Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

[atheroy]

It would, if there wasn't the testimony of many Turkish, who claim to have been inside the ark, atop Ararat, around the time of World War 2, prior to it being covered again by an avalance. There was just a big story about on the History Channel about a month and a half ago, interviewing about 20 people who claim to have actually been in the ark.

the biggest avalanche in the world coudln't hide the ark. infact, the ark could not hide anywhere on this earth, you obviously have no idea of how big it would have needed to be: aquariums for all the species of fish and mammals that habitats would have been destoyed by the sea covering all of earths surface; the miles upon miles of food; the fact that more than two of each animal would be needed for any species to survive and successfully reproduce. the ark would have big so big it would have made the titanic look like a toy boat- noah is one efficient builder. you must surely be brainwashed into thinking noahs ark was even remotely possible. besides, what makes these people so sure it was the ark? it could just as easily have been a boat owned by person x 500 years ago. it's only your want of belief that you believe in it and these people who've supposedly seen it are in the same mindset as you are.

The Judeo-Christian God always leaves sufficient evidence of his work, for all but the most rebellious.

he has left nothing of his work behind, that is why i am most suspicious of the fact that he is supposed to exist. you may call me rebellious, but you rebel against all natural senses you have if you can believe in something as obviously full of crap as noahs ark.

 

[okinrus]

I saw it on the history channel as well. This is the website to it is <a href="here">http://www.noahsarksearch.com/</a>

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by biblthmp
It would, if there wasn't the testimony of many Turkish, who claim to have been inside the ark, atop Ararat, around the time of World War 2, prior to it being covered again by an avalance. There was just a big story about on the History Channel about a month and a half ago, interviewing about 20 people who claim to have actually been in the ark.

First of all, proof of the ark wouldn't suffice as proof of anything supernatural. Secondly, the evidence provided by the testimony of 20 turks means about jack. You'd think one of them could have taken along a video camera or something? Regardless is doesn't make shit of a difference. What matter is an eledged big boat from long ago? I say, merely the matter of a big boat. I guess maybe there some shipbuilding anthropology to examine? Oh no, I'm sorry, let's make into someting supernatural to support the assertions of our cult! Yeah. Oh, I don't have a cult. Well, you can use it for yours then right?

Originally posted by biblthmp
The Judeo-Christian God always leaves sufficient evidence of his work, for all but the most rebellious.

How inspired. Do you have any more unsupported supernatural assertions to make? I suspect you do.

 

[okinrus]

There were satallite photographs of what was described to be a ship. There have also been many quotes of different authors before 1900. http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsightings.html

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Photos of the ark--phooey!

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
There were satallite photographs of what was described to be a ship. There have also been many quotes of different authors before 1900. http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsight...ere not photographs but artists conceptions!)

 

[okinrus]

You don't really think I'm that foolish The sat photographs were released by the CIA I think. The pictures given by the history channel were satallite pictures show an ark like shape within the mountain ie., it could be a rock depression that looks like an ark. Certainly not conclusive proof but along with the other historical evidence, it's a possibility.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The Ark

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
You don't really think I'm that foolish? The sat photographs were released by the CIA I think. The pictures given by the history channel were satallite pictures show an ark like shape within the mountain ie., it could be a rock depression that looks like an ark. Certainly not conclusive proof but along with the other historical evidence, it's a possibility.
----------
(Well, I was beginning to wonder! Many years ago I read a book (not a new age book) that was on the discovery of the ark. They had some air photos, and I believe some mountain climbers ascended Ararat and found what looked to be like a boat frozen underneath a barrier of ice. The photos looked authentic. I saw something on the History Channel or somewhere on cable that discussed the ark. They showed computerized graphic drawings of it. It's an interesting topic!)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by atheroy

most unfortunate angenda which is one of the main causes of almost all of the worlds problems today.

Such as?

….yet i find very few thiests who will claim to have any discrepancies in their beliefs- that is a round-a-bout way of saying that their belief is perfect and in some way they are perfect to attain that sort of belief. no-one is perfect. any claim otherwise is pure arrogance.

Lets go away from religious belief for a moment. Suppose you believe in your wife, girlfriend, friend etc..and someone comes along and says there is a descrepancy in your wife therefore you should not trust her. How easily are you going to change your belief? Belief in God, via a particular religion is no different than belief in anything including the non-existence of God. It is just a belief, nothing else.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[atheroy]

]Such as?

gee i don't know, the mission to spread ones belief washing other beliefs away. why do you think the middle east hates america so much? america not only did some bad shite but they are the beacon of christianity, which has tried time and time again to worm itself into their belief system when such activity is totally unwanted. that is just one example of many.

Suppose you believe in your wife, girlfriend, friend etc..and someone comes along and says there is a descrepancy in your wife therefore you should not trust her. How easily are you going to change your belief?

look you tard, of course there will be discrepancies in humans, we aren't perfect. if you believe in somone you believe in there faults too. with religion people don't believe in the faults or discrepancies that are present- even though they're balatantly obvious. don't even try to compare the two.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by atheroy
if you believe in somone you believe in there faults too.

... or, you simply don't see the 'faults' as faults.

 

[atheroy]

... or, you simply don't see the 'faults' as faults.

.......oh yeah, right, i forgot the bible was a person.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by atheroy
why do you think the middle east hates america so much?

If you were to ask someone from the middle east that question, i doubt whether religion would enter into their answer.

america not only did some bad shite but they are the beacon of christianity, which has tried time and time again to worm itself into their belief system when such activity is totally unwanted. that is just one example of many.

America is a business. It wants to spread itself over the world, such as McDonalds, KFC, GM food, films, TV, law enforcement, ideals, music and a whole host of other things. But in my travels around the world, i have never, ever seen an American church or religous institution.
So maybe from your point of veiw it is the beacon of christianity (i'm quite sure you're american), but from the rest of the worlds POV, nothing could be further from the truth.

look you tard,

Excuse me?????

of course there will be discrepancies in humans, we aren't perfect. if you believe in somone you believe in there faults too.

In most cases, we don't see the faults.

with religion people don't believe in the faults or discrepancies that are present- even though they're balatantly obvious.

Firstly it depends what you regard as religion, and secondly, people will see what they want to see. If they are happy with a situation whether religion, business or people, they will happily carry on.

don't even try to compare the two.

Belief is belief, whether religion or family, they are comparible under the banner of belief.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[atheroy]

If you were to ask someone from the middle east that question, i doubt whether religion would enter into their answer.

right, i'm sure you can prove this just as well as i can prove my point, but i would personally be surprised if religion did not have a part in the answer.

America is a business. It wants to spread itself over the world, such as McDonalds, KFC, GM food, films, TV, law enforcement, ideals, music and a whole host of other things. But in my travels around the world, i have never, ever seen an American church or religous institution.
So maybe from your point of veiw it is the beacon of christianity (i'm quite sure you're american), but from the rest of the worlds POV, nothing could be further from the truth.

i hold dual citizenship, but out of the years of my life i can't actually remember any of the time i lived there (i've gone back and visited and they are one of the nicest people that i've met the world over). i disagree with your point about america wanting to spread itself around the world, look at it's policy of isolation that it has held for the past hundred years and i would dare you to refute the idea.
my point of view is the same as many others, where else do you here of christians bombing abortion clinics? where else is the head of state proclaiming a want to spread his ideals and values across the world (when he is a born again devout christian)? you can argue with me over this, but you disregard the fact that, being the most visible state in the world, every facet of its workings comes under scrutiny. coupled with the insistance of missionaries across the world trying to spread their belief, america therefore becomes the default point of origin (even though it often is not) because it is biggest most visible target that is obvioulsy christian. you are welcome to argue my point, but when did you become the authority on what the world thinks OR the truth?

Excuse me?????

it's a expresion of affection , just like you say "love, jan ardena". it was in reply to what i thought was a silly point you were trying to make.

In most cases, we don't see the faults.

once again, when did you become the authority on what everyone does and doesn't see? i see the faults in my friends and my family, you'd have to be blind not too (you're trying to tell me you don't notice their faults at all? don't you take any notice of your friends?). but i accept those faults (faults are what make us human), and often eventually consider them not to be faults. that doesn't mean they don't exist, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who sees things this way.

Firstly it depends what you regard as religion, and secondly, people will see what they want to see. If they are happy with a situation whether religion, business or people, they will happily carry on.

ok, specifically i was talking about christianity (i live in a predominantly christian based society). unfortunately the type of belief you describe is the type that should be most avoided (and the type taught by christianity). you can't glaze things over so you can keep on living happily in lies. how do you think 1930's germany saw hitler, exactly the way most people who believe in christianity, see christianity. it's an extreme comparison (and i'm not likening christianity to hitler) but none the less it is a valid comparison.

Belief is belief, whether religion or family, they are comparible under the banner of belief.

no, they are not. one is based in the physical reality with relevant ramafictions and the other is based on myth and fairy tales that has no basis in this universe but something made up in someones mind who had a far from complete understanding of what occurs around them (far more so than today).

Tard

A Theory

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by atheroy

right, i'm sure you can prove this just as well as i can prove my point, but i would personally be surprised if religion did not have a part in the answer.

There is no need of proof. The public image of America is not regarded as a “spiritual/religious” country, in any way shape or form, by anybody who understands even the basic tenants of real sprituality/religion. That is not to say that people in America are devoid of such attributes, insights and convictions.

“There are two different Americas - the internal one which gives its people prosperity and the external one which has been responsible for great atrocities and injustices around the world. The first America is rightly admired; the second rightly reviled.”
Abdul Hamid, Pakistan

“Numerous United Nations resolutions clearly define Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as illegal. Yet Israel receives 40 percent of all US foreign aid, more than $3.5 billion annually in recent years, roughly $500 per Israeli citizen. (The average Egyptian will earn $656 this year.)”

[url]http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11590[/url]

i disagree with your point about america wanting to spread itself around the world, look at it's policy of isolation that it has held for the past hundred years and i would dare you to refute the idea.

I don’t know about their policy of isolation, but America’s tentacles are to be found almost everywhere on the planet.

i disagree with your point of view is the same as many others, where else do you here of christians bombing abortion clinics?

Christians bombing abortion clinics?
And you think this makes America a religious country? LOL!!!!

where else is the head of state proclaiming a want to spread his ideals and values across the world (when he is a born again devout christian)?

So you believe he is a devout born again Christian. Why?

because it is biggest most visible target that is obvioulsy christian. you are welcome to argue my point, but when did you become the authority on what the world thinks OR the truth?

Why obviously?
I see nothing coming from America in any sense of the word, which would make me believe they are following in the footsteps of Lord Jesus Christ.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

As far as being an authority, I believe I am a great authority on truth and what the world thinks.

i see the faults in my friends and my family, you'd have to be blind not too (you're trying to tell me you don't notice their faults at all? don't you take any notice of your friends?). but i accept those faults (faults are what make us human), and often eventually consider them not to be faults. that doesn't mean they don't exist, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who sees things this way.

We see faults, because there are faults (in humans). But what you may regard as fault in scripture only appears so because of your inability to understand anything of a spiritual nature.

Of course you are welcome to try and prove me wrong.

ok, specifically i was talking about christianity

That’s your problem. Christianity is not “religion.” The actions and teaching of Jesus Christ is “religion.”

no, they are not. one is based in the physical reality with relevant ramafictions and the other is based on myth and fairy tales that has no basis in this universe but something made up in someones mind who had a far from complete understanding of what occurs around them (far more so than today).

Belief does not discriminate as to whether something is fact, fiction, myth or legend.
It is not uncommon for a man or woman to think they have the best and cutest little child in the world when in reality the child could well be a ugly little rascal.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe others have said what I am going to say but because this thread is soooo large exciue me if I repeat something said elsewhere.

To me this whole question is in it self evidence o something.

The mere fact that the word "God" or Diety exists as an arguement or question is in it self presupposing something.

The belief that it is worth argueing in the first place.

That in it self suggests a belief in the word "God" or "diety" by default.

The belief that it is in deed worth arguing suggests that the object of that arguement exists in some form. either as a nonexistance or an existance. The God in question is always an image in the persons mind that the person is either arqueing for or argueing against, but the image of "God" exists regardless of the debate.

So in my view God Must exist and even the belief that he/she/ it doesn't is a demonstration to the contrary even if this is just as a mental construct.

 

[Cris]

QQ,

How would your reasoning apply to the proposition that the world is flat?

Take two scenarios – 1000 years ago and present day.

That something is widely discussed or is believed by a large number of people gives zero guidance as to whether the proposition is true or not.

In the end only evidence decides the issue.

As yet there is zero evidence for gods, unless of course you can show otherwise.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think my answer is shown in your question.

As yet there is zero evidence for gods, unless of course you can show otherwise.

You refer to "Gods" and I ask you what in your mind is "Gods"

To ask a question the subject of that question exists. There for the reality of that subject exists even if it is just a fantasy it still exists.

I am no tarhueing whether it is true or not but suffice to say that it exists or doesn't. But as soon as you refer to "it" then it exists. Of this there is no doubt.

 

[Cris]

QQ,

I can't decide whether you are just arguing about the rules of the English language or that if I state something like “I believe there is a tarantula crawling across your head” that we are expected to believe it actually exists because it is the subject in a sentence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A fair enough comment.

To argue about something one must have an idea of the object of theat arguement whether a belief or disbelief.

When saying that Gods don't exists you are talking about Gods as you know them to be in their many and varied forms.
So therefore a contruct exists in the mind of the object of discussion.

Thus "Gods" exist, even as a negative belief.

A author by the Name of Anne Randt ( spellings) argued this point in her writings on the art of objectivity I think. 1929?? (I iread it about 15 years ago so forgive me my sketchiness)

The point is that Gods exist, whether you are argueing for or against.

 

[Cris]

QQ,

When saying that Gods don't exists you are talking about Gods as you know them to be in their many and varied forms.

Not necessarily. I have argued a number of times in this forum that the definition for a god remains just a vague and largely arbitrary term for something that no one can clearly define, despite my many requests to theists for a definitive description.

So therefore a construct exists in the mind of the object of discussion.

I think you mean that the person discussing the issue has a mental image of a god in their mind.

Thus "Gods" exist, even as a negative belief.

No that is not correct. Only a personal concept of a god or gods exists in the mind of the debater. The actual existence or non-existence of the object “gods” remains unproven.

A author by the Name of Anne Randt ( spellings) argued this point in her writings on the art of objectivity I think. 1929?? (I iread it about 15 years ago so forgive me my sketchiness).

You mean Ayn Rand. You should realize that Ayn Rand was an atheist.

The point is that Gods exist, whether you are argueing for or against.

I believe you have seriously misunderstood Rand’s philosophy.