I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[Tom Sawyer]

The Bible says that Aphrodite is real?

Far more important is how modern Christainity celebrates Ishtar/Easter/Oestre/Ester.

Unless Ishtar rides around naked on a giant seashell, I don't see why anyone would bother to care about her. She deserves to have her holiday co-opted by someone else because she sucks as a goddess.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Job 1
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
----

Who were these sons? How many of them? Where did they go? Why doesn't anybody pray to them?

 

[skepticalbip]

Job 1
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
----

Who were these sons?

They were god's backup singers in their group Fearsome Thunder and the Rumbles.

How many of them?

Six. That made for a good balance for their dance steps with three on either side of the front man.

Where did they go?

Groups like that went out of style so god went solo and they wound up lost in middle of the heavenly choir.

Why doesn't anybody pray to them?

Who prays to choir singers?

 

[angelo]

Perhaps they may get better results if they prayed to the choir singers instead of the head honcho.

 

[Learner]

The old theist two step dance avoiding the issue. You have no way to know objectively if faith healing works, or if an apparently miraculous cure is not just a biological function. There are documented cases of cancer remission. Faith healing is a bit off topic.

I knew an Evangelical who absolutely belived in faith healing. He made trips to a church in Nortern Claifinia rthat was a center for it. He could ralle off a list clamed healings yet never saw one and did not know anyone who did.

Someone in his group had a heart exam that showed severe thinning of heart walls and a number was given to it, ultrasound does that. When they opened him up it was thicker. He claimed it was divine intervention that thickened his heart walls.

Perhaps another thread but I'm not avoiding the issue. I answered the question you previously posted but its just not an acceptable answer to you. Your question was " IF Jesus i.e. the real mc'coy, you seemed to be saying ; appeared in your front lawn. Now you are giving a different context here that you don't mean actually Jesus but another hallucination.

Your answer was that if it was really JC 'you would know the difference'. Essentially a subjective belief with no objective basis in reality. In other words, religious faith. I have no problem with an individual's faith. It is just for once I'd like to see an acknowledgement that it is just that, faith.

If proof is healing, again maybe advanced technology?

If you truly believe then it should be easy to express faith without having to explain, prove, or defend it. Faith without intellectualizing.

Ok good... well then the answer is going to have variables depending on which individual you're asking it to , case by case,. You shouldn't expect or think there is only one answer. As for myself; it came about by the "psychology" aspects of the early Chrstians IOW : I believe them. A faith I suppose as in "trusting" in what they said and saw and... faith without-seeing and all that attached came after further delving and conclusive realisation. So Its still "faith" for me, I don't need to see anymore than that (see angels or hear voices).

 

[steve_bank]

There is really only one article of faith on which all Christianity rests. That is the belief that the brief description of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is true.

Without a belief in the resurrection and an eternal good afterlife there is no Christianity. There is nothing to believe in and hope for. And that is the fundamental good Christianity provides. In the midst of chaotic humanity where individuals have no control, there is hope and a future if they live in accordance with god's will.

The Jesus message in the gospels was to the poor, endure your suffering it will be well in the afterlife. It was not the modern god wants you to be rich success gospel, it wasn't all the Catholic rituals....it was faith in something good for eternity after this life. Salvation for all belivers expanded to gentiles by mostly Paul.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've seen reports that roughly half the population believes that ghosts exist. The real driver behind such beliefs is an intuitive belief that thoughts and emotions exist independently of physical reality. This belief persists across all human cultures that I am aware of, and it exists despite the fact that people also seem well aware of the connection between brains and mental processes It is obvious that brain damage impairs mental functions, not to mention the ability to control one's physical body. Nevertheless, people seem to feel that there is a kind of parallel spiritual body that might be liberated by the death of the physical body.

The point of the OP is that we don't really debate the existence of God. The debate always comes down to something other than the reality of God, and those premises that we use to justify god belief tend to be far more tractable and subject to debate than claims that we can't somehow really prove or disprove God's existence.

I suspect that most people who believe God exists don't believe this as a result of any rational process. Instead, it seems more plausible that they believe it because they want to believe it. The reason for that is that people are outraged to have to die and feel better for thinking there is a God that will take care of their mind as their real self when they die. There are other avenue to get to believe in God. Still, I also suspect most people who say they believe in fact don't. They just convince themselves they will be better off joining a community of believers who may look like they are caring people. And there are still other avenue. Some people have a subjective experience whereby God is just impossible to deny, just like reasonable people like you can't deny the world around them. Logic as the main reason to believe in God really comes last if at all. Believers may brandish proofs of God but that's not the reason they believe in God, if they do at all.

And the mechanism you signal about going up the logical chain to question the premises applies to any argument about anything. If you can't fault the logic, you question the premises. That's just the logical thing to do.

Proofs are also clearly a way to analyse what you want to prove into different premises, thereby clarifying the concepts and cutting up the problem into several and therefore smaller and more easily manageable questions. It's essentially trying to go up the chain of premises up until you can find where you disagree exactly and trying to force other people to agree with your premises and therefore forcing the conclusion. This goes for maths theorems, too. There can't be any difference in this respect.
EB

 

[angelo]

A belief in god is
1. Absurd.
2. Ludicrous.
3.preposterous.
4. ridiculous.
and finally 5. Idiotic.
Religion is all that and more. It breeds terrorism. Terrorism is most likely the biggest threat in the world.

Can one imagine a terrorist getting his/her's hands on a nuclear bomb! All of this springs forth from a belief of a friend in the sky who doesn't exist.
That this superstition is still with us in the 21st century is because of wishful thinking and a fear of oblivion.
God and religion are not compatible with common sense or of reason. It's simply absurd to think that there is a god somewhere up there who watches over the whole 7.4 billion people on this planet 24/7, 354 days per year, century after century, millennia after millennia on this or other planets of which there may be billions of out there in the cosmos!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There is really only one article of faith on which all Christianity rests. That is the belief that the brief description of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is true.

Which we know from GMark didn’t actually exist originally. GMark does not end with Jesus resurrected. It ends with Jesus “risen” (according to a “young man” who is just sitting in the already open tomb).

Without a belief in the resurrection and an eternal good afterlife there is no Christianity.

An argument made exclusively by Paul, an outsider, persecutor and infiltrator of the cult that was never trusted by the “original” disciples and essentially pushed on the small groups of gentile cult members, while the true (Jewish) disciples did whatever they did among the Jews. A chapter of the story we have almost nothing from in spite of the fact that they should have been the central focus, not Paul.

There is nothing to believe in and hope for.

Almost like it was just made up to be more in line with Roman paganism in order to usurp the true teachers of Jesus’ alleged “message.”

 

[Learner]

There is really only one article of faith on which all Christianity rests. That is the belief that the brief description of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is true.

Without a belief in the resurrection and an eternal good afterlife there is no Christianity. There is nothing to believe in and hope for. And that is the fundamental good Christianity provides. In the midst of chaotic humanity where individuals have no control, there is hope and a future if they live in accordance with god's will.

Well that is the rhetoric often said which imo is not the only thing Christianity rests on, such as Jesus having actually existed in the first place (although one of the main focuses of atheists to debate on or try to debunk). There are various other witnesses and testimonies throughout the NT from various events and scenarios. I've never thought of the resurection as being "the one thing" that brought me into the belief since it came about gradually ... from varied places e.g. the biblical text with names and places , archeology ,similarities of Genesis and biblical references found in other cultures.

(*Correction : I was already a believer by this time) newer findings connecting the Exodus crossings to Saudia Arabia instead etc.. or new explanations of why biblical dates were not matching ancient Egyptian chronology in which (not too long ago) was discovered that : the "original" dating chronology was "made in error" by a certain amount of years, according to leading Egyptologist David Rhol. (although I'm not yet currently updated on his findings)

Quite a bit to mention off the top of my head regarding becoming a believer which is a few years worth.

I'm sure I've thought this through, rationally.

 

[angelo]

I can't for the life of me understand how a rational person could possibly believe all that religious claptrap! It was fine to believe in the supernatural at the dawn of civilasation when nothing was known about the working of natural events like an earthquake, a thunderstorm an erupting volcano etc, etc, etc.

But today peer reviewed science has just about explained the whole shebang. What little remains to be explained will be so in the not too distant future. In other words, the god of the gaps has been squeezed into an insignificant little dot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If God exists, then why is the beer in a fridge in the next room instead of beside me on the couch here, forcing me to stand up and walk over there in order to get it?

Answer that, theists.

 

[angelo]

If god existed, we would have ample evidence of it. But the universe looks exactly like a random event, exactly like as if no god exists.

 

[Learner]

I can't for the life of me understand how a rational person could possibly believe all that religious claptrap! It was fine to believe in the supernatural at the dawn of civilasation when nothing was known about the working of natural events like an earthquake, a thunderstorm an erupting volcano etc, etc, etc.

As the biblical theology goes, it was always understood (regardless of knowing how it works) that "nature was nature", not intelligent entities or gods as other cultures/religions thought.

But today peer reviewed science has just about explained the whole shebang. What little remains to be explained will be so in the not too distant future. In other words, the god of the gaps has been squeezed into an insignificant little dot.

Science within the community have in history, their fair share of dishonesty and bogus hoaxes, like the god of the gaps. You can have tons of explanations even opposing explanations but neither side is convincing enough with their explanations.

 

[Learner]

If God exists, then why is the beer in a fridge in the next room instead of beside me on the couch here, forcing me to stand up and walk over there in order to get it?

Answer that, theists.

Should the good wife say "get it yerself !"

You need one of these!

View attachment 18818

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would I want to pay the salary of a butler to fetch beer for me when I can just have an omnipotent deity alter the fabric of reality to make it so that I always have a cold beer within arm's reach no matter where I am?

That's just wasteful spending.

 

[steve_bank]

I can't for the life of me understand how a rational person could possibly believe all that religious claptrap! It was fine to believe in the supernatural at the dawn of civilasation when nothing was known about the working of natural events like an earthquake, a thunderstorm an erupting volcano etc, etc, etc.

As the biblical theology goes, it was always understood (regardless of knowing how it works) that "nature was nature", not intelligent entities or gods as other cultures/religions thought.

But today peer reviewed science has just about explained the whole shebang. What little remains to be explained will be so in the not too distant future. In other words, the god of the gaps has been squeezed into an insignificant little dot.

Science within the community have in history, their fair share of dishonesty and bogus hoaxes, like the god of the gaps. You can have tons of explanations even opposing explanations but neither side is convincing enough with their explanations.

Tired old retort. A false equivalence. Theists and scientists can be both be fallible and corrupt, therefore despite what sconce says faith is true. In reality science has nothing to say on validity of faith. What science does is refute claims such as young Earth creationism.

No one ever claims science is infallible or never corrupt for that matter. The difference between science is that in the long run it is self correcting and truth wins out in the end. Science is practiced by individuals with difernt rekigions and philosopy. Science does not represent any morality. It is a skill practiced by people no more no less. There is no centralized scince that tells people what to think and how to live.

You are free to reject science as the jet you are on lifts off the runway.

Back in the 90s it was announced that cold fusion was achieved, potentially a source for cheap energy. The paper was out on the net. Within 48 hours it was debunked liberally around the world. There are other examples.

What people see today is the successes of science manifested in technology and other areas. What people do not generally know is the history of failures of scientific theories.

On the opposite end is the Vatican Catholic catechism and theology. It can never be wrong, otherwise the assumption of absolute moral authority of the pope vanishes. Witness the ongoing Vatican difficulty in dealing with sex abuse.

As a skeptic I can ponder that in the future relativity and quantum mechanics may be overturned. Theoretical scintists are always at work seeking something new.

 

[Learner]

Tired old retort. A false equivalence. Theists and scientists can be both be fallible and corrupt, therefore despite what sconce says faith is true. In reality science has nothing to say on validity of faith. What science does is refute claims such as young Earth creationism.

There's no false equivalence when it comes to "dishonesty" as you say yourself in the underlined. And faith is not itself dishonest. Besides : the Old Earth creationists refute YECs too.

No one ever claims science is infallible or never corrupt for that matter. The difference between science is that in the long run it is self correcting and truth wins out in the end. Science is practiced by individuals with difernt rekigions and philosopy. Science does not represent any morality. It is a skill practiced by people no more no less. There is no centralized scince that tells people what to think and how to live.

You are free to reject science as the jet you are on lifts off the runway.

Similarly , Theists are correcting their understanding and interpretations and the truth will reveal itself (not that this matters to you).

"You are free to reject science as the jet you are on lifts off the runway"

I'm ok with it since "science does not represent any morality" being a neutral useful tool obviously.

 

[steve_bank]

Tired old retort. A false equivalence. Theists and scientists can be both be fallible and corrupt, therefore despite what sconce says faith is true. In reality science has nothing to say on validity of faith. What science does is refute claims such as young Earth creationism.

There's no false equivalence when it comes to "dishonesty" as you say yourself in the underlined. And faith is not itself dishonest. Besides : the Old Earth creationists refute YECs too.

No one ever claims science is infallible or never corrupt for that matter. The difference between science is that in the long run it is self correcting and truth wins out in the end. Science is practiced by individuals with difernt rekigions and philosopy. Science does not represent any morality. It is a skill practiced by people no more no less. There is no centralized scince that tells people what to think and how to live.

You are free to reject science as the jet you are on lifts off the runway.

Similarly , Theists are correcting their understanding and interpretations and the truth will reveal itself (not that this matters to you).

"You are free to reject science as the jet you are on lifts off the runway"

I'm ok with it since "science does not represent any morality" being a neutral useful tool obviously.

There is no equivalence between sconce and religion. It is a weak argument by theists. The idea being faith is supported by the equivalent of scientific analysis.

Your faith and accepting the reality of the bible and JC and resurrection And god is not subject to revision or debate. Christians view faith as absolute with an absolute normality.
If you are a Christian you may comet accept as some sects have that evolution may be part of god's plan. The Vatican has said this. But you can never refute god created everything.

Faith is absolute. Science is not. That is the difference. Science is based on unambiguous physical definitions not subject to interpretation, Systems International. Religion is entirely subjective experience. Religion is about deriving a sense of one's place in the universe,. Science is about objective definitions of how the universe works.

There really is no conflict between science and religion, they address different aspects of human existence.

God and faith are not subject to objective scientific proof. As such religion can not use science as some kind of proof and scirnce can not objectively refute god.

 

[angelo]

I can't for the life of me understand how a rational person could possibly believe all that religious claptrap! It was fine to believe in the supernatural at the dawn of civilasation when nothing was known about the working of natural events like an earthquake, a thunderstorm an erupting volcano etc, etc, etc.

As the biblical theology goes, it was always understood (regardless of knowing how it works) that "nature was nature", not intelligent entities or gods as other cultures/religions thought.

But today peer reviewed science has just about explained the whole shebang. What little remains to be explained will be so in the not too distant future. In other words, the god of the gaps has been squeezed into an insignificant little dot.

Science within the community have in history, their fair share of dishonesty and bogus hoaxes, like the god of the gaps. You can have tons of explanations even opposing explanations but neither side is convincing enough with their explanations.

Good peer reviewed science is impossible to ignore even though theist do ignore it.

If God created everything that's within the cosmos, that would include science. Now this god created science would by now have discovered a mountain of evidence for the existence of it's creator god. But the opposite has/is happening. On the contrary, With each passing day science is proving that god is not necessary to explain the universe, or the origins of life.