God needs Devil to make the show?

[Saint]

If God exists, did he prove himself true?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God exists, did he prove himself true?

If God exists, then He's not separate to you.

jan.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Saturnine Pariah,



What makes you think the Bible is written for everyone?

jan.

Religious fundamentalist seem to have that delusion…killing or protesting over who has the better imaginary friend.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

View attachment 5943
Sums it up

 

[Jan Ardena]

Religious fundamentalist seem to have that delusion…killing or protesting over who has the better imaginary friend.

View attachment 5943
Sums it up

Gee! So glad we cleared that up!

jan.

 

[kx000]

What do you suggest is superior to believing in God?

jan.

Being passive to him.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Being passive to him.

Passive in what manner exactly? That statement is rather abstract.
“Does God will me to question his will?”

 

[Balerion]

Wynn has some understanding of God which is why she can't be like you. She can become atheist, but it won't be a simpleton atheist. You don't understand God, so you are atheist by default. There are those who, like you, don't understand God, but are religious, part of an institute that, on the surface, appears to be theistic, but is by default atheistic. Discussion Jesus had with some Jews in the NT spring to mind.

Speaking of crap logic...

The reason wynn can't be an atheist is because she's scared of the consequences. She isn't honest enough intellectually to admit that she doesn't believe in god.

They abandoned the institute, but they didn't abandon God, because they never believed in God in the first place.

Of course they did. They believed once, and then changed their minds based on new information or a new perspective.

Dawkins is going after those types to increase the number of atheists in a bid to replace one institute with another.

No, he's trying to replace superstition with education and information. And he's not going after anyone in particular. The book sells among the devout and non-believers alike.

That the world is atheistic, is no surprise to me. Every scripture will tell you about the characteristics of this time. It is very difficult to cultivate real belief in God at this moment.

Yeah, because now we know it's all superstitious BS. And which scriptures are you talking about, exactly?

You should learn to listen, and then comtemplate.

You should learn how to spell "contemplate."

Well in one sense you're correct. God is invisible to me, meaning He is out of my visual range, but so are other things.

Yes, but you have evidence of the existence of other invisible things. You have none for God.

And yes, God is an overlord as such, althought I wouldn't use that terminology as it doesn't really capture His uniqueness.

You mean the same uniqueness you can't bring yourself to explain?

That's just basic common sense. One can become a theist through common sense, but one cannot believe anything without
actually believing it. Try and understand that before you try to come back with a smarty-pants answer.

You're making a false distinction between theism and belief. If you think you think God created the universe, then you believe in God.

Anybody can say anything, but what is the source of this choice?
Show it to me, then lets break it down.

Which claim? Pascal's Wager?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Again, it's all using common sense (at least in the begining), to come to a specific platform of knowledge, where one can begin to make decisions about what's best for ones self.

My point (which you clearly couldn't comprehend) was that belief can be--and is for many--a conscious choice based on what one believes to be good information. You calling it "common sense" doesn't magically mean that the choice is somehow automated or part of the subconscious. It's still a conscious choice.

You can't be ''born into faith'', one has cultivate faith. One can be born into a family who are faithful devotees of God, and cultivate faith from a early point in their short life. But still one has to step up to that.

What you mean to say is that one must be effectively brainwashed, and it isn't always guaranteed to stick. Another way of saying that is one is "born into faith." The person is already attending church and other religious ceremonies before they're old enough or smart enough to make an informed decision.

If the concept of the two times table is so simple, why can't you explain it to a 1 year old?

Oh, so now you're saying atheists aren't capable of understanding the concept of God? Interesting. I'd disagree, so how about you give it a try and you can tell me if I get it right in the end.

It means what it says. Stop trying to interpret and just understand the words.

The words are where the problem lies, son. "You can't respect somebody for being somebody," is a muddy, ambiguous sentence. Trying to parse what you were trying to say is the only way to make sense out of it.

If it helps, read what was said regarding respect or lack of respect for me in the last thread we spoke in.

I was the one who brought up respect in the other thread, because you accused me of calling people who disagree with me idiots, which isn't true. I said that while I didn't call you an idiot, I don't respect you at all. I remain civil because the forum rules say that I have to, but I certainly don't have to respect you. However, my lack of respect for you is not indicative of how I feel about other believers. What I have no respect for is willful ignorance, or the spreading of misinformation and propaganda, which is exactly what you and people like you do every day. And you resort to ad hominem and evasion in every discussion you've ever participated in here at Sci. You've hardly endeared yourself to anyone, even people who share your beliefs. So my feelings towards you are based on your actions and your character (or lack of it) and not at all based on your religious beliefs. I have many devout friends, and my family members who are believers whom I love and respect very much.

I just don't believe you cannot understand the sentence.

Maybe because you're not a native speaker? I feel like it should be obvious how opaque some of your passages are. As I say every time you get defensive when I ask you to elaborate, you should simply take the cue and clarify. I don't mean it to be insulting or a waste of your time, I mean I really don't know what you're trying to say. I took a guess above, and wasn't quite on the mark. Your reference to the previous thread seems to have cleared that up, though. But instead of throwing your little hissy fit, you should have just clarified first.

You're merely trying enhance a stereo-type, which although may work for you, because people can be gulible, but is not an intelligent move, because it means you may be missing out on something, but have to take cheap shots as a get out clause. If you can't comprehend what I've just said then it doesn't matter.

Which stereotype is that?

The forest is there, it's the thing the trees are planted in.

By all means, paint us a picture of that forest.

The question was phrased perfectly well, and I knew exactly what you was asking, but it wasn't in relation to my point.

Of course it was. You said the person in the video did not understand God. This implies that you do. I ask you what the true concept is because his concept was said to be wrong by you. Hence, there is a true concept of God out there, and by saying that his is not it, you are implying that you know it. Just because you didn't say the word "true" doesn't mean that isn't what you meant; it was implied by your comments. Just like betting big on a king-king-king flop in poker isn't literally saying that you have the best hand, but it is implying that you do.

As this is something you do alot (interpret my points instead of taking them literally), I have decided to take a stand, as the alternative is to go off on different tangents.

There are two possibilities. Either I was right, or you were completely unclear.

If you want to take it to a different place, I don't mind, but I need to know what you're idea of the ''true'' concept of God is, so that I can answer you properly.

More subterfuge. I asked you what the true concept of God is because you implied that you knew it when you said that another person's concept of God was incorrect. This ain't brain surgery, guy.

You asked two questions;

1) what's wrong with the video?
2) what is the true concept or point of God?

These questions were in response to this sentiment;

''I'm actually saying that atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.''

I'd like to poll the audience on this one. Were my questions off-base, or were they completely germane to the claims made by Jan? I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Either you don't understand the language, or you're being completely dishonest because you can't actually answer the questions.

What is this ''true'' concept of God? A concept is a concept, and atheist of your type don't understand the concept of God.
My point with the video, is not that it's ''wrong'', but the presenter doesn't understand the concept of God.
So because you have interpreted my points in the way that you have, means we off on different tangent because they aren't related to the point I'm making.

Total gibberish.

"He's not wrong, he's just wrong. There is a concept of God but it isn't "true," and yours isn't right. But it's not wrong."

Can someone please translate this into English?

 

[Saint]

If God exists, then He's not separate to you.

jan.

You did not answer me directly.
How can I know precisely God's existence, is he a being who has mind like me?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

You're making a false distinction between theism and belief.
If you think you think God created the universe, then you believe in God.

Not necessarily.
To believe something exists, doesn't mean you believe in that thing. The law is a good example of this.

My point (which you clearly couldn't comprehend) was that belief can be--and is for many--a conscious choice based on what one believes to be good information. You calling it "common sense" doesn't magically mean that the choice is somehow automated or part of the subconscious. It's still a conscious choice.

One can't ''choose'' to believe something. l
They simply made a choice that they thought was in their best interest, and have now made a different choice, and will continue to do so, until something sticks. That is not belief in God, or anything.

What you mean to say is that one must be effectively brainwashed, and it isn't always guaranteed to stick.

That's not what I meant.

Another way of saying that is one is "born into faith." The person is already attending church and other religious ceremonies before they're old enough or smart enough to make an informed decision.

There's no decision to be made. The child is the offspring of the parent, and if the parents go to church then the child goes to church with them.

Oh, so now you're saying atheists aren't capable of understanding the concept of God? Interesting. I'd disagree, so how about you give it a try and you can tell me if I get it right in the end.

No, I'm saying a 1 year old isn't capable of understanding the two times table, but given enough time....

The words are where the problem lies, son. "You can't respect somebody for being somebody," is a muddy, ambiguous sentence. Trying to parse what you were trying to say is the only way to make sense out of it.

Well you see, my boy. You can, if you have respect for yourself.

I was the one who brought up respect in the other thread, because you accused me of calling people who disagree with me idiots, which isn't true. I said that while I didn't call you an idiot, I don't respect you at all. I remain civil because the forum rules say that I have to, but I certainly don't have to respect you.

You think you're being ''civil''?
Please do give me an idea of what you would be like with the freedom to be uncivil. Simply create a strawman (you're good at that) then project.

However, my lack of respect for you is not indicative of how I feel about other believers.

IOW, I must be passive, don't look you in the eye when addressing you, don't question your belief system and so on.

Yessa Massa!!!
I be goin now Massa!!!
U di boss-man Massa!!

What I have no respect for is willful ignorance, or the spreading of misinformation and propaganda, which is exactly what you and people like you do every day.

What you have no respect for, is yourself.
You're identifying with a strawman version of yourself.

And you resort to ad hominem and evasion in every discussion you've ever participated in here at Sci.

:roflmao:

This one is a scream.

You've hardly endeared yourself to anyone, even people who share your beliefs.

Is that what this is about?

Oh come here! Ya big lug.

So my feelings towards you are based on your actions and your character (or lack of it) and not at all based on your religious beliefs. I have many devout friends, and my family members who are believers whom I love and respect very much.

i

So because a person doesn't live up to your ideals, you don't respect them?
How about learning to respect, that somebody is another person just like yourself, regardless of whether you like them or not.
I don't know you (other than these discussions), I don't like the character that you present, but I still respect you as a person, because I'm a person, and I have self-respect.

Maybe because you're not a native speaker?

Nope. You're playing games. Period.

Of course it was. You said the person in the video did not understand God.

Here is what I said;

''I'm actually saying that atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.''

Now let's play a game. Can you spot a difference?

This implies that you do.

Yes I have an understanding of the concept of God.

I ask you what the true concept is because his concept was said to be wrong by you.

...

concept:

1.a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

You're simply not understanding what I am saying, because you interpret what I say.
It's all about creating strawmen with you.

Hence, there is a true concept of God out there, and by saying that his is not it, you are implying that you know it.

There are certainly different grades of concepts in terms of intelligence.

Just because you didn't say the word "true" doesn't mean that isn't what you meant; it was implied by your comments. Just like betting big on a king-king-king flop in poker isn't literally saying that you have the best hand, but it is implying that you do.

:shrug:

There are two possibilities. Either I was right, or you were completely unclear.

...atheists don't understand the concept of God, IOW, they don't actually get the point of God.
The video link from Saturnine Pariah is a perfect example.''

Do you, or do you not understand what those words mean?

More subterfuge. I asked you what the true concept of God is because you implied that you knew it when you said that another person's concept of God was incorrect. This ain't brain surgery, guy.

I said they don't understand the concept of God, because they don't get the point of God. Either that or they are purposely projecting a character which does not fit the description of God in any scripture, meaning they don't understand what is written thereby developing a concept based on their understanding, not scriptural definition.

I'd like to poll the audience on this one. Were my questions off-base, or were they completely germane to the claims made by Jan? I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Either you don't understand the language, or you're being completely dishonest because you can't actually answer the questions.

That's like asking a council of the ku klus klan, if it's right for a black man to sleep with a white woman.

I'll tell you what, why don't you respond exactly to the point I make, rather that your projected points, and see how we fare?

Total gibberish.

"He's not wrong, he's just wrong. There is a concept of God but it isn't "true," and yours isn't right. But it's not wrong."

Can someone please translate this into English?

What is this ''true'' concept of God? A concept is a concept, and atheist of your type don't understand the concept of God.

I've given you the definition of ''concept''.
You're concept of God may be a concept, but what is it based on?
If it's based on scripture, then you haven't understood the scripture.
If it's based on your personal idea, then you don't understand the point of God, which is laid out in any scripture.
The concept may appear to be truthful to you.

My point with the video, is not that it's ''wrong'', but the presenter doesn't understand the concept of God.

The video guy, IMO, doesn't fully understand the object of his rant, based on the scriptural definition of God.

If you ask a small child how much they think the Empire States Building cost to make, and they sayd a billion trillion hundred pounds, we can assume that the child doesn't really
understand the concept of money as it is, but still has a concept. So rather than say the child is flat out wrong, it would be more productive to try and improve that childs knowledge base.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You did not answer me directly.
How can I know precisely God's existence, is he a being who has mind like me?

You have a mind, an enquiring one.

You're enquiring about God.

If God exists, then he created the tools (body, senses, mind, brains...)

So, if God exists, then the answer is yes, because from your own experience, it takes all those elements to create.

So what are you really asking?

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

You have a mind, an enquiring one.

You're enquiring about God.

If God exists, then he created the tools (body, senses, mind, brains...)

So, if God exists, then the answer is yes, because from your own experience, it takes all those elements to create.

So what are you really asking?

jan.

One of the most circular arguments I have ever read...

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's not really an argument, as there is no premise.
It is based on ''IF'' God exists.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

It's not really an argument, as there is no premise.
It is based on ''IF'' God exists.

jan.

No.
The question was not "if."
The question was, "How can I know precisely God's existence, is he a being who has mind like me?"
That post also pointed out you failed to answer directly. I will point out that you have done so a second time, now.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No.
The question was not "
The question was, "How can I know precisely God's existence, is he a being who has mind like me?"
That post also pointed out you failed to answer directly. I will point out that you have done so a second time, now.

Check out post 41.
That post is the basis of this conversation.

Also he asked How can ''I'' know.... as a follow on from ''If God exists...''.
The dialogue is purely subjective.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Check out post 41.
That post is the basis of this conversation.

Also he asked How can ''I'' know.... as a follow on from ''If God exists...''.
The dialogue is purely subjective.

jan.

Hmmm.. Very well. Saint, you're on your own...

 

[Saint]

You have a mind, an enquiring one.

You're enquiring about God.

If God exists, then he created the tools (body, senses, mind, brains...)

So, if God exists, then the answer is yes, because from your own experience, it takes all those elements to create.

So what are you really asking?

jan.

You do not make sense.
"If", this is what you start with your argument,
it means you are not sure of God's existence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You do not make sense.
"If", this is what you start with your argument,
it means you are not sure of God's existence.

Firstly, you started with the word ''if''.
Secondly, God's existence is not dependant on my being sure of it.
Thirdly; What was the point of post 41?

jan.

 

[kx000]

You did not answer me directly.
How can I know precisely God's existence, is he a being who has mind like me?

I can show you. Master your emotions. A call to God is a call to Love (in love M+A <3), so you know who you are talking to. He has a bride named Perfection, and many sons, Jesus is called Passive.

 

[Anonymous Truth]

Sadly the bible is being seriously misinterpreted. The truth is the bible as we know it was written by corrupt people living in a corrupt time. In truth the bible itself was nothing more than a means to control the people of the time. The actual teachings of Jesus were of how to live life not about worship, he was trying to teach people how to live because he looked around and saw the truth. That the reason everyone suffered was because of our own minds. But being in that time he had to use metaphors for what he knew so people could understand sadly it only led to disaster and his ultimate death. Almost no one today is living as a true Christian. To be Christian one must be Christ-like. And though it seems blasphemous to think that people could be like Jesus. He says so himself. "Those who drink from my mouth will become as I am and I he; and all things shall be revealed to him." He also knew that he was being misinterpreted in his time. He said "Whoever shall find the correct interpretation of my words shall find eternal life." If the people in his time were living by his teachings, why would he say that? It may not make sense now but it will after you read "The Present (with religion)" on the sight www.truthcontest.com And no this is not spam. I'm simply trying to help people see the truth in life. Even if you aren't religious I implore you to read it. I am not religious myself but even I found truths I couldn't deny. Thank you for your time.