Non-believers - Ever prayed really hard for God to reveal himself?

[Archimedes]

"You can only serve one God. (well at least according to God http://biblehub.com/exodus/34-14.htm )."
If you're considering to be a believer then the Bible tells you about God.

No. If you're considering a particular minority religion on Earth (Christianity which comprises 2 out of 7 billion people) then the Bible tells you about God. And even then most Christians of that minority don't believe in the literal truth of that particular set of books they're meant to believe in (which they don't).

You appear to be equating belief in God with belief in Christianity with belief in the truth of the Bible. I don't think you've thought any of this stuff through at all.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As far as I'm aware, Scientologists don't believe that all non-believers suffer eternally... apparently they believe in reincarnation - in that case I thought they'd only be aware of one lifetime of suffering at a time. (unless they can remember previous lifetimes) As far as I'm aware the suffering in Scientology isn't as severe as that in Christianity.

Yes it's Scientology dogma, as explained by Hubbard. It's called Spinning In. According to Hubbard, when we die, we reincarnate. But each cycle of the length of our possible lives shortens each time we do so. Most of us are down to 47,000 cycles, we are spinning in. In the end, we wwill lose the ability to recycle and reincarnate within these cycles. We will eventually become insensate, having no more thinking ability for our thetan than a rock. Locked forever in this dead end. EXcept of course eventually for Scientologists who will eventually reclaim their true omnipotent free living near omnipotent thetan abilities.

Hell for unfortunate wogs Hubbard style.

"Help me Elron! i don't wanna spin in! Here's my wallet and my money, take it all, Just don't let me spin in! He'p me Elron!

 

[Keith&Co.]

To turn it back to you, where is your PROOF that I said those two things about hell I just quoted you on saying?

Oh, that's adorable.
You misstate my position for post after post, and hand-wave away responsibility for it, but throw a tantrum if your statements are misrepresented.
Very amusing, ExC. Even hilarious.

 

[Juma]

"If you're considering to be a believer then the Bible tells you about God."

Whether God exists or not, the Bible tells you about him. In the same way whether Harry Potter exists or not, the books tell you about him.

But then the ONLY reason to beleive in what the bible says is the bible...

Compare this with science books which gives you tools to actually test for yourself.

 

[excreationist]

Oh, that's adorable.
You misstate my position for post after post,

That's because I wasn't understanding you. Eventually it seems like your point is that you want me to PROVE what I'm saying.

and hand-wave away responsibility for it, but throw a tantrum if your statements are misrepresented.
Very amusing, ExC. Even hilarious.

Well you think you are entitled to demand me to give proofs (when I never claimed to be 100% certain of anything I was saying) and then I just asked for you to give proof for two simple sentences and you won't.

- - - Updated - - -

But then the ONLY reason to beleive in what the bible says is the bible...

No there is a lot of archaeological evidence, etc, that shows that at least many of the places are real, etc.

 

[excreationist]

....You appear to be equating belief in God with belief in Christianity with belief in the truth of the Bible.

Some of my sentences have flaws like that but in reality I know that not all believers in God are Christians and not all Christians believe a lot of the Bible.

I don't think you've thought any of this stuff through at all.

I disagree. But anyway this thread is about other people's opinions on the subject. I just offered mine to encourage others to share their own views on the topic too.

 

[Angry Floof]

No one is demanding you prove anything. They're pointing out the underlying assumptions in your statements that you seem to be unaware of until after someone pointing it out.

Of course, you are free to not question your own assumptions, but that doesn't stop anyone else questioning.

 

[Juma]

No there is a lot of archaeological evidence, etc, that shows that at least many of the places are real, etc.

You are kidding, arent you? What archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false. There were no glorious king David. There were no exodus from Egypt. etc.

 

[excreationist]

No one is demanding you prove anything. They're pointing out the underlying assumptions in your statements that you seem to be unaware of until after someone pointing it out.

Yes I need them pointed out.... rather than giving clues like "check out the 3000 religions/gods".

Of course, you are free to not question your own assumptions, but that doesn't stop anyone else questioning.

It helps if their questions are more specific - e.g. what about this verse where Islam punishes all believers - vs

....Your argument depends on being able to identify and dismiss every one of the gods above, most of the natural forces given faces, some of the more judgmental First Men, and the various demigods that stand as intercessors between us and the judges.

You're not anywhere near capable of supporting this argument, are you?

 

[excreationist]

You are kidding, arent you? What archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false. There were no glorious king David. There were no exodus from Egypt. etc.

Well the pastors and theology students I talk to sometimes are sure of the opposite. They would have a lot of reasons for their opinions. I'm not convinced of it either but they must know some of what they're talking about - after all for a lot of them their faiths would be strengthened in their studies. Or maybe the apologetics is just really good.

 

[Juma]

Well the pastors and theology students I talk to sometimes are sure of the opposite. They would have a lot of reasons for their opinions. I'm not convinced of it either but they must know some of what they're talking about - after all for a lot of them their faiths would be strengthened in their studies. Or maybe the apologetics is just really good.

You are a real sucker for authorities! Get over it.
Call their bluff.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item...rcheology_shows_bible_full_of_errors_20140208

 

[excreationist]

You are a real sucker for authorities! Get over it.
Call their bluff.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item...rcheology_shows_bible_full_of_errors_20140208

I can see you're not a sucker for authority since this is about 2 archeologists rather than large numbers of them. It's a pity the video that was viewed by 15,000 people is only 240p in resolution.

You do know that research can often contradict other research and you need to investigate it thoroughly....

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ble-accuracy-abraham-anachronistic-camel.html

Two recent academic papers written by evangelical scholars—Konrad Martin Heide, a lecturer at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany; and Titus Kennedy, an adjunct professor at Biola University—both refer to earlier depictions of men riding or leading camels, some that date to the early second millenium BC.

Among other evidence, Kennedy notes that a camel is mentioned in a list of domesticated animals from Ugarit, dating to the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC).

So that undermines your example that "archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false"

 

[Juma]

I can see you're not a sucker for authority since this is about 2 archeologists rather than large numbers of them.

Yes! You really dont get it, do you? You should weight the importance by its supporting arguments not the number of supporters...

 

[excreationist]

Ok look at the link I gave...

....All they really tell us is that at that particular place where they were working they found some camel bones that they interpreted as in a domesticated context between the ninth and 11th centuries BC," Kennedy said. "It doesn't tell us that camels couldn't have been used in other nearby areas earlier than that."...

 

[Juma]

So that undermines your example that "archeology shows is that most of the Bible is blatantly false"

No. It doesnt. There are still no trays of any exodus, king david or solomon. The legend of Moses is, myth.
And there are no trace of use of camels in that area at that time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's because I wasn't understanding you. Eventually it seems like your point is that you want me to PROVE what I'm saying.

Nope.
Just support it. Just demonstrate the method by which you came to the conclusion you did. Just demonstrate that your comparison between any two religious threats isn't completely myopic self-serving christain arrogance.

Well you think you are entitled to demand me to give proofs (when I never claimed to be 100% certain of anything I was saying)

100% isn't the problem, ExC.
You still don't understand. You made a claim. Can you support it, by 100% evidence or 10% or 'i knew this one guy who said' or 'i found on wiki' or 'God told me' or 'i had a dream?' Something? Anything?

No there is a lot of archaeological evidence, etc, that shows that at least many of the places are real, etc.

So, if every Zane Grey western novel takes place in a real town, if when he describes a boulder at the side of a road, that boulder can be found, is that some amount of evidence that the novel is a historical story?
How about if the city exists, but the Books says that God will destroy the city and no one will ever live in it again? Is that evidence FOR or AGAINST the Books?

 

[Rhea]

That's because I wasn't understanding you. Eventually it seems like your point is that you want me to PROVE what I'm saying.


Well you think you are entitled to demand me to give proofs (when I never claimed to be 100% certain of anything I was saying) and then I just asked for you to give proof for two simple sentences and you won't.

No. He never asked you to prove what you said, certainly not 100% proof.

Here's what he did say, "How do you know?" Which can be translated as "what convinced you?"

This question can be asked of anyone, even a child who is telling you about the tooth fairy. The answer from the child might be "because my auntie told me" it might be, "because money always appears under my pillow and I call that behavior fairy-like," it might be, "because I saw someone talk about it on a TV show," and it might be, "I don't really know how I came to the understanding that tooth fairies exist. It feels like I just always knew."

THOSE are answers to the question, "how do you know." None of them constitutes proof, certainly not 100% proof. But they do demonstrate understanding of the question, "what convinced you - how do you come to know what you know?"

If you ask a child how they know about the tooth fairy and they tell you, "You look it up!" it's kind of a dead end in cognition, you know?

No there is a lot of archaeological evidence, etc, that shows that at least many of the places are real, etc.

LOL. Think about what you just wrote. Think about how many fictional books and movies are based on real locations. Is every Tom Clancy novel real, then, by that logic? The animated movie "up" is real because Brasil exists? Moses parted the sea because Cairo exists? Really? The bible is not about locations. It's about what happened in those locations. And there is no evidence for that.

 

[Archimedes]

Well the pastors and theology students I talk to sometimes are sure of the opposite. They would have a lot of reasons for their opinions. I'm not convinced of it either but they must know some of what they're talking about - after all for a lot of them their faiths would be strengthened in their studies. Or maybe the apologetics is just really good.

Muslims, Scientologists, Orthodox Jews, homeopathists, holocaust deniers, etc. are all "sure" of the opposite of the truth. They would have a lot of reasons for their opinions, after all a lot of them their faiths would be strengthened by their studies.

What exactly is so special about Christians and their faith, studies, etc. that you are so obsessed with defending them with this half-baked chain of reasoning that doesn't apply to any other idiotic belief system? I'm not interested in the fact that there are more Christians than than any other belief system (there are more non-Christians than Christians so that line of logic is tragically flawed to begin with) or how Christianity has the nastiest hell. I'm specifically asking what is compelling about the fact that Christians are sure of their beliefs that isn't compelling about the fact that other stupid beliefs have devout followers who are sure of their beliefs and who have read the literature and studied it and are convinced of whatever thing it is they believe despite how wrong it is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

or how Christianity has the nastiest hell.

Jesus loves me, this i know,
'cause the fires burn down below.

I'll repent mistakes i'm makin'
As my flesh pops just like bacon.

It doesn't help to not believe,
God's love still won't let me leave.

God the Son gave me the chance,
To avoid that combustion dance.

But i'm doomed because God's plan,
Made me out a skeptical man.

The Faithful plan to look down from above,
Singing hymns about infinite love.

And yet....despite the compelling logic of an omnibenevolent being sending even one person to infinite torture, somehow it still seems like the sadistic fantasies of a seriously unbalanced mind...

 

[dx713]

Sorry for being late to the party.
hum...

So, like, my answer to the OP is that I can't understand the question. If you're not a believer, why would you pray an non-existent entity for something that is bound not to happen? I know humans aren't always logical, but to this point...

The closest I can relate is cursing god for not existing.
In my defence, I'm imaginative enough to curse a non-existent or inanimate entity, and I only knew, at the time, the Christian god through the "all loving" propaganda from my grandmother, not having read the bible yet.