Pffttt... some god, can't even come out and defend himself, he has to send his woman to fight his battles.
I'm not trying to bash christianity, but...
- Thread starter Jadebrain_Prime
- Start date
Pffttt... some god, can't even come out and defend himself, he has to send his woman to fight his battles.
You start from a false premise by claiming a god already exists. First, you must explain what leads you to the conclusion a god exists in the first place? What observation or evidence do you have that would indicate a god exists?
By claiming that a god exists and then creating theories as to immunity of time and other such nonsense is not science, nor is reasonable or rational.
You first have to identify what lead you to the conclusion a god exists. Anything else is mere speculation based on sheer guesswork.
Rokkon,
How can a god be said to exist outside of time and still be able to do anything? Any action, no matter how small, requirs time to pass. And an "eternal" god has no meaning unless time is a factor, i.e. eternal is a time based concept.
If a god exists and is capable of any action then it will be dependent on the passage of time, i.e. it is not possible for anything to exist outside of time, and not possible for time not to exist.
How can a god be said to exist outside of time and still be able to do anything? Any action, no matter how small, requirs time to pass. And an "eternal" god has no meaning unless time is a factor, i.e. eternal is a time based concept.
If a god exists and is capable of any action then it will be dependent on the passage of time, i.e. it is not possible for anything to exist outside of time, and not possible for time not to exist.
That you cannot recognise his perceived failure to communicate as the reason for his misery is your problem not his.
That you live to troll each other is yours and his. Get a room already.
My apologies
Well...I keep hearing stories like this, and wondering what kind of crappy church people are going to :/....*sigh*....I didn't get anything crappy like that out of church. And also, I agree with the person who said about being taught in school and choosing what you think is right, if you think the church is teaching you crap, then go to one that isn't. It's not like the pastor or whatever knows everything and you shouldn't treat them and regard them as if they do. Religions are far too vast with far too much clouded history to know everything.
Also, what you got from the teachings, could possibly be your OWN interpretations. If you interpreted it that way then that's what you did, not someone else. And I think a lot of people forget that they make their own interpretations of things and that they have responsibility themselves. Believing that they taught you to hate is about the same as believing that your own thought processes and fear etc. had nothing to do with thinking girls (or boys) had coodies when you were little.
Also, what you got from the teachings, could possibly be your OWN interpretations. If you interpreted it that way then that's what you did, not someone else. And I think a lot of people forget that they make their own interpretations of things and that they have responsibility themselves. Believing that they taught you to hate is about the same as believing that your own thought processes and fear etc. had nothing to do with thinking girls (or boys) had coodies when you were little.
I'm baaaack. This is going to be quick, though. I have a lot of work to do.
If I understand you correctly you should read the last few posts in my other thread. They address the issue of my theory regarding the universe and what is in it.
You're trying to **** me off, aren't you? As said before, I am a deist, not a theist. Deists place much less credibility on the words of ancient texts.
It isn't that I can't comprehend your beliefs. I simply choose not to believe them, and your reaction to that proves that you and (Q) are just as tyrannical as theism is. And by the way... There is a difference between not believing and believing in nothing. Not believing is just that; you don't believe there is a god, but you also don't believe there isn't a god. Most of the time, you just don't care. But believing in nothing means that you do believe that there is not a god, which constitutes a belief system, which, in my mind, constitutes a religion. Therefore, you are not immune to being accused of preaching. Second of all, when I spoke of attacks against me, I was referring to the other thread. I specifically remember the time (Q) said that I had only ruled out intelligence on my part, and more can be found by actually going to that thread. So tell me, (Q), what was THAT aimed at?
No. Religion is like politics. When used correctly (rarely the case), it is a group of people who happen to believe the same thing. In other words, your religion is defined by your values. If no religion fits your values, you make it up. That's how my currently unnamed branch of deism came into place.
Onto the next page!
If I understand you correctly you should read the last few posts in my other thread. They address the issue of my theory regarding the universe and what is in it.
You're trying to **** me off, aren't you? As said before, I am a deist, not a theist. Deists place much less credibility on the words of ancient texts.
It isn't that I can't comprehend your beliefs. I simply choose not to believe them, and your reaction to that proves that you and (Q) are just as tyrannical as theism is. And by the way... There is a difference between not believing and believing in nothing. Not believing is just that; you don't believe there is a god, but you also don't believe there isn't a god. Most of the time, you just don't care. But believing in nothing means that you do believe that there is not a god, which constitutes a belief system, which, in my mind, constitutes a religion. Therefore, you are not immune to being accused of preaching. Second of all, when I spoke of attacks against me, I was referring to the other thread. I specifically remember the time (Q) said that I had only ruled out intelligence on my part, and more can be found by actually going to that thread. So tell me, (Q), what was THAT aimed at?
No. Religion is like politics. When used correctly (rarely the case), it is a group of people who happen to believe the same thing. In other words, your religion is defined by your values. If no religion fits your values, you make it up. That's how my currently unnamed branch of deism came into place.
Onto the next page!
My theories come from my own conclusion that there are logical flaws in various scientific theories. If I later find out that I have misunderstood these scientific theories, I will try to fix the misunderstanding, and go from there. Until then, I have been given inadequate reason to change my belief.
It's like everything he does is simultaneous and always happening. The changes he might make in time remain in time. But what I mean by eternal is unending. Without time, you just can't end.
Dang. If this doesn't adequately explain it (it probably won't), I'll be brainstorming words for a LONG time.
As mentioned in my previous post: He has attacked me directly. I do not deny that he has also attacked my beliefs, nor do I deny the difference between the two. But if he wasn't attacking me when he said I had only ruled out intelligence on my part (among other things), what WAS he attacking?
Why didn't you just say so?
You could, of course, simply eliminate a made up religion and define your values and principles based on where they actually were derived; evolution.
Yes, I understand that. But, what you haven't explained yet is how you came to the conclusion a god exists? What observation or piece of evidence would make one assert such a thing?
Let it go and re-read my first post to you here on this thread.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That's great support for all religions being 'made up'. The point being that religion in this context is being used to satisfy the psychological needs of people (ex. being able to relate to others with compatible values). That is quite normal.
A potential issue arises when any religion (which are all consequently made up) makes an incorrect assertion of truth about reality... the most common one being "'God' exists". A believer often values having their psychological needs met over truth and to them it doesn't really matter if the assertion 'God' exists is true or not... as long as it meets their needs. This is quite normal.
The potential issue is realized when the believer takes objective actions based on incorrect assertions about reality. That person will intentially or inadvertenly retard science, education, progress, and take desctructive actions in the "name of 'God'" (Iran's version of Islam is a great example of all the above).
In other words, the more out-of-sync your actions get with reality (which explicitly works off of truth and will not honor any delusion in any way), the more bad results can occur.
With the above quote you neatly illustrate my point for me. Many theists/deists are incapable of disentangling their thought processes from their religious framework.
Firstly, let me define a few terms, as I will use them:
All from: http://www.dictionary.com
Now, most importantly, I didn't use the word "Belief". Atheism is characterised by the absence of any belief, something which theists/deists have trouble understanding. An atheist examines the available evidence, (i.e. that which can be observed, measured and quantified) and ascertains, or draws the conclusion, that there is no god. This process completely by-passes belief. It is entirely objective.
Secondly, since it is theists/deists that make the extraordinary claim of the existence of god, the onus is upon them to prove it. And let's not forget as Carl Sagan (1934-1996) once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Thirdly, with the following:
You are mistaking atheism for agnosticism... once again, there is no belief involved in atheism: only fact.
EDITS
Last edited:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
So they are without excuse.
In light of the above truth, you are the one who needs to provide an explanation...i.e. the question is how/why, in the face of evidence to the contrary you [plural generic 'you'] maintain God does not exist.
The answer/'explanation'? it's stated clearly above...you suppress that which you know to be true and/or that which would cause you to believe He exists... that is, a proper interpretation of the data available both "within you and without you".
That you cannot accept this is proof positive you plural are in denial...liars... plain and simple.
Last edited:
Complete gibberish. What does that mean? Where is heaven? What is revealed? What is the truth?
So, what exactly has been shown?
No gods have been perceived in nature, only nature is perceived. Please show exactly where god is "in the things that have been made?" Where are they? What are they?
There is only gibberish and mumbo-jumbo in the above so-called explanation. There is no evidence of anything whatsoever.
More gibberish. What answer? What explanation?
Liars? You bleat on from the good rock candy sermon on the mount and WE are the liars?
Pfft. Amateur.