Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by universaldistress, Mar 13, 2011.
does the same hold for scientifically proving god doesn't exist?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes. The same holds. (Also, see my previous post, I added some more in an edit).
I disagree with ANYONE who says that they know what the supernatural contains (or doesn't contain) for a fact. There is a difference between belief and facts. And if an Atheist says that they know for a FACT that God does not exist when they have no evidence to support their claim, that just as equally unnerves me.
One can be inclined to BELIEVE that God does or does not exist. They can even express it as such, "I believe...", or "It is my opinion that..." but when someone says, as they have quite often on this forum, "I KNOW...", or "I will prove...", it's really just a waste of time. These people are making assumptions presented as facts - claims that I have no tolerance for on EITHER side of the argument.
Again, you can believe that God does or does not exist. Fine. No biggie. But do not ever say that you know for a fact that God does or does not exist when there is no hard evidence to support such a claim. Sure, there may be evidence that may lead one toward a certain belief. But no evidence in existence that goes so far as to officially determine and universally conclude either belief as fact.
Jesus claimed to be the TRUTH.
Most atheists I've known claim that they are only interested in truth, not fairytales.
But in the final analysis, for each individual atheist, its a question for management, not for us who're only in sales. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Highlighting your attempt at a cheap-shot at atheism as the pathetic and erronerous attempt that it was. Nothing more.
if pedophiles, lesbians and nazis also stand as ideologically transparent to the point of being invisible, I stand corrected.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, Jesus claimed to be the truth... as did....
-Krishna of Hindostan
-Buddha Sakia of India
-Salivahana of Bermuda
-Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt
-Odin of the Scandinavians
-Crite of Chaldea
-Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
-Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phoenicia
-Indra of Tibet
-Bali of Afghanistan
-Jao of Nepal
-Wittoba of the Bilingonese
-Thammuz of Syria
-Atys of Phrygia
-Xamolxis of Thrace
-Zoar of the Bonzes
-Adad of Assyria
-Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam
-Alcides of Thebes
-Mikado of the Sintoos
-Beddru of Japan
-Hesus of Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
-Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
-Cadmus of Greece
-Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
-Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
-Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
-Ischy of the Island of Formosa
-Divine Teacher of Plato
-Holy One of Xaca
-Fohi and Tien of China
-Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece
-Ixion and Quirnus of Rome
-Prometheus of Caucasus
-Mohammed, or Mahomet, of Arabia
similarly an acupuncturist, a masseur, a surgeon and a gp also lay claim to the truth that their services can improve personal well being and health .....
(BTW who is krishna of hindostan? Someone famous amongst the Muslims after the 12th century?)
i really don't see that happening often. i know i've never said that, that's not what the threads you started were about i don't think.
you could say the same about anyone regarding anything, not just religion.
this seems a little bit contradictory to what you just said. you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.
And to do that without reference to theism and Religion - and thus be valid discussion for a Religion forum?
Sigh... you're wasting my time here LG.
We aren't talking about health. We are talking about God and it's messengers/saviors.
"The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning - but not the end - of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning - but by no means the end - of all disputes about the good life and the just city." - Christopher Hitchens
The argument with faith, and more particularly, the eventually eradication of religious faith itself can allow science, philosophy, etc to progress without the superstitous belief of God's will and how we may be going against it, thus freeing us from limitations imposed on us by those who believe.
???? No, I said anyone can believe anything they want. I BELIEVE that I disagree with certain beliefs. That doesn't mean that I have the right to tell them that they can't believe or that they are just flat wrong. But I do have the right to express my disagreement with their beliefs on a moral and historical basis, if I so choose to do so. I've never told anyone that what they believe is simply false, but I have (and will continue to) express my opinions of their beliefs and how I BELIEVE them to be false or immoral - regardless of whether they are or aren't in the eyes of God, which neither God, nor the beliefs of, can be proven either way as FACT. Make sense?
There is a HUGE difference between stating, "I believe that you are wrong" and "I know that you are wrong."
You are talking about the necessity for truth to be singular and monolithic in its representation.
You don't find that anywhere, period, so its not clear why you insist its an imperative for religion.
If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom.
People believed God's will to include the slavery of multiple cultures. They believed God's will to include that rape was OK under certain circumstance. They believed that God's will to include the condemnation of people that are attracted to members of the same sex. They believed God's will was to include condemnation of the study of science. They believed that God's will was to include an eternal punishment simply for THINKING something. They believe God's will to include the mutilation of genetalia in children (in various cultures around the world, both in males and females).
So, let's not discuss God's will and the peoples representation of it and how it limits freedoms. The answer is clear in all of these examples.
That is not testimony to anything except the stupidity of man kind.
If we CAN all the theiests, who are going to make the athiests feel better about themselves as if they know something???
Or rather I should say what they know not???
Athiests are "believers" just as much as "theiests" are only they believe there is no god, with no real basis, in that conclusion. Agnostics are the only reasonable ones in my eyes, how can you be certain about god??
The only thing we know for sure is that we dont know anything. So we should continue with theoretical reasoning and applying philosophy in science untill we get a better picture. To be honest I dont believe in a authoritive god and I do not believe that we just exploded into matter out of no where. I am certain there is a much better explanation that we wont realize till its too late than it wont even matter Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ignoring your lack of grammatical skill, ignoring that it is obvious that you have limited scientific knowledge regarding the history of the universe, and ignoring that my examples do not only represent the stupidity of man but also that of the Christian God because it condones all of these crimes against humanity within the pages of the Bible, I will say this again: There is a difference between belief and fact. When either party claim to know - as fact - the existence (or non-existence) of God, they make an assumption too great to carry supportive evidence. Most Atheists I know do not believe in God, but they don't often say as fact that there is no God.
So, what do you call yourself? Atheist, agnostic, theist, or scientist? I know some atheists don't like the word atheism, so I thought I'd come up with some new terms for the same philosophy. Tell me what you think!
Well in lieu of my grammatical skill I certainly am happy that you understood my post.
I think it is obvious that you have very limited scientific knowledge regarding the "history of the universe" and that you have very limited understanding of the word "Athiest"
Which is a person who rejects the concept of god.
"Most Athiests I know do not believe in god, but they dont often say as a fact that there is no god"
If they say they dont know for a fact, than they are considered agnostic.
Also "the christian god" is testimony to the stupidity of mankind as Ive stated and the agenda of the "church", not "god". People equating "religion" and "christianity" is just like me equating "Food" with "Rancid apple slices near my Cat Buddy's food dish"
^^ This is directed to MZ3BOY.
I consider myself an agnostic.
Wrong again. Flip the situation around. If someone believes in God but accepts the possiblity that they are wrong, they are nevertheless considered a Theist.
Agnosticism is simply the belief that they don't lean either way, nor do they particularly care either way. They simply say, "I don't believe that God does or does not exist. I simply don't know either way."
Most Atheists typically say, "I don't believe that God exists, however, there is always the possibility of my beliefs being proven wrong in the future."
And most Theists, from my experience, say, "I believe in God and know it to exist. There is no way I can be proven wrong."
And the Theists are partly correct in their belief. There is no way to prove either side right or wrong, ultimately - at least not within our current knowledge and level of technology. Maybe in the future, when (and if) we develop further (or if God makes itself known to us which it hasn't), maybe then we may be able to prove that God does or doesn't exist. But as for the time being, all we can do is believe one way or another - or in the case of Agnostism, not believe anything at all.
I love atheist "logic". Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a "magical wizard" who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!
The atheist belief is basically this:
Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang!
Separate names with a comma.