And to sum up all of the talk about proof for whether god exists or not.....
My position is to not even debate that. I have said in this thread, and many times - it is almost impossible to debate that.
It is not impossible to debate the likelihood or the proof of the christian story of god and the bible - and the original post and intent of this thread was a discussion on the importance of who wrote the bible and how that relates to a christians belief (if at all) in the significance.
At the end of the day, the non believer is taking one big risk, while i am not saying the NON believer is always going to be a worse person than the believer, not at all, what i am saying is that while the non believer doesnt believe , he or she doesnt have the ability to repent and hence scripture tells us the consequences of such a thing.
If the atheist is wrong, then the consequences are very very very brutal. If the atheist is right, then Mother Theresa, Stalin, the sep 11 Hijackers, the man who rapes little boys then cuts off his genitals, you and i are all equal before death.
Why cant you acknowledge that you are also taking an enormous risk if your god is not the right god? Why do you constantly only assume it is you and your christian beliefs OR atheism that is right?
You are taking a huge risk on the afterlife too. If the muslims, person, or scientoligists are right, then you picked the wrong god and you will pay the consequences.
Stop just repeating yourself and think about what I am saying.
Right there, right there shows to me what ALL athests think and gives me PROOF that the atheist does not understand what they are saying.
You claim that if someone says there is a flying tea pot in space, then it is upto that person to prove it not the other way around. I agree, however,
Now, regardless of whether this tea pot exists, it doesnt matter, why? Cause one way or another, the tea pot flying around space can either be PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. This tea pot is viewable to the human eye, therefore, it can be proven or disproven, doesnt matter if it exists or not, it can either be proven or disproven.
Now lets look at God, Gods realm is in the supernatural, is the supernatural able to be PROVEN or DISPROVEN? Is it possible for the supernatural to be debunked? Did God say that he will be seen at local shopping malls, hence because he has never been there it disproves his existence?
Conclusion,
Comparing God or claim to God is the same as the Celestial tea pot is INVALID
Trying to disprove God is beyond the ability of man.
I will leave you with this my friend,
John 20 - 25-29, "Blessed are those that havent seen, but believe".
If you dont believe in God, then you will see repenting or asking for forgiveness for sins that youcommited according to the bible as nothing, hence no need to ask for forgiveness.
You are missing the point, u as a non believer, are limited in believing that morals are subjective. There is NO objective morals, there is no absolute reference point for morals.
Therefore, if you see tribes killing and eating each other, you CANNOT say what they are doing is ABSOLUTELY wrong....You can say it is wrong when you compare it to your own morals or to your societies morals, but you cannot say it is ABSOLUTELY wrong. If you approach this tribe and say what you are doing is wrong, they will probably laugh at you, remember, you believe that morals are subjective, EACH PERSON / SOCIETIES determine what is right or wrong, so it is 1 opinion against the other.
HOWEVER, if YOU BELIEVE that there is an ABSOLUTE MORAL LAW giver, then you can say what the tribes are doing is ABSOLUTELY wrong, cause you have applied your view and referenced it to AN ABSOLUTE REFERNCE point.
Let me deomonstrate mathematically. There are some absolute mathematical truths, ie, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you agree with this statement?
If i said, i believe 2 + 2 =5, Then based on the absolute truth that you know, which is 2 + 2 = 4, you are in a POSITION to say that i am absolutely WRONG.
If these mathematical truths were NOT absolutely true, then if i said, 2 + 2 = 5, then you might think it is wrong, but YOU are NOT in a position to say that i am absolutely wrong, cause you have no absolute truth to reference it to.
Why am I doing this.....
If I see a tribe eating each other, I can judge that as being morally wrong. Who are you to say in blanket terms that I cant? My morality is based on my life experience, and societies morality is based on the collective of those life experiences. Society sees eating other humans as immoral, so a tribe doing it is immoral. What is it with you? Why are you hung up on this concept of absolute morality? There is no such thing. Get over it. Why do you keep repeating it, as if you repeat it enough, people will start to agree with you?
You are attempting to persuade us with a concept that simply doesnt exist, and then taking that concept that doesnt exist as proof that something else exists. There is no such thing as absolute morality. At least accept that as a possibility, I understand that you might BELIEVE that your god has given absolute morality - but you must accept that other people believe in subjective morality as a concept. And that concept does not preclude those people from enforcing that subjective morality as a code of conduct for society.
Morality is NOT mathematics. Morality is subjective. Just because it is subjective does not mean that society has zero power to enforce their current moral code.
Why cant you acknowledge that you are also taking an enormous risk if your god is not the right god? Why do you constantly only assume it is you and your christian beliefs OR atheism that is right?
You are taking a huge risk on the afterlife too. If the muslims, person, or scientoligists are right, then you picked the wrong god and you will pay the consequences.
Stop just repeating yourself and think about what I am saying.
Christians, Muslims and person all share the same God 
The difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the messiah with the person and Muslim messiah yet to come.
The bible is the only spiritual book that has fulfilled its prophecies, the bible has scientific facts that could not have been known unless we have the technology of today. The bible has withstood incredible scruitiny over 2000 years and is accepted by not only the most respected historical scholars but there is INDEPNDANT evidence of Jesus Christ and his ressurection. Furthermore, no hostorian can explain the explosion in religion and churches just after Jesus curcifixion and resurection.
I have the same frustration with this guy. It is not the content of what he is saying, it is the method of his debate that is the problem.
He doesnt read your points, and then responds by repeating what he said earlier. And repeat.
Christians, Muslims and person all share the same God
The difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the messiah with the person and Muslim messiah yet to come.
The bible is the only spiritual book that has fulfilled its prophecies, the bible has scientific facts that could not have been known unless we have the technology of today. The bible has withstood incredible scruitiny over 2000 years and is accepted by not only the most respected historical scholars but there is INDEPNDANT evidence of Jesus Christ and his ressurection. Furthermore, no hostorian can explain the explosion in religion and churches just after Jesus curcifixion and resurection.
Once again, you totally ignore the point of my post in favor of semantics, and then simply repeat your position.
I posted that you are taking a risk as well - that one of the other thousands of gods and god stories out there might be the right one - and that you are on the wrong one. You continuously post that one of the following two are the only options: Christian God, or Atheism - while ignoring the fact that you have chosen one particular story and totally discount thousands of other gods and stories - and that is a risk for you.
YOU brought up that atheists are taking a risk if the christian god is correct, I brought up that you are taking a risk if any other god is correct.
What dont you get about this and why cant you acknowledge that?
If you dont believe in God, then you will see repenting or asking for forgiveness for sins that youcommited according to the bible as nothing, hence no need to ask for forgiveness.
The bible is the only spiritual book that has fulfilled its prophecies, the bible has scientific facts that could not have been known unless we have the technology of today. The bible has withstood incredible scruitiny over 2000 years and is accepted by not only the most respected historical scholars but there is INDEPNDANT evidence of Jesus Christ and his ressurection. Furthermore, no hostorian can explain the explosion in religion and churches just after Jesus curcifixion and resurection.
To be fair, I would like to give you a chance here because you have presented some evidence for your side of this debate.
So please source each one of your claims.
What prophecies? What scientific claims do you speak of? Who are the "independent respected scholars" of history you speak of? What exactly are you talking about in your last statement?
Source them please. You present them as facts, I would like you to source your facts. Then we might be getting somewhere.
From bertrand russell,
he states that the tea pot is too small to be detected by the most powerful telescopes, he DOES NOT say it is INVISIBLE, rather it is too small. Big difference between something being too small and something being invinsible. An insect is small, it is not invisible.
Furthermore, if i said that the supernatural is ONLY accesable or to be able to be proven in death, then effectivel i have squashed any ability man has to prove or DISPROVE this claim.
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
And to continue that point, because it is very important in the context of rostos and others assumption that atheists cannot be moral.....
Non-believers do good only because they want to do good. They repent only when they feel like it is the right thing to do. They are not bound by a "someone is watching over my every move and will send me to hell" type of contract, they simply do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
Isnt that a higher standard? If a someone does something heroic because he is getting a huge monitary reward - how does that compare to someone doing the same heroic act even at his own peril? To me, there is no comparison.
From bertrand russell,
he states that the tea pot is too small to be detected by the most powerful telescopes, he DOES NOT say it is INVISIBLE, rather it is too small. Big difference between something being too small and something being invinsible. An insect is small, it is not invisible.
Furthermore, if i said that the supernatural is ONLY accesable or to be able to be proven in death, then effectivel i have squashed any ability man has to prove or DISPROVE this claim.
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
Why am I doing this.....
If I see a tribe eating each other, I can judge that as being morally wrong. Who are you to say in blanket terms that I cant? My morality is based on my life experience, and societies morality is based on the collective of those life experiences. Society sees eating other humans as immoral, so a tribe doing it is immoral. What is it with you? Why are you hung up on this concept of absolute morality? There is no such thing. Get over it. Why do you keep repeating it, as if you repeat it enough, people will start to agree with you?
You are attempting to persuade us with a concept that simply doesnt exist, and then taking that concept that doesnt exist as proof that something else exists. There is no such thing as absolute morality. At least accept that as a possibility, I understand that you might BELIEVE that your god has given absolute morality - but you must accept that other people believe in subjective morality as a concept. And that concept does not preclude those people from enforcing that subjective morality as a code of conduct for society.
Morality is NOT mathematics. Morality is subjective. Just because it is subjective does not mean that society has zero power to enforce their current moral code.
Thats exactly what i am saying. You can comment based on your on morals what they are saying is wrong, but they can view your morals and say for you to think that is wrong not to kill and eat each other is wrong.
Now, take the religion / atheism cap debate off for a minute.
You are a neutral person with no views on religion / beliefs, will you say what the tribe are doing is ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Killing and eating humans, is that ABSOLUTELY WRONG or is it simply what i believe in and other people can make there own judgements.
Just answer that
I am on my second day of the same flavor of frustration you feel.
He has done the same thing to me over and over - he will argue semantics and totally sidestep the intent of you point. Just look about 5 posts up when he does it to me for the 10th time.
I have stopped responding to him only to be lured back in - Im losing patience though.
I have absolutely no problem debating anything, as long as you come at it with a debatable position. CD had a great post in this thread, and I think (Im not entirely sure though) hoodwinked did also. It is the method of debate - the semantic detectives - who prolong agony and do nothing to further their position.
Thats exactly what i am saying. You can comment based on your on morals what they are saying is wrong, but they can view your morals and say for you to think that is wrong not to kill and eat each other is wrong.
Now, take the religion / atheism cap debate off for a minute.
You are a neutral person with no views on religion / beliefs, will you say what the tribe are doing is ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Killing and eating humans, is that ABSOLUTELY WRONG or is it simply what i believe in and other people can make there own judgements.
Just answer that
Im going to try one more time.
Thats exactly what i am saying. You can comment based on your on morals what they are saying is wrong, but they can view your morals and say for you to think that is wrong not to kill and eat each other is wrong.
"Morals" are the collective views of society at any given time. Society has the power to enforce morals, because society has more power than a tribe. So the tribe loses here. Im not even sure what your point is, but if the tribe decides that NOT eating people is immoral, who cares when society has jails, guns, people, nuclear weapons - and the will of the masses of society to enforce that morality? WHAT IS YOUR POINT???
Now, take the religion / atheism cap debate off for a minute.
You are a neutral person with no views on religion / beliefs, will you say what the tribe are doing is ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Killing and eating humans, is that ABSOLUTELY WRONG or is it simply what i believe in and other people can make there own judgements.
Just answer that
I have answered this 10 times. Killing and eating someone is not ABSOLUTELY (in the way I assume you mean the word) wrong, because there is no such thing as absolute morality.
Killing and eating someone is subjectively judged as morally wrong, and enforceable by society as such.
Im not going to answer the same question again. If you have a point to make, read what I wrote and make your point.
Ar you serious? You are trying to attack my intelligence on a debate where a point that you made about something being too small to see with a telescope against something that is invisible? In the nature of the topic, it is crucial. If i said God is visible but is extremely extremely small and possibly could not be seen with a microscope changes everything.
There is a difference between somenthing being too small and something being invisible. Especially in this debate.
You say the supernatural doesnt exist, YOU CANNOT PHYSICALLY PROVE THIS. or can you?
And BTW - to further illustrate my point that morals are subjective.....
If we had a nuclear event, and we were living in a post apocolyptic world (think of The Road by Comac McCarthy), I think the morality of killing and eating other humans would drastically change.
This is subjective morality. Some humans would eat other humans, and some wouldnt - but whoever had more power and the will of society would be given the title of "moral".
Is it moral to starve your 5 year old child when human flesh is the only thing to eat in this type of world? Your absolutes dont really apply here.
To be fair, I would like to give you a chance here because you have presented some evidence for your side of this debate.
So please source each one of your claims.
What prophecies? What scientific claims do you speak of? Who are the "independent respected scholars" of history you speak of? What exactly are you talking about in your last statement?
Source them please. You present them as facts, I would like you to source your facts. Then we might be getting somewhere.
Since this was your only post in your last 20 with any claims of facts, I dont want this to slide. I will be patient, but I would like you to source these claims.
Im going to try one more time.
Thats exactly what i am saying. You can comment based on your on morals what they are saying is wrong, but they can view your morals and say for you to think that is wrong not to kill and eat each other is wrong.
"Morals" are the collective views of society at any given time. Society has the power to enforce morals, because society has more power than a tribe. So the tribe loses here. Im not even sure what your point is, but if the tribe decides that NOT eating people is immoral, who cares when society has jails, guns, people, nuclear weapons - and the will of the masses of society to enforce that morality? WHAT IS YOUR POINT???
Now, take the religion / atheism cap debate off for a minute.
You are a neutral person with no views on religion / beliefs, will you say what the tribe are doing is ABSOLUTELY WRONG?
Killing and eating humans, is that ABSOLUTELY WRONG or is it simply what i believe in and other people can make there own judgements.
Just answer that
I have answered this 10 times. Killing and eating someone is not ABSOLUTELY (in the way I assume you mean the word) wrong, because there is no such thing as absolute morality.
Killing and eating someone is subjectively judged as morally wrong, and enforceable by society as such.
Im not going to answer the same question again. If you have a point to make, read what I wrote and make your point.
Thats all i need to know from you
Ar you serious? You are trying to attack my intelligence on a debate where a point that you made about something being too small to see with a telescope against something that is invisible? In the nature of the topic, it is crucial. If i said God is visible but is extremely extremely small and possibly could not be seen with a microscope changes everything.
There is a difference between somenthing being too small and something being invisible. Especially in this debate.
You say the supernatural doesnt exist, YOU CANNOT PHYSICALLY PROVE THIS. or can you?
What the? You are the one that said the supernatral doesnt exist.......Prove it.
You have made a statement that cannot be physically debunked. Who is the one being irrational?
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
