop believing in God. When you're faced with either believing in 1+1=3 (God) or accepting 1+1=2 (logic), most people ultimately choose logic (or they choose God as children when their concept of logic is a little weak, and then slowly throughout their adulthood try to rectify logic into their already accepted beliefs). Ultimately, though, as an adult you come to understand that logic is the most basic understanding of the universe, and it never changes throughout your life. And that constant presence has a very powerful influence on your brain.

It's the same reason that a religious person will say "you don't need evidence, you can't have evidence, you have to have faith". But the moment they think they might have a shred of evidence, they scramble to it. Deep down, you know you need evidence, you know you need logic, you know you need it more than God or faith. It's in your biological makeup.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And other than a passive aggressive dig that means what exactly?

It wasn't a dig.
Just a reminder that disagreement is a two way street.

Lets make it simple, you are wrong in regard to Buddhism having a deity.

I thought I already ageed with that.

Only the last part is, and even that needs the assumption that gods exists to be open to interpretation.

And I said:

I agree.

Please cite them exactly as written.

I've already done that as well:

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.

And how much evidence do we have for the words that were added were spoken by Jesus (aside from the fact that his existence in the first place can't be proven and is supported by minimal evidence outside of the Bible)?

Later texts include it as Jesus having said it.
Thats evidence on the other side, which BTW you appear content to ignore.

Then you clearly either don't understand the requirement "When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both." or you have evidence that Jesus said these words.

As stated again above, that is only one of two acceptable approaches.

Then why did you state "It does not conclusively prove he said it, or didn'tsay it."?

Simply because thats the fact of the matter.

It clearly doesn't require conclusive evidence, yet you insert that as a requirement (and in doing so redefine it).

I'm not redefining anything.
As with any other evidence, the evidence can only support what it supports.
And it supports an inconsistency, nothing more.
The only way to conclude it confirms or is conclusive as to Jesus having not said it, is by way of speculative assumption.
Or you must clearly go beyond what the evidence supports.

You are right (as I have been saying all along) that it includes all forms of evidence, the evidence for mortal men adding the line is significant, the evidence that those mortal men were divinely influenced to do so is non-existent. If you disagree then provide this evidence.

Again you are attempting to factually conclude on assumption that a legitimate source was not available when it was added in later text.
That is clearly beyond what the evidence supports.
And the fact it is in later text is evidential to it being legitimate, even though the evidence of absense from the earlier text casts suspicion on that legitimacy.
However in reality it is not strong enough, to support removal of it.
As said it is inconclusive.

There is an understanding that can be gained about the subject of morality through logic.

It won't tell you that gay marriage is wrong (for example), but it will weigh in on the subject - unfortunately it's not what many religious people want to hear. Logic tells us that when you want to prevent two gay people from entering into a marriage contract using the force of law, that that force being imposed on two people who have not themselves initiated force against you is a subjective value judgement. It demonstrates that you're willing to use force to enact subjectivity. Now the logical conclusion from that is that when others use force against you, it is playing by your own voluntarily-subscribed-to rules.

Having been accused here somewhat frequently of redefining, I can't help but be amazed at how you can embrace it here without so much as a blip on the radar screen.

Pretty simple. Also, essentially, the original basis of the US government (though naturally it wasn't implemented perfectly).

Here's the kicker, if you'e enacting God's word on the subject, then suddenly it's not your own subjective value judgement, but the value judgement of a higher being. Now, why that judgement is superior to our own is a little unclear. For example, the Devil is a higher being as well, and I think you would not assume the Devil's judgments to be superior to your own. So it's not inherently that the being is more powerful than you (that would also be a form of might makes right). There has to be some other attribute... most religious people would say that God is perfect so God's law is perfect.

That's fine except God is not perfect, as clearly demonstrated in the OT and NT. A perfect God never commands a rapist to marry his victim, or to stone the nonbelievers to death.

As I've said before, perfect or imperfect according to who?
You have to assume God is perfect or imperfect.
In the OT certain things were allowable under temporary conditions that were superceded in the NT.
I would like to know how you can judge that as imperfect without being in God's position.

What happened in that last sentence? I invoked a higher moral authority than God. Where did I get it from? Logic.

Well IMO you are treading on shaky ground there, but hey it's up to you.
In doing so you are also precluding Logic is ultimately God derived, and assuming it is some infallable source that renders man infallable as well.
Adam and Eve thought the same thing.
It's odd you mention the Devil, and entertain the notion Logic makes you stronger than him.
If it is God's logic, yes I believe you can be.
However, I can attest, if it's just your own it's a foregone conclusion.
He will rip your a** to shreads.
How do you think we got in the mess we are in?

The concept of logic is a more powerful one than God. In fact, I'd credit logic as the reason most people stop believing in God. When you're faced with either believing in 1+1=3 (God) or accepting 1+1=2 (logic), most people ultimately choose logic (or they choose God as children when their concept of logic is a little weak, and then slowly throughout their adulthood try to rectify logic into their already accepted beliefs). Ultimately, though, as an adult you come to understand that logic is the most basic understanding of the universe, and it never changes throughout your life. And that constant presence has a very powerful influence on your brain.

I don't think you are considering that logic is clearly a dynamic process incorporating numerous influences over the years.
For instance at one point in time it was considered logical to bleed sick people to make them well.
Just one example among many.
Consequently to entertain your own ablity to embrace logic alone as a perfect companion of permanent status is a historically flawed concept.

It's the same reason that a religious person will say "you don't need evidence, you can't have evidence, you have to have faith". But the moment they think they might have a shred of evidence, they scramble to it. Deep down, you know you need evidence, you know you need logic, you know you need it more than God or faith. It's in your biological makeup.

Deep down there is evidence.
But we have been there before.

You may need more evidence for God or faith, but I don't.

 

[Scaff]

I
I thought I already ageed with that.

Just checking, as it then quite clearly shows that a deity is not a requirement for morals.

I
Later texts include it as Jesus having said it.
Thats evidence on the other side, which BTW you appear content to ignore.

I've not ignored it at all, it form a core part of the point I made.
We know it was added in and we know it was added in by men who claim its the words of Jesus. That we have evidence for.

What we have no evidence for is that it its the words of Jesus.

That's how we know we have evidence for one but not the other.

I
As stated again above, that is only one of two acceptable approaches.

Which have different amounts of eviednce to support them, none in one case.

I
Simply because thats the fact of the matter.

It is, but its also utterly moot in this case.

I
I'm not redefining anything.
As with any other evidence, the evidence can only support what it supports.
And it supports an inconsistency, nothing more.
The only way to conclude it confirms or is conclusive as to Jesus having not said it, is by way of speculative assumption.
Or you must clearly go beyond what the evidence supports.

Yes you are and if you don't see that then you have not understood what you have been citing.

I
Again you are attempting to factually conclude on assumption that a legitimate source was not available when it was added in later text.
That is clearly beyond what the evidence supports.
And the fact it is in later text is evidential to it being legitimate, even though the evidence of absense from the earlier text casts suspicion on that legitimacy.
However in reality it is not strong enough, to support removal of it.
As said it is inconclusive.

No evidence exist to support a claim that those are the words of Jesus.

None at all.

I
Having been accused here somewhat frequently of redefining, I can't help but be amazed at how you can embrace it here without so much as a blip on the radar screen.

I'm using the exact definition as per your source.
Answer the following.

What evidence exists that men put these words in the Bible?

What evidence exists that the words are those of Jesus?

 

[DCP]

Oh my god are you being serious?

Absolutely serious. You are only here for a season (Gods season), and you should be very grateful you are still breathing each morning. Death, sin and suffering will end very soon. You are either still apart of it, or you have found Christ.
The flood is a reminder, that the Owner of this universe will destroy sin and wickedness once and for all this time.
You can follow whatever rules you desire, I mean, it is part of the free will given to you, but you must still stand accountable for your crimes, whether you like it or not, believe it or not, mock it or not.

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

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?

Look at every food item and ask yourself whether or not it traces itself back to soil: potato chips, milk, cheese, eggs, butter, pancakes, bananas, bread, cookies, grapes, apples, beef, chicken, lamb, pork, popcorn, chocolate, cereal, coffee, strawberries, etc. It takes a little bit of backward thinking, but if you take the time to give it some thought, everything traces itself back to the soil.

Let’s do it with eggs. The eggs came from the chicken. The chicken ate the wheat to make the eggs, and the wheat traces itself back to the soil.

When you were a toddler, your mother gave you milk that came from the cow that chewed the grass that came from the soil. Stated simplistically, milk is rearranged soil nutrients.

So is cheese, butter, yoghurt and ice cream. The substance of our bodies is made up of the food we ate, and all the food we ate traces itself back to the soil (Mother Earth). We are rearranged dirt.

Coincidentally, science tells us that the same trace elements that make up soil are the same elements that make up the human body--carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. When you die, your body will turn back into soil, and your soiled soul will return to the God who gave you your life.

The flood is what aids your evolution theory, but again, it's your free will to follow the scheme of man, aided by the prince of this fallen world, blindly, while lead to believe that Christians are fools.
Darwinian evolution stands in the way of the science of discovery; summed up in Einstein’s "I want to know how God created this world.”

Gods way of creating man from the ground, is much more believable, then for parents to pay tax money for teachers to tell their innocent children that they came from primordial soup, or a rock, some millions of years ago, whom no one witnessed.
I'll say it again, why pay to be taught the evolution religion only?
Children should know the scientific evidence of the bible also, if they so choose.
http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=home

Here is what Jesus has to say to people that are causing little children to stumble:
'But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

How many youngsters are leaving the churches, because someone is telling them that God doesn't exist.
Prices have to be paid in the Court of the Ultimate Judge of the Universe.
He came, as a humble lamb, slaughtered so that man could receive the free gift of salvation if they so chose to.
He is coming as a Lion pretty soon.
If you are scared of a train derailing, ISIS killing your family while you watch, aids, cancer, ebola, a nuclear explosion in your neighborhood, or a tsunami, how much more should you be when you face the One that created all you see and can't see?

Correct!!! But then neither does Christianity. None of them do.
Evolution has nothing to do with Science? Are you actually being serious? You have NO idea what your are talking about. None.

Stop replying as you are looking more and more like a troll. Perhaps learn something first. Anything. How toilets flush. A new language. Anything to prove that you are not COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED and have no free thought.

I know my replying is shaking your Godless ghosts, else you would just ignore me by now, instead of coming up with this troll pointing. There is Power in the Word of God.
I believe you are completely brain washed, since you the one that believes your greatx1000 grandfather came from soup, then a rock, and that suns are born daily, yet you've never seen that actually happen.
We will only know when we die right? That's a hell of a gamble you taking.
Guys say the youtube evidence i post is too long, or 2 hours.
Think of the pain sitting in a prison thinking, " just two hours of my time, i could have avoided this horrible place"
All choice and free will. You cannot blame anyone on that day. No one.

If it is a religion, then PROVE that it is.

The answer is simple for your question: Natural selection weeded out the weaker of the species not suited to that particular environment, and over time with genetic mutations that could either be good or bad, bones can change from generation to generation.

It. Is. Science. It shows how we came to be through natural selection, mutations, and reproduction.


So you are a mass murderer? What if you were in a room full of people that didn't believe in your religion? You have a gun with you, and you heard a "message from God" telling you to kill EVERY LAST PERSON in the room. Would you?

Here's your proof if you want to challenge the prince of this fallen world:


Your question is meaningless. Ifs and buts just don't work against Gods elect. It's facts and truth.
Jesus died so I can live. The God of the Bible has already told me not to kill the people in the room "to make you happy"
You keep talking about bones of the past, yet you can't answer, why those bones could change from a dinosaur to a bird, but today, a bird can't change to a dinosaur. You see how you willfully miss the point?
The bible says that people will become willfully ignorant "dumb on purpose". Why?
Because you don't want God telling you how to live by His rules, under His new covenant.
That's fine. You free to live how you want, but every criminal must be punished.

I think I know why there was a misunderstanding. When I said
I meant that DCP should try to understand science if he wants to know why we don't believe in god.

Oh I understand it just fine. I'm not the one brainwashed into thinking evolution is science.
It's a dangerous religion, taking youngsters away from Gods salvation plan.

Let me ask you very simple questions:

Do you really agree as fact, that you eventually came from a rock, ignoring the millions of years of rain before that?
Where did right from wrong come from?
Where did the information come from, with your big bang theory?
Why is it that when every time, you plant a seed, the root goes down into the soil, and the stem goes up, EVERY TIME? Who commanded this to happen? Can't be nothing surely.

 

[niky]

It's a dangerous religion, taking youngsters away from Gods salvation plan.

today, a bird can't change to a dinosaur.

***

The bible says that people will become willfully ignorant "dumb on purpose".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Verbal_irony

Do you really agree as fact, that you eventually came from a rock, ignoring the millions of years of rain before that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrochemistry

We are all stardust. Literally. And possibly more directly than you can imagine.

-

Rocks are mostly silicate. Last I looked, humanity is mostly not silicate.[color]

Where did right from wrong come from?

Ethics.

Where did the information come from, with your big bang theory?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Why is it that when every time, you plant a seed, the root goes down into the soil, and the stem goes up, EVERY TIME?

Gravity.

Who commanded this to happen? Can't be nothing surely.

You're asking the wrong question. Science doesn't care who. It cares how.

Simply saying "Can't be nothing" doesn't make the argument true.


***Of course, a bird can, quite frankly, evolve into something like a dinosaur, should the need arise. But birds won't, because that's a stupid idea. That's like asking why automakers can't make cars with wooden wheels, horse-cart suspensions and crank-starters anymore. Of course they can. But they won't, because nobody would buy them.

-

Nobody sane, that is.

 

[dylansan]

Let me ask you very simple questions:

Allow me to simply say, you were banned from the Evolution thread because you refused to answer simple questions but continued to preach about how evolution must be false despite your lack of understanding. Importantly, you can continue to claim that you understand it, but I think you've proven to everyone in a hundred mile radius that you absolutely don't. I doubt the mods will allow you to continue talking about it here for very long. In any case:

Do you really agree as fact, that you eventually came from a rock, ignoring the millions of years of rain before that?

No. People coming from rocks is as absurd as people coming from dirt, or a severed rib.

Where did right from wrong come from?

A book. No wait, not that. I think niky got it right. Ethics

Where did the information come from, with your big bang theory?

That's a tough one. There are plenty of people working right now to figure that out. But I know you don't know enough about the subject to claim information couldn't come from the big bang (though I also know it won't stop you).

Why is it that when every time, you plant a seed, the root goes down into the soil, and the stem goes up, EVERY TIME? Who commanded this to happen? Can't be nothing surely.

There probably used to be seeds that didn't do this every time, but then there were some that used gravity to their advantage and had a better chance of surviving. Eventually, only these seeds were left. Then some of those seeds were better at pointing the stem upright, so they survived more and took over their ecosystem. This continued until the only seeds left were those that always point the right way. Lots of things can affect how roots and stems grow, like moisture, nutrients, and light avoidance.

 

[Famine]

Rubbish about evolution again

No.

You were banned from posting in the evolution thread because you were persistently posting absolute nonsense you'd made up on the spot in the absence of any actual knowledge on the subject whatsoever. This doesn't mean you can carry on doing it in a different thread.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about on the subject. You waffle on about how science says this, that and the other and then completely ignore the science that is evolution and pretend it's a belief system. People have tried to educate you on how to educate yourself and you're still posting the same rubbish.

This stops.

 

[JKgo]

....Ooooh looky here, hellfire & brimstone man's back. Sigh. Can someone just tell him that he's actually making Christianity sound worse than before??

He's definitely NOT helping the cause of other, saner religious folks here....

 

[dylansan]

Wikipedia
Proving a negative
...

I think it's necessary to point out that this page has some issues. For one, there's question about the validity of some of the sources. I looked through the articles cited in the last paragraph and none of them contain the word pluralism. The text in the article also seems to misrepresent Schrodinger's cat, which was actually intended as a criticism of a pluralistic approach (Copenhagen interpretation) to quantum mechanics.

In addition, the entire section about Dilhaunty is being considered for removal. In the talk page there is discussion which concludes it's not really relevant. In any case, I don't think this page is a very reliable source for this discussion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It takes a little bit of backward thinking...

So I see.

 

[Scaff]

@DCP Why are you not able to answer my question?

 

[DQuaN]

I believe you are completely brain washed, since you the one that believes your greatx1000 grandfather came from soup, then a rock, and that suns are born daily, yet you've never seen that actually happen.

First of all, that's not what I believe. You have demonstrated countless times that you have no idea how evolution works.

Second, I don't believe anything when it comes to evolution. I accept the premise on account of all the evidence, study and work put forward.

See how that works? I have free will and am able to think for myself. I'm able to look at all the solutions put forward and work out which ones are true, and which ones are pure bollocks. That is the opposite of brainwashing.

You know that sperm fertilises an egg to make a baby right? Have you ever seen that actually happen?

You know that sound is formed by pressure waves right? Have you ever seen them?

You know that valleys are formed by water errosion right? Have you ever seen a valley forming?

(I assume you know the above as it is basic knowledge. It's possible you think all that stuff is done by the magical sky fairy).


Stop claiming to know what we think or believe. You are wrong.

 

[Imari]

Coincidentally, science tells us that the same trace elements that make up soil are the same elements that make up the human body--carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. When you die, your body will turn back into soil, and your soiled soul will return to the God who gave you your life.

And where did the carbon, hydrogen, etc. come from? Did God create them as they are?

Gods way of creating man from the ground, is much more believable, then for parents to pay tax money for teachers to tell their innocent children that they came from primordial soup, or a rock, some millions of years ago, whom no one witnessed.

No one witnessed God creating everyone either, so you're not one up there.

The story of creation is only more believable if you have no concept of observation and induction. Which obviously for some people is true, especially ones that haven't been blessed with a decent education.

Children should know the scientific evidence of the bible also, if they so choose.
http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=home

There is no scientific evidence in the bible. It's a book.

There's no scientific evidence in a physics textbook either, it simply explains to you concepts that can be tested yourself if you so choose to go and observe the evidence by performing the appropriate experiments.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You do not understand what science is.

I believe you are completely brain washed, since you the one that believes your greatx1000 grandfather came from soup, then a rock, and that suns are born daily, yet you've never seen that actually happen.

Irony.

Consider: there are specific things that people who accept the scientific explanation about how creation worked would take as evidence that they are wrong. None of them have been observed, but it's possible and were they to be observed tomorrow we would all admit that we were wrong.

You will never change your mind, no matter what you observe.

Which one of us has the mindset that cannot be changed? Which one has been "brainwashed"?

You keep talking about bones of the past, yet you can't answer, why those bones could change from a dinosaur to a bird, but today, a bird can't change to a dinosaur. You see how you willfully miss the point?

Missing the point?

Oh God, the irony. Why must thou slay me with thine irony?

Oh I understand it just fine.

In the words of Samuel L Jackson, "You don't understand a God damned thing."

 

[dylansan]

To be fair, Campbells did once sell a really delicious primordial soup. Just microwave on high for a few billion years and enjoy the hundreds of thousands of species in each spoonful, guaranteed.

 

[JKgo]

why those bones could change from a dinosaur to a bird, but today, a bird can't change to a dinosaur.

....I know this article is slightly off topic, but since Mr. DCP can't reply in the evolution thread, so I might as well leave it here....

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur

....Yup, it is the END OF ALL THINGS!!

 

[sammy neuman]

Flashbacks to LSD are known to occur many years after use.

Indeed they are. To be clear, I was not trying to prove anything. I will point out however, that nothing in science disproves the existence of Deity, therefore any position other than 'no opinion' is a belief.

That's more human nature than anything else. It'd be difficult to eradicate belief, even if there were absolutely no "religious" experiences at all.

Ever tried to argue with a child? Once they've learned "I know you are you said you are but what am I"? Or just plain old "nuh uh"? This is not based on logic or reasoning. Humans are completely capable of ignoring the nose on their faces if it suits them.

Likewise, if it suits someone to believe in Jesus and God, then they're quite capable of simply ignoring anything to the contrary. Evidence: the vast majority of this thread. And most of the Evolution thread too, and the Homo thread.

Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed, but in general I would not limit your statement to religious beliefs.

If science can prove that Deity does not exist, I will re-evaluate. I see no reason to require that the Bible be infallible. My faith is in God, not in a book.

 

[FoRiZon]

To be fair, Campbell once sell a really delicious primordial soup. Just microwave on high for a few billion years and enjoy the hundreds of thousands of species in each spoonful, guaranteed.

Will Andy Warhol wake up from his grave to paint it multiple times, though?

 

[Imari]

If science can prove that Deity does not exist, I will re-evaluate. I see no reason to require that the Bible be infallible. My faith is in God, not in a book.

Science cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, except by elimination of all possible scenarios in which is could exist.

If someone claims there's a cat in this box, then I can prove that not true by observing that there is not a cat in the box. But if someone claims that somewhere in the still expanding universe there is a cat with pink polka dots and the voice of Murray Walker, then by the rules of observation as we understand them it's impossible to make an observation that absolutely rules out the possibility of its existence.

Fortunately, science doesn't claim to be able to disprove existence. If we don't have positive proof of something's existence, then the assumption is that it doesn't exist. As there are uncountable billions of things for which we don't have proof, the statistical likelihood for any one of them is that this will be true. For the ones for which it isn't true, it's a certainty that proof will eventually turn up. And one could reasonably claim that until the object in question is actually interacting in any fashion with a human there's little practical difference for us between it existing or not existing.

As far as God, logic already proves him impossible in the omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent form. Likewise the Bible is established to be a flawed document.

It's absolutely fine for you (and others) to say that you believe in a god that is however you choose to envision him, and that the Bible is a reference document instead of God's Holy Truth. I think that's quite rational. But it's still never going to be disproven, because it's not based on anything observable, and it doesn't make any predictions that can be tested.

For a scientist, one of the worst things you can do is overly complicate your explanation of a system beyond what is strictly necessary to explain your observations. That is what God is, a complication that doesn't help explain anything. I understand that it makes some people comfortable to believe in God, and that's great. A lot of atheists are former theists and know what it's like, or at least it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see how the feeling that God is up there looking after you would be comforting. Almost everyone felt like that as children with our parents looking after us, unless you were an orphan or came from a seriously broken home.

But as demonstrated by this thread, a lot of theists don't understand the opposite position. I don't necessarily want to lump you in with them, as I don't know what you understand, I'm just making a general observation about some of the more outspoken theists in here.

They don't understand how people could be comfortable basing their actions purely on what they've seen, and being willing to adapt to changing observations. They don't understand how someone could do without rules, or refuse to acknowledge authority. This is something that some theists have not experienced and cannot imagine, and as such there's a complete disconnect when they attempt to converse with atheists. They simply cannot comprehend why an atheist would think in that way. Or a scientist for that matter, because while the two are not synonyms the thought patterns are remarkably similar.

Science will never challenge your faith, because faith isn't something that science deals with. If your belief in god ever leads you to generate testable predictions, science can help you test them. But that's all it will ever do. It will help you learn, if you wish to do so.

 

[Dotini]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. What is it? Resurrection and eternal life?

 

[Mike458]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. What is it? Resurrection and eternal life?

And eternal damnation if you don't believe in it? Discrimination? Hatred? False logic?

 

[Imari]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. What is it? Resurrection and eternal life?

The greatest lie ever told is that resurrection and eternal life is the greatest lie ever told.

Without being facetious, the greatest lie ever told is that all men are equal. It's obviously not true to anyone with half a brain, but it's a fundamental part of how our society operates. And it enables most of us to get on pretty well.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Just checking, as it then quite clearly shows that a deity is not a requirement for morals.

Yes, but that wasn't the basis for the hypothetical to start with.

I've not ignored it at all, it form a core part of the point I made.
We know it was added in and we know it was added in by men who claim its the words of Jesus. That we have evidence for.

What we have no evidence for is that it its the words of Jesus.

That's how we know we have evidence for one but not the other.

Thats a complete contradiction.
If omission in the earlier text is evidential, it can only be considered such from the fact it is in the later text.
Therefore the statement in the later text has to be evidential as well.
They are codependent in that respect.
You cannot legitimately claim one as evidence without claiming the other as well.

It is, but its also utterly moot in this case.

?

Yes you are and if you don't see that then you have not understood what you have been citing.

As evidence goes, there is none I see that supports that.

No evidence exist to support a claim that those are the words of Jesus.

None at all.

Sure it does.
It is documented testimonial evidence.
The same kind of evidence you are claiming supports him not having said it.
And again, if there is no evidence for, then there can be no evidence against, at least in this example.

I'm using the exact definition as per your source.
Answer the following.

What evidence exists that men put these words in the Bible?

What evidence exists that the words are those of Jesus?

Documented testimonial evidence.

So in reality what we have is evidence for he said it.
And evidence by way of interpretive omission, that perhaps he didn't say it.
The reasoning in the latter, certainly logical, but unsupportive in any confirming aspect, other than by assumption.

 

[Denur]

if there is no evidence for, then there can be no evidence against

Your logic is flawless as ever.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, but that wasn't the basis for the hypothetical to start with.

Your own words would disagree:

Under the law, yes it's "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
But the execution of the law was a temporary measure to again preserve the plan.
Or as it is referred to, "that which is perfect is come".
Quite frankly, at that time there was no other remedy available to accomplish the task.
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the term, "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump".
Even under the law the jews were sentenced by God, to go into captivity more than once under heathen nations for their sin, where they were enslaved and many executed, so it was not a double standard for them.

Obviously the law was not a final solution, nor was it meant to be.
The morality problem isn't with God, but with man.
The law merely facilitated the plan to fruition.
You must first change the heart of man before you can change anything.
As I've said before, it is very easy to render judgements now under the benefit of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence.

Thats a complete contradiction.
If omission in the earlier text is evidential, it can only be considered such from the fact it is in the later text.
Therefore the statement in the later text has to be evidential as well.
They are codependent in that respect.
You cannot legitimately claim one as evidence without claiming the other as well.

On that basis you are attempting to claim that I support a proposition that it was never written? Which is quite absurd.

That the lines were added to later versions of the Bible is quite clear (and I have said that all along), who they originated from is not (and I have said that all along). That they were added by a mortal man and originated from mortal men has evidence (mortal men exist - you and I are evidence of this); that they were added by mortal men but originated from a divine being who gave up his body over 400 years prior has no supporting evidence at all.

We have almost zero evidence for Jesus in the first place outside of the Bible and none at all that support his divine status.

The evidence for the two positions is not equal at all.

?

Rather simple, conclusive is moot, its not required by your source. You added it as a requirement.

As evidence goes, there is none I see that supports that.

Really did fairies write it?

Sure it does.
It is documented testimonial evidence.
The same kind of evidence you are claiming supports him not having said it.
And again, if there is no evidence for, then there can be no evidence against, at least in this example.

No its not. None of the available evidence supports the words having been spoken by Jesus, not a single bit of it.

If you have documented evidence to support it, then provide it (and no you don't get to use the Bible - and if you don't understand why then its explains a lot).

Documented testimonial evidence.

Provide it.

So in reality what we have is evidence for he said it.
And evidence by way of interpretive omission, that perhaps he didn't say it.
The reasoning in the latter, certainly logical, but unsupportive in any confirming aspect, other than by assumption.

No we don't.

First provide evidence he existed as a divine being, without that you are left with only evidence for a man said it and added it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Science cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, except by elimination of all possible scenarios in which is could exist.

If someone claims there's a cat in this box, then I can prove that not true by observing that there is not a cat in the box. But if someone claims that somewhere in the still expanding universe there is a cat with pink polka dots and the voice of Murray Walker, then by the rules of observation as we understand them it's impossible to make an observation that absolutely rules out the possibility of its existence.

Fortunately, science doesn't claim to be able to disprove existence. If we don't have positive proof of something's existence, then the assumption is that it doesn't exist. As there are uncountable billions of things for which we don't have proof, the statistical likelihood for any one of them is that this will be true. For the ones for which it isn't true, it's a certainty that proof will eventually turn up. And one could reasonably claim that until the object in question is actually interacting in any fashion with a human there's little practical difference for us between it existing or not existing.

As far as God, logic already proves him impossible in the omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent form. Likewise the Bible is established to be a flawed document.

It's absolutely fine for you (and others) to say that you believe in a god that is however you choose to envision him, and that the Bible is a reference document instead of God's Holy Truth. I think that's quite rational. But it's still never going to be disproven, because it's not based on anything observable, and it doesn't make any predictions that can be tested.

For a scientist, one of the worst things you can do is overly complicate your explanation of a system beyond what is strictly necessary to explain your observations. That is what God is, a complication that doesn't help explain anything. I understand that it makes some people comfortable to believe in God, and that's great. A lot of atheists are former theists and know what it's like, or at least it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see how the feeling that God is up there looking after you would be comforting. Almost everyone felt like that as children with our parents looking after us, unless you were an orphan or came from a seriously broken home.

But as demonstrated by this thread, a lot of theists don't understand the opposite position. I don't necessarily want to lump you in with them, as I don't know what you understand, I'm just making a general observation about some of the more outspoken theists in here.

They don't understand how people could be comfortable basing their actions purely on what they've seen, and being willing to adapt to changing observations. They don't understand how someone could do without rules, or refuse to acknowledge authority. This is something that some theists have not experienced and cannot imagine, and as such there's a complete disconnect when they attempt to converse with atheists. They simply cannot comprehend why an atheist would think in that way. Or a scientist for that matter, because while the two are not synonyms the thought patterns are remarkably similar.

Science will never challenge your faith, because faith isn't something that science deals with. If your belief in god ever leads you to generate testable predictions, science can help you test them. But that's all it will ever do. It will help you learn, if you wish to do so.

God will help you learn also if you wish to do so.
The only place we differ is in acceptance of limitation and alternate options in dimension of reality.
However, since you state Science cannot help you in matters of faith, then you already know Science is limited.
Particularly in matters of Spirituality.
In examination of that dimension, and it's existence requires other means.
Just because Science is impotent in that respect, it does not confirm that it is unexplorable or undeterminable.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. What is it? Resurrection and eternal life?

Why do you believe that?

 

[Mike458]

God will help you learn also if you wish to do so.
The only place we differ is in acceptance of limitation and alternate options in dimension of reality.
However, since you state Science cannot help you in matters of faith, then you already know Science is limited.
Particularly in matters of Spirituality.

Religion, particularly things that we cannot see like spirituality are in the supernatural realm and therefore cannot be measured or tested in any way. If you can find evidence that god exists, then science can test it and either confirm that he exists or not. However, until evidence is found supporting that God exists, we can say that there is no evidence and the evidence that exists does not conform to rational logic. That said, I will continue to believe that god does not exist until there is factual evidence that he does.

In examination of that dimension, and it's existence requires other means.
Just because Science is impotent in that respect, it does not confirm that it is unexplorable or undeterminable.

Please explain.

 

[Dotini]

Why do you believe that?

I don't, necessarily. I believe that resurrection and eternal life is the greatest story ever told, simply because it is so widely, almost universally, believed to be beautiful, useful and necessary for civilization to have developed as it has. But I think it could prove to be a lie, depending on the mystery of consciousness and what becomes of it after death.

The greatest lie ever told is that resurrection and eternal life is the greatest lie ever told.

Without being facetious, the greatest lie ever told is that all men are equal. It's obviously not true to anyone with half a brain, but it's a fundamental part of how our society operates. And it enables most of us to get on pretty well.

So you believe this lie is necessary for society to function as successfully as it does, eh? You are of course aware that believing one thing and saying another is also a lie and hypocrisy, and a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, or mental illness. Do you think a society founded on a lie is healthy,and will endure?