independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 20th Feb 2019 2:04pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > My son is an atheist
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 5 <12345>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 10/21/10 9:21am

sextonseven

avatar

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

Why should people be concerned about spending eternity in a place in which they don't believe exists?

People have seen hell? Really?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 10/21/10 9:27am

Number23

sextonseven said:



abigail05 said:


doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?



With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?




Why should people be concerned about spending eternity in a place in which they don't believe exists?



People have seen hell? Really?


Bitch, just open your eyes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 10/21/10 9:33am

sextonseven

avatar

Number23 said:

sextonseven said:

People have seen hell? Really?

Bitch, just open your eyes.

You got me there. lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 10/21/10 9:34am

Vendetta1

sextonseven said:

Number23 said:

Bitch, just open your eyes.

You got me there. lol

Both of you. falloff

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 10/21/10 11:07am

JoeTyler

avatar

Ok, tell your son: who made the FIRST cell?

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 10/21/10 11:12am

JoeTyler

avatar

MrSoulpower said:

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

There are no reliable reports from the afterlife. They are reports from people who had near-death experiences, and these experiences have already been explained scientifically. Just like god, the idea of an afterlife or "heaven" and "hell" is a matter of faith, not fact.

Wow, I can see my own teachings there...

did I convert you?? razz

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 10/21/10 11:16am

mordang

avatar

JoeTyler said:

Ok, tell your son: who made the FIRST cell?

You mean, how did the first cell evolve? Great question, love it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 10/21/10 11:16am

etifaim

avatar

JoeTyler said:

Ok, tell your son: who made the FIRST cell?

Ok, How about you NOT tell the OP to ask such unfounded and unverifiable questions to a child. neutral

"For those who know the number and don't call...Fuck all y'all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 10/21/10 11:21am

JoeTyler

avatar

mordang said:

JoeTyler said:

Ok, tell your son: who made the FIRST cell?

You mean, how did the first cell evolve? Great question, love it.

Eh, no; I meant: WHO created the first cell or WHY did it appear to begin with...

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 10/21/10 11:22am

JoeTyler

avatar

etifaim said:

JoeTyler said:

Ok, tell your son: who made the FIRST cell?

Ok, How about you NOT tell the OP to ask such unfounded and unverifiable questions to a child. neutral

just to make him understand that science may explain how something happens/happened, but not WHY...

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 10/21/10 11:31am

etifaim

avatar

JoeTyler said:

etifaim said:

Ok, How about you NOT tell the OP to ask such unfounded and unverifiable questions to a child. neutral

just to make him understand that science may explain how something happens/happened, but not WHY...

OK, but the problem I see with your initial question was the "Who" part. How is any person capable of determining whether it was a"who" (i.e. individual)? It's pretentious to assume it was an intelligent being. A more open-ended question would ask "How" or "What".

"For those who know the number and don't call...Fuck all y'all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 10/21/10 11:36am

JoeTyler

avatar

etifaim said:

JoeTyler said:

just to make him understand that science may explain how something happens/happened, but not WHY...

OK, but the problem I see with your initial question was the "Who" part. How is any person capable of determining whether it was a"who" (i.e. individual)? It's pretentious to assume it was an intelligent being. A more open-ended question would ask "How" or "What".

how, what, why, when...does it matter?

It was the Creator...

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 10/21/10 1:11pm

etifaim

avatar

JoeTyler said:

etifaim said:

OK, but the problem I see with your initial question was the "Who" part. How is any person capable of determining whether it was a"who" (i.e. individual)? It's pretentious to assume it was an intelligent being. A more open-ended question would ask "How" or "What".

how, what, why, when...does it matter?

It was the Creator...

Yes it does matter, especially when it concerns impressionable, young minds...

"For those who know the number and don't call...Fuck all y'all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 10/21/10 2:15pm

JoeTyler

avatar

etifaim said:

JoeTyler said:

how, what, why, when...does it matter?

It was the Creator...

Yes it does matter, especially when it concerns impressionable, young minds...

goddamn pagans...

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 10/21/10 3:35pm

CarolineP

avatar

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

Yes.

Creator Hater
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 10/21/10 7:48pm

NevermindAlexz
ander

CarolineP said:

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

Yes.

LOL

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 10/22/10 2:02am

blackbob

avatar

NevermindAlexzander said:

BombSquad said:

really? so then God can't exist, cause he can't come from nothing, thanks for making that clear.

what? you claim (I assume...) that God ALWAYS existed?

great. then I can make the same claim for "dirt", or the universe itself

"dirt always existed". see, that was easy.

my claim is just as valid as saying "God always existed". actually not really, my claim is MUCH MORE VALID than yours, because dirt (and the universe) has been observed to exist. but God has not.

sorry, Dirt beats God 1:0

[Edited 10/19/10 0:55am]

Funny.

So to you,

Only things that you can see and observed are real?

Okay,If you say so.

God has been explained in many ways, the "what,where,why and who".

God is The Creator of all things.

God is not a thing that needed to be created. God is Eternal.

No begining and end.

God is outside of creation and can't be put into a beaker and measured.

Dirt is with in time and subject to it.

God is not.

Everybody but a fool knows dirt has not always been here.

Everything had a begining.

Creation itself SCREAMS there is a Creator.

So does dirt really beat God...?

what people forget is ...time itself....is part of the fabric of the universe....before the universe began in the big bang 15 billion years ago...time didnt exist ??....that is very hard for our brains to imagine ....so god would be outside time itself as well ?.....i am glad the kid has the sense to get religious nonsense out his head at an early age...he will be far happier and more level headed and these people who try to scare our kids with....'' if you dont believe in god /flying green monster/apollo/hades or any other made up idol....you will go to hell ''..........get a feckin life....its the only one you get...!!!...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 10/22/10 3:34am

PANDURITO

avatar

Hands up all those who applaud this kid yet believe in Karma neutral

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 10/22/10 4:01am

Dsoul

avatar

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

Think you've been using odd sources for your reports as the prospect of any "other side" is entirely baseless and becomes increasingly less likely the more specific you make it to individual god myths.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #109 posted 10/22/10 5:06am

mordang

avatar

JoeTyler said:

mordang said:

You mean, how did the first cell evolve? Great question, love it.

Eh, no; I meant: WHO created the first cell or WHY did it appear to begin with...

That is a bit strange. If a "who" created a cel, than the why lies in motivation of the "who". That means that there is a premiss of motivation for the appearance of life and a premiss of a "who" to envoke that motivation. But "what" or "who" created the "who" that would have been able to undertake such a feat. Don't you get a situation of infinite regress on causality? But this causility is not random (unlike the infinity of random possibillies that there are) but now focussed on this one defining point...the appearance of life as the one goal of the "who".

It raises questions. Why is the universe so big, why is life so diverse and why is there no proof of any kind that there is (or ever was) a "who". A billboard on Mars, with "I was here" written on it, for instance, would be a bit much for some, but it would be a lott clearer than the utter chaos on the definition and purpose of "who" based on the billions of diverse assumptions in mankinds history.

One wouldn't need those extra's, for life's existence, nor its purpose, if it had any.

That is not very logical. Unless "who" is not of a logical complexion to begin with.

(I wish I could do this in Dutch, for the sake of better communication on the subject, but I hope I can make myself understood)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #110 posted 10/22/10 5:12pm

chopingard


I said "what if..."

But you choose to get deffensive and not go down that road of thought to whatever conclusion and just have a discussion.

It's cool understand.

Well I was bought up in a christian household went to Sunday school for 6 years and I've lived with my boyfriend for 10 years.... Do you seriously belive i've never thought about this and reached conclusions of my own and that you were the first person to ever say to me what if?
It's not deffensive to disagree with you by the way. I've been to theology seminars in some of the Church Of Englands top theology colleges. I've disccussed at length the actual biblical text and history of translations of the scriptures with many theologens regarding sexuality. So please don't think i'm just reacting cause your talking about the Bible
It's just that the translations are wrong, The historic intent of cruelty and bigotry in the church is wrong and the current mode of the church thinking it's some cureable behaviour problem is wrong.
Oh and boy the way it maybe cool but seriously, you do not understand

[Edited 10/23/10 1:47am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #111 posted 10/23/10 4:33pm

namepeace

mordang said:

It raises questions. Why is the universe so big, why is life so diverse and why is there no proof of any kind that there is (or ever was) a "who". A billboard on Mars, with "I was here" written on it, for instance, would be a bit much for some, but it would be a lott clearer than the utter chaos on the definition and purpose of "who" based on the billions of diverse assumptions in mankinds history.

What if the proof exists and it has neither been found or understood? Aren't you presuming with such a question that All of Existence Is Known And Capable of Comprehension? If so, you sure you want to stick with that, given that in a blink of the Earth's eye (say, 50 years), many of what we call scientific laws will likely be altered if not wholly discredited?

Many would say Christ is the ultimate proof of God. But of course, you'd have to accept that proof first. And I don't see that happening.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #112 posted 10/23/10 5:44pm

mordang

avatar

namepeace said:

mordang said:

It raises questions. Why is the universe so big, why is life so diverse and why is there no proof of any kind that there is (or ever was) a "who". A billboard on Mars, with "I was here" written on it, for instance, would be a bit much for some, but it would be a lott clearer than the utter chaos on the definition and purpose of "who" based on the billions of diverse assumptions in mankinds history.

What if the proof exists and it has neither been found or understood? Aren't you presuming with such a question that All of Existence Is Known And Capable of Comprehension? If so, you sure you want to stick with that, given that in a blink of the Earth's eye (say, 50 years), many of what we call scientific laws will likely be altered if not wholly discredited?

Many would say Christ is the ultimate proof of God. But of course, you'd have to accept that proof first. And I don't see that happening.

Which proof is not found and not understood by whom?

There is no pressumption on the possibillity of knowing all by human beings. In fact it may very well be that we simply can't know, or even never will know a whole lot of things for the simple reason that even the smartest of our species will not be smart enough to figure all out. In it lies no proof or disproof. But we can use a very basic guidline. That is the use of logic.

There are a lot of things in religion (saying the believe in a god or gods) which are very illogical, when you look at the way nature works. I'm not going to elaborate on it, for there are many books written on the subject and any mind that has the courage to raise questions about any form of devinity or deity will come up with a few. There always can be an explanation for those questions, yes there is a possibillity that 'we' do not understand. But when you exclaim here that scientific laws can be altered or discredited in "a blink of (a cosmological) eye", what do you really mean? Scientific (you mean natural?) laws can't be altered, they are simply there, they can however be misunderstood or better defined. I fail to understand what you mean by saying that you can "discredit them". You can always discretic a theory about how something works, but only by presenting a better theory. Theories are not something that are being thought up under tea during sundayafternoon, so this proces is somewhat less volatile than you seem to suggest. In fact mostly theories are constantly being backed up by newly discovered facts. But if you have examples that I would gladly look into you suggestions, where theories fail. Mostly it is a progression of understanding, not a retreat. Untill that time I gladly will stick with that what think is true, despite that this decision, will leave me with the knowledge that my life will be ending with no afterlife or reward (nor punishment). It is the seeking of truth with no ulterior motives, like the reward a believer gets from his god of prefference.

You talk about proof of Christ. Besides the bible, which proof is there ever about his existence? I don't mean religious proof, or proof by relgious people brought in a scientific way. But real proof. None. I don't have accept any proof, except that which has scientific merrit. I would turn it around. Why whould you accept it, and I don't. If you would put us under a scan, we'd propably be the same in many ways. So our difference is mostly based on something that lies in in culture and education.

I was raised, not aware of a god (that means it was not a topic, I was not raised pro or anti). I figured things out my own merry way, unlike my surrounding who where raised in acceptance (like you say). Occam's razor would suggest that religion (and the defence of religion) is something which is more connected to your upbringing, than presentation of evidence. God is inside you, because someone told you about it.

Otherwise I and all those who are brought up non religious would not have any difficulty to accept certain proof. But, being unbiased towards it, means there is a neutral insight on what proof really is. Acceptance is not a problem, credibillity is.

I'm sorry to inform religious people time and again that there beliefs are idle. There is no softer manner of bringing that news. Most of you are brought up to belief in the god of Christ, but had you lived in an other time or an other place this would have been an entirely different god. That randomness in faith is based on culture, not on the establishment of a truth by reckognition of certain proof.

That is logic.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #113 posted 10/23/10 7:37pm

namepeace

mordang said:

namepeace said:

What if the proof exists and it has neither been found or understood? Aren't you presuming with such a question that All of Existence Is Known And Capable of Comprehension? If so, you sure you want to stick with that, given that in a blink of the Earth's eye (say, 50 years), many of what we call scientific laws will likely be altered if not wholly discredited?

Many would say Christ is the ultimate proof of God. But of course, you'd have to accept that proof first. And I don't see that happening.

Which proof is not found and not understood by whom?

I don't know, for the reasons you clearly state in the paragraph below. And based on those same words, neither do you.


There is no pressumption on the possibillity of knowing all by human beings. In fact it may very well be that we simply can't know, or even never will know a whole lot of things for the simple reason that even the smartest of our species will not be smart enough to figure all out. In it lies no proof or disproof. But we can use a very basic guidline. That is the use of logic.

So: we cannot figure out everything, you've conceded that. Okay. And what you've said in a roundabout way is that logic is the best model for understanding the who, what, where and why of our existence (and Existence itself), such as we can understand it.


There are a lot of things in religion (saying the believe in a god or gods) which are very illogical, when you look at the way nature works. I'm not going to elaborate on it, for there are many books written on the subject and any mind that has the courage to raise questions about any form of devinity or deity will come up with a few. There always can be an explanation for those questions, yes there is a possibillity that 'we' do not understand.

But logic, be it deductive, or inductive, is built on a foundation of premises. And the integrity of those premises varies from subject to subject. But each premise is based upon what we know. And we can't know everything. You say there are a lot of things in religion which are very illogical, which of course begs the question of what things in religion are actually logical.

But when you exclaim here that scientific laws can be altered or discredited in "a blink of (a cosmological) eye", what do you really mean? Scientific (you mean natural?) laws can't be altered, they are simply there, they can however be misunderstood or better defined.

The currency of logic is not semantics, which you indulge here. So I'll rephrase. 100 years from now, which in terms of Existence is the blink of an eye, scientific laws -- and I used that term purposefully, as "natural law" is employed for theological purposes as well -- will be likely be altered in some form or fashion.

I fail to understand what you mean by saying that you can "discredit them". You can always discretic a theory about how something works, but only by presenting a better theory. Theories are not something that are being thought up under tea during sundayafternoon, so this proces is somewhat less volatile than you seem to suggest. In fact mostly theories are constantly being backed up by newly discovered facts. But if you have examples that I would gladly look into you suggestions, where theories fail. Mostly it is a progression of

understanding, not a retreat. Untill that time I gladly will stick with that what think is true, despite that this decision, will leave me with the knowledge that my life will be ending with no afterlife or reward (nor punishment). It is the seeking of truth with no ulterior motives, like the reward a believer gets from his god of prefference.

Thanks, Professor! There are distinctions between scientific laws and scientific theories. But as you know, certain laws of science are subject to being discredited if extrapolated. But remember, you stated conclusively there is no proof of a divine being, and speak of retreat in the same sentence?

You talk about proof of Christ. Besides the bible, which proof is there ever about his existence? I don't mean religious proof, or proof by relgious people brought in a scientific way. But real proof. None. I don't have accept any proof, except that which has scientific merrit. I would turn it around. Why whould you accept it, and I don't. If you would put us under a scan, we'd propably be the same in many ways. So our difference is mostly based on something that lies in in culture and education.

Does it get lonely on your pedestal, mordang? I guess I must have hit a nerve with the rationalist. And here I thought you were guided by logic, and not passive aggression. But I digress.

Proof of the existence of Christ is confirmed by primary sources including Josephus and Tacitus. That evidence has been scrutinized, and survived scrutiny, for thousands of years.

I'd suggest you apply the logic which you so highly value. The Jewish people never denied his existence, despite the fact that his movement spread like wildfire throughout Judea, and later, the Roman Empire. The Jews of the "Common Era" were in the best position to expose Christ as a figment of the imagination (his contemporaries, in fact, spread rumors about him and his family). It would make no sense for those with a vested interest in quelling the Christian movement to choose not to disprove his existence, than it would for Americans to tolerate a NATO attack because it believed the CIA killed Superman.

Besides, you've confused the existence of Christ with the divinity of Christ. Besides, I said some would say Christ is the ultimate proof of God, I never asked you to accept it.

But you have decided what you will and will not accept based upon your finite understanding of the universe. If science cannot prove it, it of course did not happen. But given the evidence of your high self-regard, I daresay you DO have a god. You look him in the mirror, every morning.

I was raised, not aware of a god (that means it was not a topic, I was not raised pro or anti). I figured things out my own merry way, unlike my surrounding who where raised in acceptance (like you say). Occam's razor would suggest that religion (and the defence of religion) is something which is more connected to your upbringing, than presentation of evidence. God is inside you, because someone told you about it.

So you are able to extrapolate all of that without knowing me, my background, my education, or the reasons why I believe in God? You ARE divine, which of course, means that the concept of yourself is one you categorically reject.

Otherwise I and all those who are brought up non religious would not have any difficulty to accept certain proof. But, being unbiased towards it, means there is a neutral insight on what proof really is. Acceptance is not a problem, credibillity is.

You have indicated conclusively there is no proof of God, despite the fact you yourself acknowledge you cannot know or comprehend everything. But it's not like you're biased.

I'm sorry to inform religious people time and again that there beliefs are idle. There is no softer manner of bringing that news. Most of you are brought up to belief in the god of Christ, but had you lived in an other time or an other place this would have been an entirely different god. That randomness in faith is based on culture, not on the establishment of a truth by reckognition of certain proof.

That is logic.

If you have already conceded that a person cannot know everything, and that we as a species are unable to fully comprehend everything, your "news" is nothing more than an opinion.

As I said before, logic survives on the strength of its premises. Most of "us" on this planet subscribe to a belief in a God, but the nature, reasons, and scope of each person's belief varies.

You presume to know the underpinnings of all belief, and believers. When challenged, you assert your own superiority. That takes the omniscience and prerogative of a God which you do not believe in.

What you've just demonstrated could be called many things, before it could be called logic.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #114 posted 10/24/10 11:38am

TweetyV6

avatar

JoeTyler said:

etifaim said:

Ok, How about you NOT tell the OP to ask such unfounded and unverifiable questions to a child. neutral

just to make him understand that science may explain how something happens/happened, but not WHY...

FOK !

Here we go again.
By explaining how it happens, you also explain why it happens... DUH !

And why do people always want to know the ultimate why ? WHO CARES ??
Is your life incomplete without knowing ? Are you getting depressed by not knowing ?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #115 posted 10/24/10 11:41am

TweetyV6

avatar

CarolineP said:

abigail05 said:

doesn't the prospect of spending eternity - a time that doesn't end - in a very terrible place concern you just a little bit?

With the many reports of people who have seen the "other side", be it heaven or hell, and they all seem quite in line with each other, do you just discount all that as nonsense?

Yes.

Exactly.

Ask them what drugs they were on (could be 'self made' in their own body, you know)

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #116 posted 10/24/10 1:29pm

mordang

avatar

namepeace said:

mordang said:

Which proof is not found and not understood by whom?

I don't know, for the reasons you clearly state in the paragraph below. And based on those same words, neither do you.


There is no pressumption on the possibillity of knowing all by human beings. In fact it may very well be that we simply can't know, or even never will know a whole lot of things for the simple reason that even the smartest of our species will not be smart enough to figure all out. In it lies no proof or disproof. But we can use a very basic guidline. That is the use of logic.

So: we cannot figure out everything, you've conceded that. Okay. And what you've said in a roundabout way is that logic is the best model for understanding the who, what, where and why of our existence (and Existence itself), such as we can understand it.


There are a lot of things in religion (saying the believe in a god or gods) which are very illogical, when you look at the way nature works. I'm not going to elaborate on it, for there are many books written on the subject and any mind that has the courage to raise questions about any form of devinity or deity will come up with a few. There always can be an explanation for those questions, yes there is a possibillity that 'we' do not understand.

But logic, be it deductive, or inductive, is built on a foundation of premises. And the integrity of those premises varies from subject to subject. But each premise is based upon what we know. And we can't know everything. You say there are a lot of things in religion which are very illogical, which of course begs the question of what things in religion are actually logical.

But when you exclaim here that scientific laws can be altered or discredited in "a blink of (a cosmological) eye", what do you really mean? Scientific (you mean natural?) laws can't be altered, they are simply there, they can however be misunderstood or better defined.

The currency of logic is not semantics, which you indulge here. So I'll rephrase. 100 years from now, which in terms of Existence is the blink of an eye, scientific laws -- and I used that term purposefully, as "natural law" is employed for theological purposes as well -- will be likely be altered in some form or fashion.

I fail to understand what you mean by saying that you can "discredit them". You can always discretic a theory about how something works, but only by presenting a better theory. Theories are not something that are being thought up under tea during sundayafternoon, so this proces is somewhat less volatile than you seem to suggest. In fact mostly theories are constantly being backed up by newly discovered facts. But if you have examples that I would gladly look into you suggestions, where theories fail. Mostly it is a progression of

understanding, not a retreat. Untill that time I gladly will stick with that what think is true, despite that this decision, will leave me with the knowledge that my life will be ending with no afterlife or reward (nor punishment). It is the seeking of truth with no ulterior motives, like the reward a believer gets from his god of prefference.

Thanks, Professor! There are distinctions between scientific laws and scientific theories. But as you know, certain laws of science are subject to being discredited if extrapolated. But remember, you stated conclusively there is no proof of a divine being, and speak of retreat in the same sentence?

You talk about proof of Christ. Besides the bible, which proof is there ever about his existence? I don't mean religious proof, or proof by relgious people brought in a scientific way. But real proof. None. I don't have accept any proof, except that which has scientific merrit. I would turn it around. Why whould you accept it, and I don't. If you would put us under a scan, we'd propably be the same in many ways. So our difference is mostly based on something that lies in in culture and education.

Does it get lonely on your pedestal, mordang? I guess I must have hit a nerve with the rationalist. And here I thought you were guided by logic, and not passive aggression. But I digress.

Proof of the existence of Christ is confirmed by primary sources including Josephus and Tacitus. That evidence has been scrutinized, and survived scrutiny, for thousands of years.

I'd suggest you apply the logic which you so highly value. The Jewish people never denied his existence, despite the fact that his movement spread like wildfire throughout Judea, and later, the Roman Empire. The Jews of the "Common Era" were in the best position to expose Christ as a figment of the imagination (his contemporaries, in fact, spread rumors about him and his family). It would make no sense for those with a vested interest in quelling the Christian movement to choose not to disprove his existence, than it would for Americans to tolerate a NATO attack because it believed the CIA killed Superman.

Besides, you've confused the existence of Christ with the divinity of Christ. Besides, I said some would say Christ is the ultimate proof of God, I never asked you to accept it.

But you have decided what you will and will not accept based upon your finite understanding of the universe. If science cannot prove it, it of course did not happen. But given the evidence of your high self-regard, I daresay you DO have a god. You look him in the mirror, every morning.

I was raised, not aware of a god (that means it was not a topic, I was not raised pro or anti). I figured things out my own merry way, unlike my surrounding who where raised in acceptance (like you say). Occam's razor would suggest that religion (and the defence of religion) is something which is more connected to your upbringing, than presentation of evidence. God is inside you, because someone told you about it.

So you are able to extrapolate all of that without knowing me, my background, my education, or the reasons why I believe in God? You ARE divine, which of course, means that the concept of yourself is one you categorically reject.

Otherwise I and all those who are brought up non religious would not have any difficulty to accept certain proof. But, being unbiased towards it, means there is a neutral insight on what proof really is. Acceptance is not a problem, credibillity is.

You have indicated conclusively there is no proof of God, despite the fact you yourself acknowledge you cannot know or comprehend everything. But it's not like you're biased.

I'm sorry to inform religious people time and again that there beliefs are idle. There is no softer manner of bringing that news. Most of you are brought up to belief in the god of Christ, but had you lived in an other time or an other place this would have been an entirely different god. That randomness in faith is based on culture, not on the establishment of a truth by reckognition of certain proof.

That is logic.

If you have already conceded that a person cannot know everything, and that we as a species are unable to fully comprehend everything, your "news" is nothing more than an opinion.

As I said before, logic survives on the strength of its premises. Most of "us" on this planet subscribe to a belief in a God, but the nature, reasons, and scope of each person's belief varies.

You presume to know the underpinnings of all belief, and believers. When challenged, you assert your own superiority. That takes the omniscience and prerogative of a God which you do not believe in.

What you've just demonstrated could be called many things, before it could be called logic.

Wow. Well at least I tried...and without getting personal or condescending (at least this time). But I guess that I can leave behind.

Either you deliberatly misinterpret the words I so kindly wrote for your education or you are simply of lesser intellectual powers. There is no beginning to correct al forms of errors you make in your "reasoning".

Therefore I suggest that we now do this discussion again but in Dutch. Dat begrijp je ook al niet.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #117 posted 11/03/10 7:42am

blackbob

avatar

NevermindAlexzander said:

BombSquad said:

really? so then God can't exist, cause he can't come from nothing, thanks for making that clear.

what? you claim (I assume...) that God ALWAYS existed?

great. then I can make the same claim for "dirt", or the universe itself

"dirt always existed". see, that was easy.

my claim is just as valid as saying "God always existed". actually not really, my claim is MUCH MORE VALID than yours, because dirt (and the universe) has been observed to exist. but God has not.

sorry, Dirt beats God 1:0

[Edited 10/19/10 0:55am]

Funny.

So to you,

Only things that you can see and observed are real?

Okay,If you say so.

God has been explained in many ways, the "what,where,why and who".

God is The Creator of all things.

God is not a thing that needed to be created. God is Eternal.

No begining and end.

God is outside of creation and can't be put into a beaker and measured.

Dirt is with in time and subject to it.

God is not.

Everybody but a fool knows dirt has not always been here.

Everything had a begining.

Creation itself SCREAMS there is a Creator.

So does dirt really beat God...?

i would keep him away from fox news....he will grow up thinking he is the son of satan myself eek biggrin

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #118 posted 11/04/10 10:16pm

NevermindAlexz
ander

blackbob said:

i would keep him away from fox news....he will grow up thinking he is the son of satan myself eek biggrin

Fox news is the only source that would tell him that?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #119 posted 11/05/10 6:03pm

YouOughtaUnder
stand

NevermindAlexzander said:<insert whatever text that was ever typed here>

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 5 <12345>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > My son is an atheist