Is Athiesm The Answer?

[Yazdajerd]

Thank you all for reacting to the thread which was more than what I expected.

To begin with, it is only takes someone to read your replies to see for him/her self how much the issue is important and controversial.

I'd like to answer some who mentioned that (( do apes and rats beleive in god )) assuming " he " beleives they don't.. Well, I'm fascinated, does he speak ape language or does he communicate with rats!!!

Others replied that ((we need no religion, people can decide forthemselves what is right and what is wrong)).. how forgetfull can you get?.. OK, how about homosexualism, is it right or wrong.. what about abortion?? Irrespective of your answer and what a certain population would decide on their own land, the decision will have a deep impact on the society , positive it is or negative, and generations will have to pay for a decision made by a group of idiots ( if the decision was wrong )...
and need I remind you how paganists loved the idea of human sacrifices in ancient times, and very little account exists of some people being disgusted with it, so as I'm concerned, YES people might very well agree on unethical laws!!!

Then, I'd like to ask, when or how did I bring the issue of the Bible or Christianity in the thread... oops, I didn't! So why are you so suddenly waging your war against it?? my question was a general one.. If you have all this negative attitude towards christianity, and assuming that ((BEWARE CHRIST HE IS THE DEATH)), who said if christianity is false then God doesn't exist??? is it the only religion that beleives in God??? NO IT ISN'T !!

Also, ((athiesm is not a religion)).. OH, REALLY, than why did my thread raise their fury?? one can only read the replies they made to see how angry theywere when replying .. excuse me, doesn't using the word ((bullshit)) indicate that?? I'd be really surprised!!
Their anger is only an indication of a man defending his faith, irrespective of it's type!!

Now, I can start, (( God's existance can't be proven)).. OK, I'll start with questions that no body cared to answer before in another thread:

Name all possible ways the universe came into existance??
I'll name three: 1- It was founded by chance,
2- It never came to existance, it was always there,
3- It was created...
I'll continue this "Game" , as some will call it, after I get replies on this issue!!

Thank you for participating

 

[wesmorris]

LOL. what if the idea of "coming into existence" is simply flawed from its conception?

 

[Alpha]

To me, atheism is a consequence agnosticism which itself is a consequence of the fair application of reason to what I think I percieve.

Uh, agnosticism means you don't believe it's possible to determine whether or not God exists, and thus the question is moot. Atheism means either you doubt the existance of God, or positively believe he doesn't exist. How would atheism be a consequence of agnosticism?

Humans have not produced any ideas, either singularly or collective, that is on the scale of the revealed bona-fide scriptures.
Unless you care to enlighten me.

!? Rarely have I heard such nonsense.

"People generate ideas about a vast variety of things so why would the god concept be any different?"

Because it is not a concept.

Of course it is, and I challenge you to even try to show otherwise. You're a fountain of nonsense.

"Are you suggesting that their ideas are supernaturally inspired?"

Starwars, Star Trek, The Matrix, does these ring a bell with you.

Mind your punctuation.
What relevance does that have to the question?

"Like I said there is no credible reason to suppose that anything other than humans created the idea for gods."

Then put it foreward as an opinion, not as fact. Otherwise you will be deemed a liar, by any sober person.

Any sane person (who isn't as ignorant as you) knows that being a liar isn't the only other option. People make mistakes. If you say something you believe to be true, but happen to be wrong, it's not a lie, it's a mistake.
And there's really no reason to suppose it's not a fact.

Out of the billions of ideas that may have been created by humans, none come even close to the scriptures. They are infinately inferior. The best we can do, is use the scriptures as a basis for our ideas. The scriptures or the point of bona-fide religion does not change, human endeavors does.

Yet more nonsense. Many ideas are far greater than the "scriptures", and they do indeed change. They've changed several times, in fact. You ought to learn some of the history of the bible.

"But that is only because nothing other than the natural world has ever been detected. If the supernatural could be detected then science would have no problem studying it."

Then, when they can detect it, we will see, won't we.

The supernatural cannot be detected because, by definition, it does not exist.

The knowledge was always there we just happened to become aware of it.

That directly implies knowledge can exist without an observer to know it, which is yet more nonsense.

Knowledge means "to know". Everything that is to be "known" already exists, we just haven't become aware of it.
I am not making an issue of this, i am merely putting you straight.

Actually, you're twisting the definition. When you learn something, you know something you didn't before. Someone else may have known it, but they may not have. If you are the first to know it, then it was not known before, and therefore the knowledge did not previously exist.

Also, ((athiesm is not a religion)).. OH, REALLY, than why did my thread raise their fury?? one can only read the replies they made to see how angry theywere when replying

Show me a previous post in this thread made by a furious atheist. I happen to be an atheist who's posted in this thread, but none of them were angry posts. Atheism is NOT a religion (by definition).

.. excuse me, doesn't using the word ((bullshit)) indicate that?? I'd be really surprised!!

No, it doesn't. It can imply anger if used in the correct tone or context, but you kinda hard to tell tone of voice in a text meduim. One has to go by context, and when that's the only indication, it's quite easy to misunderstand.

Their anger is only an indication of a man defending his faith, irrespective of it's type!!

Not at all. I get upset at things that have nothing to do with people questioning my faith (as I have none).

Name all possible ways the universe came into existance??
I'll name three: 1- It was founded by chance,
2- It never came to existance, it was always there,
3- It was created...
I'll continue this "Game" , as some will call it, after I get replies on this issue!!

Lets try this way:

1A - The Universe has a beginning, and was created.
1B - The Universe has a beginning, and came to be spontaneously.
2A - The Universe has no beginning, and has always existed.
2B - The Universe has no beginning, but time has a beginning.

 

[wesmorris]

Uh, agnosticism means you don't believe it's possible to determine whether or not God exists, and thus the question is moot.

Technically agnosticism is an assertion about the nature of knowing, and yes it renders the question moot.

Atheism means either you doubt the existance of God, or positively believe he doesn't exist. How would atheism be a consequence of agnosticism?

Atheism is a "lack of belief". My "lack of belief" is based upon the fact that the question is moot.

 

[Alpha]

Note, there are two types of atheism. Weak atheism, and strong atheism. The first is where you doubt the existance of God, or simply have a lack of belief. The second is where you positively believe God does not exist.

 

[Lemming3k]

Others replied that ((we need no religion, people can decide forthemselves what is right and what is wrong)).. how forgetfull can you get?.. OK, how about homosexualism, is it right or wrong.. what about abortion?? Irrespective of your answer and what a certain population would decide on their own land, the decision will have a deep impact on the society , positive it is or negative, and generations will have to pay for a decision made by a group of idiots ( if the decision was wrong )...

This statement is false, if the decision is made by a group of people it is not made by each individual and therefore each individual has not decided what is right and wrong, therfore we do not need religion to tell us what is right and wrong as it doesnt let each individual choose, someone else cannot decide for you what is right and wrong.

and need I remind you how paganists loved the idea of human sacrifices in ancient times, and very little account exists of some people being disgusted with it, so as I'm concerned, YES people might very well agree on unethical laws!!!

If an individual considers it unethical how and why did they choose to agree with it? And need i remind you religions have also had human sacrifices, pagan is a term coined by christians, muslims and jews to describe someone who isnt one of them, some of what you consider pagans actually had gods and religion.

who said if christianity is false then God doesn't exist??? is it the only religion that beleives in God??? NO IT ISN'T !!

Very true, though im sure the others are similar, but lets go through them one at a time shall we?

Also, ((athiesm is not a religion)).. OH, REALLY

Yes really, its not defined as a religion, no matter what you and other people think.

Now, I can start, (( God's existance can't be proven))..

Correct, neither can it be disproven.

OK, I'll start with questions that no body cared to answer before in another thread:
Name all possible ways the universe came into existance??
I'll name three: 1- It was founded by chance,
2- It never came to existance, it was always there,
3- It was created...

1. Very possible, however something must have existed beforehand for it to be formed from.
2. The universe hasnt always been there, that doesnt mean something hasnt always been there though.
3. And what created that which created the universe? Something must have always been there.
So... No matter which option we take, something has always existed, the question is what, and its something we will never know.

 

[Alpha]

"Now, I can start, (( God's existance can't be proven))..”
Correct, neither can it be disproven.

Not true. And you can't prove that it can't be disproven. Universal negatives, contrary to what some people erroneously believe, can be proven.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Alpha,

Rarely have I heard such nonsense.

Then prove me wrong.

Of course it is, and I challenge you to even try to show otherwise.

There is no need for me to show otherwise as nobody has claimed authorship of the so-called concept. All scriptures purport that God Himself, through the agency of his devotees, is the cause of all bona-fide scripture.

Now, i challenge you to prove to me that God is a concept created by humans.

You're a fountain of nonsense.

And you a blazing fire of delusion, unless you can prove your claim with proper evidence, not simplistic opinions.

Mind your punctuation.

Don't worry about my punctuation, as long as you understand my point, that is what matters. Don't give in to weakness.

What relevance does that have to the question?

Are you serious?

Any sane person (who isn't as ignorant as you) knows that being a liar isn't the only other option.

Your idiotic attempts at insults are tedious. Stop it immediately!

And there's really no reason to suppose it's not a fact.

You people really make me laugh. Are you seriously putting this forward as evidence that God was a created concept by humans?

Yet more nonsense. Many ideas are far greater than the "scriptures", and they do indeed change.

Okay bright-spark, give me examples of both claims.

They've changed several times, in fact. You ought to learn some of the history of the bible.

Have you read the original transcripts of the books of the Bible?
Have they changed?
What does "his-tory" have to do with "scripture?"

The supernatural cannot be detected because, by definition, it does not exist.

By the definition of the ignoramuses? Maybe. But there are innumerable accounts of supernatural occurances and to deny them is nothing short of stupidity.

That directly implies knowledge can exist without an observer to know it, which is yet more nonsense.

How do you know there is a point when there are no observers?
By the casual way you accuse me of speaking more nonsense, i take it you have scientific evidence which will easily defeat my point, as opposed to your simplistic and personal opinions. I eagerly await your logical, rational and scientific response (sorry about the punctuation ).

If you are the first to know it, then it was not known before, and therefore the knowledge did not previously exist.

Give an example of someone being the first person to know something, who had completely no knowledge of that thing before. And by "completely no knowledge" i mean no previous idea or curiosity regarding said subject.

Jan Ardena.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

1. Very possible, however something must have existed beforehand for it to be formed from.
2. The universe hasnt always been there, that doesnt mean something hasnt always been there though.
3. And what created that which created the universe? Something must have always been there.
So... No matter which option we take, something has always existed, the question is what, and its something we will never know.

saying that something had to have existed before hand to create is a statement of ignorance. the same issue comes up with a god. where did it come from? what created it? i dont understand why it is okay to say god is too complicated for us to understand why it didnt need to be created, but the same doesnt go for the universe. the universe is a pretty complicated system and it is imposssible for us to know the physics of what happened before the big bang

 

[wesmorris]

Humans have not produced any ideas, either singularly or collective, that is on the scale of the revealed bona-fide scriptures.

What "scale" is it to which you refer?

What makes said scriptures "bona-fide"?

What makes you think you have a good handle on the scope of human ideas?

Is the Quran part of your bona-fide scripture deal? If not, don't you think people would disagree?

In order for one to transgress the "revealed bona-fide scriptures", what criteria would one have to meet? (which is stupid if you really think about it, since an idea could exist in either of our minds that simply wouldn't work in the other's mind due to the nature of our subjective experiences, so an idea that blows away your stupid scripture in my experience wouldn't even make sense or would seem stupid to you).

Provide evidence that these scriptures were "revealed".

 

[shrubby pegasus]

Alpha,

Rarely have I heard such nonsense.

the very definition of agnosticism is the refusal to draw conclusions when there is no evidence.

Of course it is, and I challenge you to even try to show otherwise.

There is no need for me to show otherwise as nobody has claimed authorship of the so-called concept. All scriptures purport that God Himself, through the agency of his devotees, is the cause of all bona-fide scripture.

Now, i challenge you to prove to me that God is a concept created by humans.

You're a fountain of nonsense.

And you a blazing fire of delusion, unless you can prove your claim with proper evidence, not simplistic opinions.

Mind your punctuation.

Don't worry about my punctuation, as long as you understand my point, that is what matters. Don't give in to weakness.

What relevance does that have to the question?

Are you serious?

Any sane person (who isn't as ignorant as you) knows that being a liar isn't the only other option.

Your idiotic attempts at insults are tedious. Stop it immediately!

And there's really no reason to suppose it's not a fact.

You people really make me laugh. Are you seriously putting this forward as evidence that God was a created concept by humans?

Yet more nonsense. Many ideas are far greater than the "scriptures", and they do indeed change.

Okay bright-spark, give me examples of both claims.

They've changed several times, in fact. You ought to learn some of the history of the bible.

Have you read the original transcripts of the books of the Bible?
Have they changed?
What does "his-tory" have to do with "scripture?"

The supernatural cannot be detected because, by definition, it does not exist.

By the definition of the ignoramuses? Maybe. But there are innumerable accounts of supernatural occurances and to deny them is nothing short of stupidity.

That directly implies knowledge can exist without an observer to know it, which is yet more nonsense.

How do you know there is a point when there are no observers?
By the casual way you accuse me of speaking more nonsense, i take it you have scientific evidence which will easily defeat my point, as opposed to your simplistic and personal opinions. I eagerly await your logical, rational and scientific response (sorry about the punctuation ).

If you are the first to know it, then it was not known before, and therefore the knowledge did not previously exist.

Give an example of someone being the first person to know something, who had completely no knowledge of that thing before. And by "completely no knowledge" i mean no previous idea or curiosity regarding said subject.

Jan Ardena.

the very definition of agnosticism is the refusal to draw conclusions when there is no evidence.

how about einstein and general relativity as new knowledge?

you base everything on the scripture saying it comes from god, so therefore it must. well pretty much every religion has that kind of claim for its religious basis for truth. if i handed you a piece of paper and i had written stuff on it about what god wants would take it as his word since im a devotee?

 

[Jan Ardena]

wesmorris,

What "scale" is it to which you refer?

Completeness, originality and consistency.

What makes said scriptures "bona-fide"?

It comes from God via through disiplic-succession.

What makes you think you have a good handle on the scope of human ideas?

What makes you think you know what i think?

Is the Quran part of your bona-fide scripture deal?

Yes.

...so an idea that blows away your stupid scripture...

The scripture isn't stupid.

Provide evidence that these scriptures were "revealed".

It would take me a very long time, maybe even a lifetime, it would be better for you to try and provide evidence for yourself. That way there can be no mistake.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Alpha]

Humans have not produced any ideas, either singularly or collective, that is on the scale of the revealed bona-fide scriptures.
Unless you care to enlighten me.

!? Rarely have I heard such nonsense.

Then prove me wrong.

*Sigh* This looks like it'll lead nowhere, but here's a shot: Open source. Open source benefits society, and has so many applications in many aspects of life/society. I contend that the scriptures are little more than old fairy tales.

People generate ideas about a vast variety of things so why would the god concept be any different?

Because it is not a concept.

Of course it is, and I challenge you to even try to show otherwise.

There is no need for me to show otherwise as nobody has claimed authorship of the so-called concept.

I think there is. You have made a claim: that the concept of God is not a concept. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

All scriptures purport that God Himself, through the agency of his devotees, is the cause of all bona-fide scripture.

Scripture is irrelevant to the claim, and the support thereof.

Now, i challenge you to prove to me that God is a concept created by humans.

Actually, I claim that it's a concept (and the burden rests on you). That it's created by humans is obvious, as humans are the only way that concepts get introduced. The bible is irrelevant, as it is not the first place the concept of God has appeared. It isn't actually known where it first appeared.

Mind your punctuation.

Don't worry about my punctuation, as long as you understand my point, that is what matters. Don't give in to weakness.

Question marks are important. What weakness?

Are you suggesting that their ideas are supernaturally inspired?

Starwars, Star Trek, The Matrix, does these ring a bell with you.

Mind your punctuation.
What relevance does that have to the question?

Are you serious?

Quite. What does The Matrix, etc., have to do with supernaturally inspired ideas?

Any sane person (who isn't as ignorant as you) knows that being a liar isn't the only other option.

Your idiotic attempts at insults are tedious. Stop it immediately!

I made no insult... Perhaps you are ignorant of the meaning of ignorant?

Like I said there is no credible reason to suppose that anything other than humans created the idea for gods.

Then put it foreward as an opinion, not as fact. Otherwise you will be deemed a liar, by any sober person.

And there's really no reason to suppose it's not a fact.

You people really make me laugh. Are you seriously putting this forward as evidence that God was a created concept by humans?

Putting what forward as evidence? I just said there's no reason to doubt that the concept of God was created by humans. Which sounds rather odd, who/what do you think made it? Aliens? Cats? Right, you think it's not a concept... Then what would you call an idea of something that exists in the mind? A brain-fart?

Yet more nonsense. Many ideas are far greater than the "scriptures", and they do indeed change.

Okay bright-spark, give me examples of both claims.

Well, I mentioned Open Source. There's also the ideas that the internet embodies. Many great works of fiction, philosophies, etc., etc. I'd say anything that has been a great benefit to society. Religion (and Christianity in particular) has done more harm than good.
As for the changing of the scriptures, the bible has been altered more than once. First it was a variety of works by different authors, then it was collected into one book (the bible). There were originally several different versions of the bible. The Romans voted which was to be the word of God, and all other versions were destroyed. There was also Constantine who altered the bible to his liking in the 3rd century. Also, there are over 20 books mentioned in the Bilble but not found there. There's also edited versions, like the NIV.

Have you read the original transcripts of the books of the Bible?
Have they changed?
What does "his-tory" have to do with "scripture?"

Sorry, I don't read Aramaic or Hebrew, do you? And why did you quote "his-story"? Do you not understand the word history? What's with the hyphen?

The supernatural cannot be detected because, by definition, it does not exist.

By the definition of the ignoramuses? Maybe. But there are innumerable accounts of supernatural occurances and to deny them is nothing short of stupidity.

I'm an ignoramus because I'm aware of something you are not? Heh. Actually, to believe in the supernatural is nothing short of stupidity. Actually, let me make clear a distinction here that may cause unneeded conflict. "Supernatural" can be used in two ways. One, meaning that which defies the known laws of nature, two, that which defies the laws of nature as they actually exist. By the first definition I wouldn't deny the existance of the "supernatural", but I certainly would by the second definition. I think perhaps you were using the first definition. And if you were, then it certainly can be detected. That's how science progresses.

That directly implies knowledge can exist without an observer to know it, which is yet more nonsense.

How do you know there is a point when there are no observers?

I didn't claim that. It was implied by you. Knowledge requires some observer.

By the casual way you accuse me of speaking more nonsense, i take it you have scientific evidence which will easily defeat my point, as opposed to your simplistic and personal opinions. I eagerly await your logical, rational and scientific response (sorry about the punctuation ).

Well, I try to back things up when challenged.
How do you propose to have knowledge existing when there is no one to have it? Where does it exist? Knowledge is something that is known (by a person, ie., an observer). Do you really dispute this?

If you are the first to know it, then it was not known before, and therefore the knowledge did not previously exist.

Give an example of someone being the first person to know something, who had completely no knowledge of that thing before. And by "completely no knowledge" i mean no previous idea or curiosity regarding said subject.

Curiosity need not be absent! I'm surprised you can't come up with your own example. They are plentiful. Say... my name when my mother chose it. She was the first to know, before anyone else. The discovery of any number of places by the first person to go there. The discovery of pluto by Clyde Tombaugh. No one knew of it before he discovered it. Need I go on?

What "scale" is it to which you refer?

Completeness, originality and consistency.

Uh, there's plenty of originality, and the bible is neither consistent, nor complete.

What makes said scriptures "bona-fide"?

It comes from God via through disiplic-succession.

Prove it. Nah, that's too big a request. Just provide some evidence. ...Or at least a reason for believing it.

What makes you think you have a good handle on the scope of human ideas?

What makes you think you know what i think?

You're evading the question. That was a poor response too.

Is the Quran part of your bona-fide scripture deal?

Yes.

Interesting. Are you Muslim then? Or do you simply believe both?

...so an idea that blows away your stupid scripture...

The scripture isn't stupid.

Matter of opinion.

Provide evidence that these scriptures were "revealed".

It would take me a very long time, maybe even a lifetime, it would be better for you to try and provide evidence for yourself. That way there can be no mistake.

Not to provide evidence. Proof maybe, but not evidence. Methinks you are evading again.

 

[Lemming3k]

Not true. And you can't prove that it can't be disproven. Universal negatives, contrary to what some people erroneously believe, can be proven.

Please prove a god doesnt exist then, despite being atheist i have yet to see it proved that a god is beyond possibility, only gods from our religions have been proved wrong, that happens the moment we try to define it.

saying that something had to have existed before hand to create is a statement of ignorance. the same issue comes up with a god. where did it come from? what created it?

If you read carefully i never said there was a creator i said IF something created the universe then what created that something? You get an infinite series of creators(otherwise you get the creator appearing from nothing which has no more substance than the universe appearing from nothing) therefore something has always existed whichever way you look at it, unless your suggesting there was pure nothingness before the universe? But i dont think you are since that contradicts the big bang theory.

it is imposssible for us to know the physics of what happened before the big bang

My statement covered that, we shall never know.

 

[Alpha]

Please prove a god doesnt exist then, despite being atheist i have yet to see it proved that a god is beyond possibility, only gods from our religions have been proved wrong, that happens the moment we try to define it.

I too am open to the possibility of the existance of God, just not the God of any religions (which have indeed been proven false). Religion is a social construct I have no need for. In order to prove God doesn't exist, one would need to prove the Universe wasn't created, I think. And I think there is enough evidence to support such a belief, but not enough to prove conclusively. I don't think any logical argument will be conclusive either until we have more data. The best argument I'm aware of is the infinite regression argument. If the Universe was created by God, then how did God come to exist, and why couldn't the Universe come to exist the same way? If God is possible, then he's not necessary. I can think of nothing to refute this argument.

 

[Lemming3k]

In order to prove God doesn't exist, one would need to prove the Universe wasn't created, I think.

Correct, and as this is all something which happened before our universe existed, it can never be proved as we cannot gain access to time(and ultimately any evidence) before our universe(without time travel, but this is a complex matter and we may not be able to go to before our universe existed).

The best argument I'm aware of is the infinite regression argument. If the Universe was created by God, then how did God come to exist, and why couldn't the Universe come to exist the same way?

Indeed, unfortunately there is still a lack of evidence and its something we will never know, i think im along the same lines of thinking as you with this issue but as logical is things may seem, logic isnt good enough alone to be considered proof.

If God is possible, then he's not necessary. I can think of nothing to refute this argument.

Unfortunately that doesnt constitute proof(as much as i agree, though i may think about it for a while and see if i can come up with something).
On the whole you have a fairly solid arguement there, more so than most others, im glad i asked now.

 

[wesmorris]

wesmorris,

What "scale" is it to which you refer?

Completeness, originality and consistency.

Each is a subjective measure and thusly your scale is your judgement. That is an unnacceptable "scale" and loads the question from the start.

What makes said scriptures "bona-fide"?

It comes from God via through disiplic-succession.

LOL. Right. Prove it. LOL. I can't wait to see the spin on this one. Did you notice that is a self-referential pile of shit? The scriptures are bona-fide because god said so in the scriptures right? LOL. How do you live like that? Ack. Can you even admit your ridiculous hypocracy?

What makes you think you have a good handle on the scope of human ideas?

What makes you think you know what i think?

You implied directly that you know the scope of human ideas with your comment that generated the question. Please show where I claimed to know what you think besides exactly what you communicated:

"Humans have not produced any ideas, either singularly or collective, that is on the scale of the revealed bona-fide scriptures."

Your claim is dependent on knowing exactly what ideas humans have produced. That you do not recognize this is telling as to your lacking intellectual honesty.

...so an idea that blows away your stupid scripture...

The scripture isn't stupid.

Obviously that is a matter of opinion and mine contradicts yours.

Hey there's another paradox for you if you're watching.

Provide evidence that these scriptures were "revealed".

It would take me a very long time, maybe even a lifetime, it would be better for you to try and provide evidence for yourself.

I think I'll just use good sense: your scriptures are valuable from historical perspective as a record of mankinds endeavors into the realms of abstraction. They are in historical terms about as important as cave drawings.

That way there can be no mistake.

Oh, I can assure you from my perspective there is no mistake. You're a cultist. End of story.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Alpha,

I contend that the scriptures are little more than old fairy tales.

I asked you to prove me wrong, not give a totally unrelated opinion.

I think there is. You have made a claim: that the concept of God is not a concept. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

I sugggest you read the thread more carefully. Spidergoat claimed; "The idea of God was created specifically so it could not be disproven." My response was; "How do you know?"
So where is the claim?
Why don't you ask spidergoat to support his claim?
Huh!

Scripture is irrelevant to the claim, and the support thereof.

How can scripture be irrelevant? That is a silly point.


Actually, I claim that it's a concept (and the burden rests on you).

If you make a claim then the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Now prove it.

That it's created by humans is obvious, as humans are the only way that concepts get introduced.

If it is obvious then you can prove it.

The bible is irrelevant, as it is not the first place the concept of God has appeared.

You brought up the Bible, not me.
Try and stay with me here.

It isn't actually known where it first appeared.

Can you back this claim up, or is it another weird and wacky personal statement, based on nothing.

What does The Matrix, etc., have to do with supernaturally inspired ideas?

Do words like Zion, oracle, or the battle between good and evil conjure up anything in that head of yours. Or does the idea of super-human activity mean something.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the meaning of ignorant?

Perhaps you are insulting me again. Who knows eh?

Religion (and Christianity in particular) has done more harm than good.

Christianity isn't religion, religion is. Religion itself cannot be blamed for the actions of men. Religion is a set of rules and principles the main point being thou shalt not kill.

the bible has been altered more than once.

If it has been changed or altered in anyway from the original text, it is not scripture. So unless you know that the original texts themselves have been changed, your point remains only speculation.

What's with the hyphen?

So as to give an idea of what most historical accounts end up being, stories which tend to favour the people giving the account. Not all, but alot.

I'm an ignoramus because I'm aware of something you are not?

You are aware of something that does not exist!

Heh. Actually, to believe in the supernatural is nothing short of stupidity.
Even more stupid than being aware of something that does not exist?

I think perhaps you were using the first definition.

Seeing some of your previous attempts at trying to think what i was thinking, i would seriously advise you to try and think about what you're thinking, because your attempts just aren't working.

I didn't claim that. It was implied by you. Knowledge requires some observer.

I, at no time, claimed that knowledge doesn't require an observer, all i said was; "The knowledge was always there we just happened to become aware of it." You are the one who said i implied no observer.
Try and stay with me.

Well, I try to back things up when challenged.

Please let me know when you are ready to begin.

How do you propose to have knowledge existing when there is no one to have it?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said there is no one to observe it, that is your simplistic inference.
I propose God not only observes it, but is it, and is the source of it. Complicated.......yes, but it makes complete sense to me.

Do you really dispute this?

Carry on with this madness and i will exterminate you.

I'm surprised you can't come up with your own example.

Huh!!!
Say what?

She was the first to know, before anyone else.

That is a nonsense example, can you not come up with something better.

The discovery of pluto by Clyde Tombaugh. No one knew of it before he discovered it. Need I go on?

Can you prove that, or is a statement based on faith?

Prove it. Nah, that's too big a request. Just provide some evidence. ...Or at least a reason for believing it.

If you become a good little boy, i might engage in some dialouge with you, regarding the subject.

You're evading the question. That was a poor response too.

You could be right. But i grow bored of Wes's tiresome questions, which have no relevance to anything. He was probably just pissed at me making a fool out of you and tried to scrape back some dignity.

Interesting. Are you Muslim then? Or do you simply believe both?
Matter of opinion.

Work that one out for yourself. Better still, make it your homework assignment.

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

But i grow bored of Wes's tiresome questions

Truly telling. What a loser.

If you were honest, you might just retract your ridiculous statement or yield to superior reasoning in order that you might improve yourself. It's obvious that you only seek to promote your unfounded, ridiculous rhetoric.

 

[Persol]

What "scale" is it to which you refer?

Completeness, originality and consistency.

I call bullshit... considering almost identical stories existed before the Bible was even written.