Burden of Proof

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

Yea!! right this coming from someone who questions reality!!

Who said i question reality?
That would be a very difficult task. As me questioning reality is itself reality and as such would have no means to disassociate myself from what i perceive as reality, in order to question its validity. Very messy!

That life is not an illusion!.

How do you know that?
While in a dream state we believe what we experience to be reality and only understand it is an illusion upon waking. So how do we know this life is not an illusion from which we've yet to wake up from?

You still don't know what atheist means?.

This is not an answer.

From what giberish?.

Is that an absolute or relative statement.

Who the hell are you to judge?. BTW all religious beliefs are man-made unless your hindu friends were ETs. Extra Terrestials!!.

I’m not judging, it is just an observation.
The only way you could know that all religions are man-made, is to have been there when they were made or the authors state that they made the religion, otherwise you are talking non-sense (again).

Love
Jan Ardena.

 

[Godless]

[/QUOTE]

How do you know that?

Try telling a woman who lost her first born, that life is just an illusion and that her baby was nothing more than just an illusion!!

Her anger at you!! represents that life is real, the woman has lost a son!! and nothing will bring him back!!.

So how do we know this life is not an illusion from which we've yet to wake up from?

The Matrix was just a movie.

You quoted this:

So even though you believe the existence of God was formed by primitive imagination, you still think God could exist?

So my answer still stands you don't know what an athiest is?.

God to me Jan is a word with no (identity) so to make things simple for you, I can't say god dont exist, cause this would be a contradiction! I am implying that I have knowledge of what god is, in order to claim that something exists or does not, one has to have knowledge of what that something is! I claim no knowledge of what god means or what it is!!.

The only way you could know that all religions are man-made, is to have been there when they were made or the authors state that they made the religion, otherwise you are talking non-sense

Not non-sense, but anthropology!! can you understand anthropology?

Try this link here to the most revolutionized idea of all time!! with proof!!.

http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.html

buy the book!! read it!! understand it!!. All religious dogmas are man-made!.


Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Going back to blibical discussions:

During my discussions with most Christians regarding my lack of belief, sooner or later I am usually presented with the fact that I am not saved and risk an eternity of damnation. Indeed, when I was a Christian, eternal salvation was something I did not take lightly. After all, what sane person would risk an eternity of damnation by turning away from God or questioning His precepts? Regardless, many well-meaning Christians tell me that I need to turn to the Bible for my answers, that, somehow, via the rule of faith, God will once again "inspire" me to find the true meaning in those sacred words.

Ever the quick study, I decided to take those Christians up on their advice and once again found myself back in the Bible trying to figure out how one is "saved." Logic would dictate that obtaining this salvation would be fairly straightforward and laid out in one easy-to-understand book—especially if said creator of this book wanted to make sure His followers were indeed "saved." Of course, upon investigation I found that this is not the case. One Christian denomination tells us the "saved" were predestined. One tells us that baptism is required. Another says baptism is a ritual and that salvation comes through belief in Christ’s sacrifice. Others say Christ’s sacrifice alone is enough. Yet another stresses good works or the grace of God. In fact, depending on which denomination of Christianity one subscribes to, any combination of the following bible verses can be used to justify how one is saved:[/B]

I'll say this; when you say that the Bible says something, make sure that you look at the stuff around the verse. If you isolate any verse/part of a verse, then you can make the Bible say anything you want.

By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life".

Theism doesn't save anybody and never has. Look at John 6:47,"He who believes in Me will have everlasting life." In these verses, Jesus is establishing himself as One with the Father.

[B}By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"[/B]

John 4:13-14. Jesus isn't talking about Baptism.

By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works."

If it wasn't by grace or if it was by works, then Christ's death was in vain and not neccessary.

By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

James is writing to people who are already Christians. He is saying to them that works is the fruit of a saved person, you do things because of what has been done for you. This "justification" is different from what Paul says. James's justification means proof of your salvation. Paul's justificationis is to made right with God, by God.

By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

Romans 3:19. When Christ said 19:17, he was talking to people who were still under the law. Christ had not died yet, so we were all still under the law. His sacrifice at the cross made us above the law, meaning that the law was no longer necessary for salvation's purposes(although to obey them is a display of your salvation, see above)

By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "…whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Indeed. Look at verse 13-15,"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who has come down from Heaven, that is, the Son of Man[in reference to Jesus's lineage through David]. And as Moses lifeted up the serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." No one has gotten into heaven except through God's grace. This passage alone disproves that works can bring salvation.

By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Never said that he who believeth and isn't baptized shall be damned.

By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

indeed, words like,"Yes I believe in you Jesus," will save you, and words like,"I reject you, Jesus," will condemn you. Now this isn't works, but,"out of abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matt. 12:34

By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

See above.

Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works…but according to his mercy…by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ’s blood and sacrifice.)

Your parenthetic phrase is right. Baptism is by definition, a work. Complete the verse,"...by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, whom He pured out on us abundantly through Christ." Titus 3:5-6.

According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgment & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect

You're stretching the "made for" part. This means that their judgement is made and that they are preserved until that day. See Job 21:30.

;

or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.

Christ died for everyone, but that by no means means that all will be saved. What they are saying is that he gave us all an opportunity to accept him, but obviously not everyone will. We are all on a death sentence; and through Christ we are all pardoned. Those who accept his pardon will live(this is where election/predestination come into play), Those who don't accept the pardon are still subject to the death sentence.(i know, not a perfect analogy, but it serves its purpose)

Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4.

All have the option of salvation, but few will accept.

Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelations 3:20.

There will be few who accept the salvation(those who desire it)

Now I’m sure some critics will say I’m taking those verses "out of context." Well, to those critics I ask that a "context" be clearly defined and followed among Christians before you criticize my observations.

Okay. Look to see when its being written(if its before Christ's death, then you will see stuff about the law, etc. b/c Christ's sacrifice obviously hasn't been made). Next see to whom its being written(James is being written to those already saved, so he is focusing on works; but when Paul writes in Romans[& possibly Hebrews] then he is writing to those who are not saved. Also, when Paul writes to churches, he may throw in a grace reference to either encourage them or to rebuke them.) Lastly look at what is said around it. Look at verses with similar things in them(cross-references helps much). Then you can gain the true context and meaning.

. Putting those critics aside for the moment, this leads us to the present day state of affairs among the various denominations of Christianity. Granted, I’m no theologian, but one would think a perfect God who knows "everything" would have foreseen what these contradictions would do to his followers’ faith. One would think that a perfect God would have directed His followers to write one sacred book. One would think that this one book would detail just exactly how one is to be "saved" and that this plan would be uniformly followed—at least among Christians. More importantly, one would think that Christianity would agree on just exactly how one is "saved." Of course, once again confusion reigns!

Welcome to free will. God allows us to make our own decisions, regardless of whether or not they are harmonious with his will.

I've done some growing since then.

So do trees, and how many perfectly vertical specimens of them do you see?

 

[VitalOne]

Perception of our reality is objective, therefore truth must also be objective.
Illusion is subjective, therefore belief in gods, leprechans, etc.. need emperical proof.

Uhm...have you ever heard of the two-slit paradox? Basically everything only has the potential to happen unless we observe it. We don't all percieve the samethings (use common sense) just similiar things, our senses aren't all the same. All of us could be seeing different colors and not know it at all. All experiences are subjective. Would you believe a blind man's view of the world? No because you don't observe the samethings. That's how a "fact" is proven by showing others what you observed, and if their subjective observations are the same then it becomes a "fact" when it is just a subjective interpretation. If one person alone observes something and no one else does then it's not a fact simply because others don't observe it. A "fact" is just based around convincing others. There's no proof that what you observe is "true" because what you observe is dependant on you.

BTW, if you believe in science alone then you are just merely believing in a group of information that is constantly changing (lies covered up with new lies).

 

[Repo Man]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

 

[VitalOne]

Try telling a woman who lost her first born, that life is just an illusion and that her baby was nothing more than just an illusion!!

Her anger at you!! represents that life is real, the woman has lost a son!! and nothing will bring him back!!.

So if one deny's something that makes it false? That's like me saying "Try telling someone who thinks they were adopted by aliens that aliens aren't real and that they're just an illusion!! Her anger at you represents that aliens are real, the woman has experienced an adoption!! and nothing will change that!!"

See how it makes no sense?

Not non-sense, but anthropology!! can you understand anthropology? Try this link here to the most revolutionized idea of all time!! with proof!!. http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.html buy the book!! read it!! understand it!!. All religious dogmas are man-made!. Godless.

Hmm...if religions are man-made and nature has made man, then religion is made by nature. Oh yeah, and all of science is also man-made, and just ideas people thought of. The difference? Well people can logically see how science works, but they can't see how religion works, so they reject it or it works vice-versa. People don't like to accept what they don't understand.

 

[Godless]

finding meaning, something in common

So if one deny's something that makes it false? That's like me saying "Try telling someone who thinks they were adopted by aliens that aliens aren't real and that they're just an illusion!! Her anger at you represents that aliens are real, the woman has experienced an adoption!! and nothing will change that!!"

This makes no sense to a woman that oviously lost a child thrown in a dumpster by another, she existed, she was real, not an illusion, she has lost her only child. Try and tell her that her doughter was just an illusion!!. BTW this really happened!!. Houston Chronicle.

Hmm...if religions are man-made and nature has made man, then religion is made by nature.

BINGO!!

And Julian Jaynes demonstrates this in his hypothesis.

People don't like to accept what they don't understand.

Actually people just say "god" did it to things they don't understand!!.

Science tries to find a logical answer.

Quote: RepoMan

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

Cool dood!!. Thanks.


Godless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

Try telling a woman who lost her first born, that life is just an illusion and that her baby was nothing more than just an illusion!!
Her anger at you!! represents that life is real, the woman has lost a son!! and nothing will bring him back!!.

Her anger reprisents that her grief is real regardless of whether life is illusory or not.
In a dream state, our emotions and our experiances are also real.

The Matrix was just a movie.

That's besides the point, life may still be an illusion whether the movie was made or not.

So my answer still stands you don't know what an athiest is?.

No matter how fancy you want to make it, an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. Whatever the reasons may be, is neither here nor there.

God to me Jan is a word with no (identity) so to make things simple for you, I can't say god dont exist, cause this would be a contradiction!

If you think that God is only a word thought up by primitives, then why would it be a contradiction to say He doesn't exist? It would be a correct assumption from your perspective. It is more contradictory to say that God is nothing more than a word, but am not prepared to say He doesn't exist, not to mention hypocritical.

I claim no knowledge of what god means or what it is!!.

Then why argue, why not find out what god means and what it is then base your decision on that.

can you understand anthropology?

Yes, you condescending maggot, but you do not know the origin nor the destiny of humans outside of what you can see, or what other humans have told you. So how can you know for sure that all religions are man-made unless you spoke to the men that made them or they confessed to making them?

Try this link here to the most revolutionized idea of all time!! with proof!!.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.html
buy the book!! read it!! understand it!!. All religious dogmas are man-made!

Where's the proof, all he's done is likened modern schitzophrenics with people in the past. He may know something about schitzophrenia from how the brain operates, but that's it. What does/did he know about God? Does/did he believe in God? Why did he study scripture, was it to find God or find a way to prove He does not exist???

Jan Ardena.

 

[Godless]

Jan your a pathetic bitch, that believes in shiet. that can't be proven!!
I tried been nice with you whore and you call me fucking names!!

So buzzzz offf!!!

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your Hindu bullshiet god is real!! or shut the fuc* up!!

Godless

 

[Tiassa]

To cover a couple of points:

•*"Who made the claim in this example?" ( (Q) )
• "Because, if X BELIEVES - w/o a shred of evidence - in some diety or concept then X is irrational. And, society pays a price when there are too many X types running around. IOW, faith KILLS." (Barkhorn1x)

In either case, it's no longer merely a case of what X believes, is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan your a pathetic bitch, that believes in shiet. that can't be proven!!
I tried been nice with you whore and you call me fucking names!!

So buzzzz offf!!!

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your Hindu bullshiet god is real!! or shut the fuc* up!!

Godless

Right! That's it!
You are soooooo of my christmas card list!!!


Bastard.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Godless]

what did you expect?

Yes, you condescending maggot

Or is it that you are so used to calling people names you don't even realize?.

Godless.

 

[Raithere]

Uhm...have you ever heard of the two-slit paradox? Basically everything only has the potential to happen unless we observe it.

This is a simplification of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is not a fact of Quantum Mechanics but is a hypothetical explanation of why we observe the quantum oddities that we do. There are other interpretations that explain QM just as well as the Copenhagen interpretation and without the confusions (such as, what is the definition of a conscious observer; a human, a cat, an amoeba?) A short list of the primary competitors to the Copenhagen interpretation includes: Transactional, Many Worlds, State Vector, Extended Probability and Quantum Logic, and the Consistent Histories interpretation. For a brief exploration I would suggest "Schrödinger's Kittens" by John Gribben. While it does not explore all the interpretations it does elucidate QM and the various riddles it poses very nicely.

If one person alone observes something and no one else does then it's not a fact simply because others don't observe it. A "fact" is just based around convincing others. There's no proof that what you observe is "true" because what you observe is dependant on you.

You've wandered into epistemology here which has confounded resolution for the last 2000 years or so. 'Convincing others' has nothing to do with the congruence of subjective perceptions; we can find such congruence in double-blind tests where there is no communication between participants. The only logical conclusion is that there is indeed a reality independent of perception and conscious observation. While the nature of that reality may be probabilistic and/or relative and/or indeterministic the purely subjective interpretation you suggest gives no basis for the congruence we observe. Indeed, I would suggest that it leaves one with no foundation upon which to assert anything at all, for all intents and purposes you are imagining the world and talking only to yourself.

BTW, if you believe in science alone then you are just merely believing in a group of information that is constantly changing (lies covered up with new lies).

Clearly you have a limited understanding of science, the primary emphasis is upon the consistency of data.

References on various QM interpretations
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natureslaw/unl2203/tanterm.html
http://www.quantum.bowmain.com/Quantum_Reality.htm
http://physics.designerz.com/physics-quantum-mechanics-interpretations.php

~Raithere

 

[VitalOne]

This is a simplification of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is not a fact of Quantum Mechanics but is a hypothetical explanation of why we observe the quantum oddities that we do. There are other interpretations that explain QM just as well as the Copenhagen interpretation and without the confusions (such as, what is the definition of a conscious observer; a human, a cat, an amoeba?) A short list of the primary competitors to the Copenhagen interpretation includes: Transactional, Many Worlds, State Vector, Extended Probability and Quantum Logic, and the Consistent Histories interpretation. For a brief exploration I would suggest "Schrödinger's Kittens" by John Gribben. While it does not explore all the interpretations it does elucidate QM and the various riddles it poses very nicely.

You've wandered into epistemology here which has confounded resolution for the last 2000 years or so. 'Convincing others' has nothing to do with the congruence of subjective perceptions; we can find such congruence in double-blind tests where there is no communication between participants. The only logical conclusion is that there is indeed a reality independent of perception and conscious observation. While the nature of that reality may be probabilistic and/or relative and/or indeterministic the purely subjective interpretation you suggest gives no basis for the congruence we observe. Indeed, I would suggest that it leaves one with no foundation upon which to assert anything at all, for all intents and purposes you are imagining the world and talking only to yourself.

Clearly you have a limited understanding of science, the primary emphasis is upon the consistency of data.

References on various QM interpretations
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natureslaw/unl2203/tanterm.html
http://www.quantum.bowmain.com/Quantum_Reality.htm
http://physics.designerz.com/physics-quantum-mechanics-interpretations.php

~Raithere

I agree, there are many interpretations of the two-slit paradox, but my explanation as well the others explain it. It doesn't change that experiences are subjective, and our experiences create our reality.

When I say 'convincing others' it can be in anyway that shifts the persons belief. Still, a fact is just what others agree upon by observing certain things. All observations and experiences are subjective, leaving a "fact" subjective too. There obviously is an absolute or objective reality outside of the subjective reality.

Science is based upon getting the truth. The truth in the 80s was that only gays could get aids. Hundreds of years ago, the earth revolved around the sun. In the 60s, humans were suppose to get 6 servings of protein. Classical physics contradicts Quantum physics and vice-versa. There are hundreds of theories that contradict each other, yet prove themselves. What I'm trying to say is that science is based upon getting the truth, yet often get's the opposite. The difference is that Science fits in to what others logically observe and believe. Science tries to get the facts, and in that process many lies are formed. Basically what I was trying to say is to not believe everything you hear.

 

[Godless]

Now that is the most reasonable thing I've ever heard from you VitalOne.
Quote:
Basically what I was trying to say is to not believe everything you hear.

I had heard life was an illusion, I didn't believe that crap!!

Godless.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

As a thought experiement, pretend that reality does not matter. Is it better to believe in God or not? Since it seems some people have some sort of aversion to the Christian God, just use your general God down the street.

----------
M*W: Interesting concept, okinrus. Please describe your "general God down the street." (I think I know her!)

 

[VitalOne]

Now that is the most reasonable thing I've ever heard from you VitalOne.
Quote:
Basically what I was trying to say is to not believe everything you hear.

I had heard life was an illusion, I didn't believe that crap!!

Godless.

Thanks

 

[Raithere]

I agree, there are many interpretations of the two-slit paradox, but my explanation as well the others explain it. It doesn't change that experiences are subjective, and our experiences create our reality.

It depends upon what you mean by reality. Typically our experiences are not considered to be reality; they are our world-view, our subjective perception of reality. Necessarily, we operate from this world-view but it is only a model of reality. The problem then becomes one of congruence with reality, how closely our model reflects it.

Still, a fact is just what others agree upon by observing certain things. All observations and experiences are subjective, leaving a "fact" subjective too. There obviously is an absolute or objective reality outside of the subjective reality.

No. Facts are not subjective. The fact that it is 19 degrees Fahrenheit outside my window right now is a fact; it is not open to interpretation, discussion, or subjective differences (excluding possible arguments to the accuracy of my thermometer). Whether 19 degrees is warm or cold or possible theories as to why it is 19 degrees is open to subjective interpretation. Even the double-slit experiment is not subjective. If the experiment is configured one way you will get a certain result, if it is configured another way you will get a different result. What you are really questioning here is the interpretation of the facts, subjective or relative opinions regarding the facts, or hypothetical / theoretical explanations of the facts. Facts are resolute or they are not facts.

Science is based upon getting the truth. The truth in the 80s was that only gays could get aids. Hundreds of years ago, the earth revolved around the sun. In the 60s, humans were suppose to get 6 servings of protein.

Well, science never stated that only gays could get aids, the notion of a virus that is selective in this manner is absurd to any biologist, yet one's behavior can affect the probability of contracting any particular disease. Still with all of these notions you are questioning the interpretation of the facts; theories that were based upon inconclusive evidence or were simply incorrect. Science does not lie but it is forced to posit theories that are most often based upon incomplete data. This is why they are called hypotheses and theories and not facts. Unfortunately, people often refer to hypotheses and theories as facts even though they are not.

Classical physics contradicts Quantum physics and vice-versa.

No, they do not. Classical physics simply cannot explain the behavior of objects at the quantum level and vice versa. Each paradigm is extraordinarily good at predicting the world at its level of focus. Once again we are working with models not facts. We have the classical model which explains the macroscopic world and the quantum model that explains the microscopic world. What we are working on is a model that can explain both.

Basically what I was trying to say is to not believe everything you hear.

And that's definitely a motto I agree with. The key that I think most people are missing is a real understanding of how science works. The best analogy I can find is that scientists are model makers. Just like any model maker the goal is to duplicate the exact relationships that exist in the real world except on a different scale.

~Raithere

 

[jcarl]

Originally poste by RepoMan

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

I'm next to positive that you guys won't accept this answer, but I'll give it anyway.
There are three things that God has given to us: free will is the one that I'll speak on. (FYI the other two are existence and intelligence{aka logic}, you'll see where I got this from later). Free will is in and of itself good. W/o free will, there is no love. Now, since we consider that God made us so that He may love us, and we may love Him, then it seems obvious that he must also give us free will to either reject Him or accept Him.
He is still all-powerful, but He isn't going to shove His love down your throat, as that would be forced-love.
Now the only way to destroy evil would be to destroy free will. That however would be in and of itself evil.
Furthermore, the more capabilities you give something, the more of a two sided coin we can be: thus with our free will we can be much better, but we can also become much worse.

Where did Evil come from? For this I turn to C.S. Lewis's Mere Chrisitianity:" "To be bad he[the Devil] must also exist, have intelligence, and have free will. But existence, intelligence, and free will are in and of themselves good. Therefore he must be getting his power from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow and steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why the Devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children; it is the recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing."

 

[Repo Man]

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.
-- Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/russell.htm

How about this; we are matter that is aware of itself. We are born, live, and die alone, in an utterly indifferent universe.
There are no good reasons to think otherwise, but plenty of bad ones.

The subject of evil alone is one that calls for another thread, and there have been many. How do you define evil? Are predatory animals evil? It seems to me that they would seem so if you are the prey. But if you are the predator, you're just doing what you need to do to survive.