It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Matthew 10:34

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That's exactly right. He never compromised with anyone. Read up on what he says of those who are to be disciples(those who will speak the truth). The truth is more deadly to the lie than anything. Surely you understand symbolism, especially since he never uses a physical sword and says those who live by the sword die by the sword. The time Peter cuts a mans ear off with a sword Jesus heals the man.





Revelation 19:13-15

13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.


Again more symbolism. Taking things literally just like the people you point fingers at.



Matthew 15:1-5

1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

So he chews out the pharisees for not upholding the commandment of killing disobedient children?


Well, your question is answered in the verses following this.



5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?


He is talking about how the Pharisees keep their own traditions above the laws of God. The Pharisees are hypocrites. These are people who kill people for sins, but then he points out they are hypocrites and don't even follow what they believe is the laws of god and instead in this case use their traditions. But in other cases, they will kill the person if it's in the traditions. Because they do not actually follow gods law, they use them to suit their purposes and this was an example that proved it.

It had nothing to do with him telling them to go kill children. And if you look at the rest of what he says, then that much is obvious. Tell people not to judge others and so on. Because there is no justification for your actions. Even in the OT it says - vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Meaning it is not the place of men to carry out the judgments on others. They need to worry about themselves instead.

Nobody is supposed to judge and kill others. The hypocrites believe their actions are justified and they are doing gods work. And so Jesus is pointing out that it is BS because if that was the case then they would have been killing the children as well.

The entire thing started because they were upset with Jesus and disciples didn't follow the traditions of man.

Tell me. What would it be called if someone took a look at science, misunderstood the science and then made claims disproving things based on their understanding, rather than what was really being said? And what of the person who would base their opinions of Science based only on the misunderstandings of others?




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia


LOL I forgot, if it doesn't fit your dogma, the passage is "figurative or symbolic".

Somehow, we're supposed to take some parts figuratively, and some parts literally... who gets to decide these things?

So the crucifixion could have completely been figurative... so could "lord" and "god" to mean something along the lines of a more Deistic god.


Tell me. What would it be called if someone took a look at science, misunderstood the science and then made claims disproving things based on their understanding, rather than what was really being said?


I'd call that the majority. however, science has a nifty way of having the evidence in place, as well as experimental protocol... Even if one didn't understand, they could replicate the experiment's results, thus positively asserting the hypothesis.


And what of the person who would base their opinions of Science based only on the misunderstandings of others?


Gullible lol to say the least... I have more respect for someone who looked for answers and drew the wrong conclusion than someone who didn't bother looking at all...and was told what to believe.

I'm not a fan of Faith, as I'm sure you can tell... but blind faith is worse.

Much of the time, when I see blind faith, I regard that individual with the same regard as I would a cockroach... They aren't overtly harmful, but I wouldn't want them in my house.



[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
exactly the point I'm making... therefore we must deal in probabilities, unless you can conclusively prove a god exists...


The very nature of proof you ask for is impossible in itself. There is nothing that would or could ever prove god to you in the way you ask for proof. You could always just dismiss whatever physical evidence that might exist, such as maybe all of creation, as just being something else.

Tell me, what could possibly prove god to you externally?

Quit asking men to prove god to you, and grow a pair of balls and ask god instead. Of course, I know you are scared as hell just because - what if it is true, and then suddenly you might have to answer for somethings. Normal fear, not a comfort. Scary for all, admit it or not.



No its not... when dealing with probabilities, its important to review all options... and then investigate the evidence to determine the most probable outcomes... Does man create god? or does god create man...


Probabilities? As for who creates who, it's father and son relationship. You are technically god, your body/flesh is a temple of god. But you and I are in the son role of the realtionship right now. Where the father role is all knowing, where time does not exist and so on(views the all the movie films stretched out at once), you are in the son role currently. You have a limited perspective and do not know all. In this perspective you see the movie instead of the film.

Understanding this was what changed my life. It's John 14:20 and what Jesus was talking about. This is when you understand you are consciousness and not flesh, and this is when you are born anew.


Now we look at why man would create god... vs... why god would create man... stack the probabilities up, and make a decision from there.


Sure you can do that. Or maybe you could instead realize who freaking tiny our individual perspectives are in terms of the entire universe. Even in just in the visible universe at this 1 point in time it's mind boggling. Not to mention our senses only provide a very small % of the universe. So what you are basically saying is - "Anything which has not come across my limited and very small perception of this universe is not true". Sure, it's "practical", but it's not the truth, and it is a rather arrogant position to take.



your aversion to the scientific method is stunning to say the least. However, investigating the probabilities is not a cop out... instead, decreeing by fiat and than refusing to induct new data into our investigation is a cop out... its the equivilent of saying "because I said so".


I'm a programmer, I create technology. I'm not against science, I am against people who can't see beyond science. It has it's place. It is great in the realm of action and reaction where it can be repeated 99% of the time. It's what allows for technology and so on. It's very useful and it is dumb to not use it. However, it has it's limits believe it or not. It is unequipped to deal with consciousness and things that are not based on action and reaction, because it is not repeatable 99% of the time in a lab. The best it can do is label it as random, and then look for behavior patterns, and brain wave patterns. Religion and Philosophy operate in the realm of consciousness, reason and understanding and Science in the realm of action and reaction.

Both things need to stay in their proper places, and both are needed. If you can't balance the 2 out, then your technology will doom you, and at the other end of the stick, you'll be stuck in a world of no progress as anyone who goes against the belief of the time is killed.



Unfortunately, that only works on toddlers, small children, and gullible adults. All others, want a better answer.


Yeah, the reason I am no longer an atheist was because I realized how arrogant of a position it was to believe that anything that hasn't come across my reality is by default "probably not there". You're right, I was no longer gullible enough to believe that something came from nothing. And I certainly did want better answers.




Its only christianity we're attacking because that is the basis of your argument... I suppose it wouldn't make much sense if you were talking about judeo-christian gods for us to turn around and reply with an argument based on Thor...

If you talk judeo-christian beliefs, you can expect us to respond in kind.


Actually, you were the first person in this thread to bring up Christianity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by crmanager
 


He's actually pointed out a well known logical paradox presented by christianity...

however, your aversion to him trying to speak to people about it, seems hypocritical in nature if you're a believer. I suppose it would be ok if he was trying to "save" people for jesus huh?

But its not ok for him to point out weaknesses in the dogma of religious faith?

If believers want this sort of stuff to go away... all they have to do is answer the questions non-believers have been asking...

however, they cannot answer in a way that is not circular logic, or false arguments...

You keep going OP... Ignore the bigotry that will come in here... I'll check in and lend a hand if I see the flames are starting to get high lol





posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
So, what is your point? Such things have nothing to do with the existence of God.

It all boils down to you having a problem with some religious people and from that you go off on some tirade over dumb things.


What are you talking about?
You're the one that implied that you need God to be a good person. I was just saying that you don't.

I don't need to believe in God to commit good anymore than I need to believe in Satan to commit evil.

And I believe in neither.


Originally posted by badmedia
You purposely ignore the possibility of god because you don't want religious people to be right in anyway, and it's dumb.


!
No! Not at all!
I do not ignore the possibility of God, I'm instead looking at the probability.
There is not one shred of evidence, so I leave it at this:
The probability of God's existence is no more or less than any other deity or imaginary figure which has or has not been imagined.

Your 'proof' is in your head (as you have said), and you yourself have said that it's not proof to anyone but yourself.
The same is true with any number of religious beliefs - this is not new...

But as far as Christianity is concerned, there are flaws in the belief system which can be pointed out and discussed.

As for the God you believe in, what do you want me to say?
There's no evidence for or against his existence.
I readily admit that!
Would you do the same?
I doubt it.



Originally posted by badmedia
All you are doing is changing the subject to avoid the points made. I'm just about done with this thread.


I didn't want to dissect that post because it dealt with your personal beliefs which I can't really say anything against as they are opinions.
I can't disprove your opinion...
Give me something to work with here
...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
In this entire thread, has 1 thing been mentioned where someone quoted something Jesus said as bad? Go ahead, I'll wait.


To me, it's not about what Jesus said, it's what he didn't say.
You say that the God of the Torah was not really God, as God would not do those evil things.
Don't you find it strange that Jesus comes along and says that the God of the Torah IS his father?
He never once informs the people that their books were wrong and that was not really God.
He linked HIMSELF to that God.
Don't you find that just a little bit strange?

Then you have the terrible laws in Deuteronomy. Jesus himself saws that he did not come to abolish the laws in the Torah.

Why in the friggin' heck wouldn't he CONDEMN those laws if they were false?
That should have been his main message!

It doesn't add up...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
LOL I forgot, if it doesn't fit your dogma, the passage is "figurative or symbolic".

Somehow, we're supposed to take some parts figuratively, and some parts literally... who gets to decide these things?

So the crucifixion could have completely been figurative... so could "lord" and "god" to mean something along the lines of a more Deistic god.


It contains wisdom and understanding. The things are there to bring and give understanding, like a morale of a story. When Jesus for example tells a parable, then he is trying to give understanding. To reveal truth.

The specific symbols and such are just variables of an equation. The point is to understand and get the equation out, and the individual and specific variables are just there to express the equation. So when you read the bible and such, it is printed as being specific and dogmatic. IE: it is printed as 1+1=2. However, when you have understanding, then you can see A+B=C. With this understanding, you are then able to apply these things to your daily world and have understanding about what you see.

I was not taught in terms of 1+1=2, or in terms of Jesus. I was given understanding and shown A+B=C, and told not to focus on a 1+1=2(idols), or create any. And because I had that understanding, I could see that Jesus and the 1+1=2 expression is a true expression of A+B=C.

You are someone who just accepts what they are told. Which is just like the majority of Christians who just accept the bible. You just accept from different sources. But when you accept information as truth, then you are accepting it from authority figures, which are man on earth. You are still in the same mode of linear and literal thinking. Still look at the world in terms of 1+1=2, rather than A+B=C. Look at the fruits(actions) and then you can see the equations.




Tell me. What would it be called if someone took a look at science, misunderstood the science and then made claims disproving things based on their understanding, rather than what was really being said?


I'd call that the majority. however, science has a nifty way of having the evidence in place, as well as experimental protocol... Even if one didn't understand, they could replicate the experiment's results, thus positively asserting the hypothesis.


Science is nothing more than the understanding of the time. It is not the truth, it is good enough to allow technology. It's biggest plus is the recognition of this and the ability to change. Although it does in many ways suffer from the bureaucracy of getting funding, and the institutional way behind it, which operates in many ways like the church does.




And what of the person who would base their opinions of Science based only on the misunderstandings of others?


Gullible lol to say the least... I have more respect for someone who looked for answers and drew the wrong conclusion than someone who didn't bother looking at all...and was told what to believe.

I'm not a fan of Faith, as I'm sure you can tell... but blind faith is worse.


But what if it wasn't actually about blind faith? What if it was instead about knowledge and understanding? It's not about blind faith.




Much of the time, when I see blind faith, I regard that individual with the same regard as I would a cockroach... They aren't overtly harmful, but I wouldn't want them in my house.


Yeah, and I hope you remember you said this the next time you accuse me of making myself out to be better than someone because of their opinions and that they aren't the same as mine.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Really?......Are you serious?......


You... a mere human, is going to attempt prove or disprove the existance of an almighty being who created everything here and everything there will be? HA HA HA...

Alright first of all, I am no christian...I preach the gospel of I don't Know...because really I don't, and neither do any of you.

The idea of God as a man in the sky who has a giant black book of who is naughty and who is nice is simply not logical at all.

The idea of a creative energy or being however is very plausible.

Your attempt, or anybody elses for that matter to comprehend or interpret such a thing is blasphemy really. You cannot possibly understand something that is so VASTLY complex and far reaching as the source of creation, you can't, and here's why:

We don't know what the soul is/how it works/where it lies/what it truly does.
We don't know how our bodies work the way they do 100%.
We dont' know how things in the universe are created or why.
We don't know how to cure some of the most very basic diseases that plague us a species.

So how then are you suppose to convince me, that ANY of you, have even the most basic understand of the thing that created all of what is here and what will be, without having first understood what is here now and how it works?

You can't, and that's why I myself preach the I Don't Know, that's the best answer we as a species are able to come up with, period.

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
What are you talking about?
You're the one that implied that you need God to be a good person. I was just saying that you don't.


Where?




I don't need to believe in God to commit good anymore than I need to believe in Satan to commit evil.

And I believe in neither.


Correct, but you are still going to reap what you sow either way.




Originally posted by badmedia
No! Not at all!
I do not ignore the possibility of God, I'm instead looking at the probability.

There is not one shred of evidence, so I leave it at this:
The probability of God's existence is no more or less than any other deity or imaginary figure which has or has not been imagined.

Your 'proof' is in your head (as you have said), and you yourself have said that it's not proof to anyone but yourself.
The same is true with any number of religious beliefs - this is not new...


Ok, probability. Are you including the factor where you have an extremely tiny perspective on just the known universe, the point where any of your conclusions based solely on the factors included in that tiny perspective, and thus should at best just plain out admit you have no clue one way or another? Isn't that the more probable conclusion for you at this point?

Such is what made me go from atheist/denial of god to agnostic anyway.



But as far as Christianity is concerned, there are flaws in the belief system which can be pointed out and discussed.


I agree, I do it all the time in threads about that. This is a topic about god.



As for the God you believe in, what do you want me to say?
There's no evidence for or against his existence.
I readily admit that!
Would you do the same?
I doubt it.


I can admit that I can understand why you think there is no evidence. But for me it's already been proven, so no I can not admit that. I would be lieing. But yes, I use to have your opinion and I can understand why you think what you do. I think you are wrong, but I understand and don't hold it against you. You are just a step or 2 back on the path IMO. If you want to see proof of god, go look in the mirror.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
The very nature of proof you ask for is impossible in itself.


I beg to differ, as I'll show..


There is nothing that would or could ever prove god to you in the way you ask for proof. You could always just dismiss whatever physical evidence that might exist, such as maybe all of creation, as just being something else.


Actually, if any of the evidence showed any indications...

Prayer and medical patients... no change... (except for one study, which was shown to be flawed in its methods).

I could ask god all day to turn my ice water into wine... wouldn't happen...

An all powerful being could conclusively prove his existence to everyone instantly...

but alas, convieniently, he "doesn't want to"...


Tell me, what could possibly prove god to you externally?


I will set an apple on my counter with a video camera... leave it there for 24 hours... Meanwhile I'll contact the clergy, and have them pray endlessly for that apple to turn into pear...


Quit asking men to prove god to you, and grow a pair of balls and ask god instead. Of course, I know you are scared as hell just because - what if it is true, and then suddenly you might have to answer for somethings. Normal fear, not a comfort. Scary for all, admit it or not.


LOL nah, I've been there done that... most Atheists don't start out as atheists... most start out in other religions and move from there...



Probabilities? As for who creates who, it's father and son relationship.
You are technically god, your body/flesh is a temple of god. But you and I are in the son role of the realtionship right now. Where the father role is all knowing, where time does not exist and so on(views the all the movie films stretched out at once), you are in the son role currently. You have a limited perspective and do not know all. In this perspective you see the movie instead of the film.


Decree by fiat... i'm to accept this because you say its true?


Understanding this was what changed my life. It's John 14:20 and what Jesus was talking about. This is when you understand you are consciousness and not flesh, and this is when you are born anew.


Just because that's what you believe, does not make it true. I don't suppose there is the remotest possibility that you are wrong is there?



Sure you can do that. Or maybe you could instead realize who freaking tiny our individual perspectives are in terms of the entire universe.


LOL funny, I always say the same thing... only I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know, or that science doesn't know something... YET...

Apparently, you need answers... you need everything to be absolute and understandable... Which isn't really your fault... its the genetic predisposition again... The unknown can be scary... Guess its easier to think someone with your best interest in mind is in control.


Even in just in the visible universe at this 1 point in time it's mind boggling. Not to mention our senses only provide a very small % of the universe. So what you are basically saying is - "Anything which has not come across my limited and very small perception of this universe is not true". Sure, it's "practical",


Where did I say that? I've also stated that we know of the existence of things outside of our senses by observing and measuring the interaction it has within the universe. I'm willing to say we don't know everything... but I'm not willing to attribute the unknown to "god".


but it's not the truth, and it is a rather arrogant position to take.


Lets think for a moment exactly how ironic this statement is...

You are telling me that i'm wrong, and your fairy tales are right because you have divine knowledge that I don't have that it is true... then you say questioning your line of reasoning is arrogant?

Sounds like you're arrogantly decreeing by fiat that everything is a certain way "because you say so" or "god told you so".

You hinted at a dislike of "blind faith" in a previous post... now you expect me to employ it...


I'm a programmer, I create technology. I'm not against science, I am against people who can't see beyond science.


Everything is science. Thats what Science is all about... attempting to understand EVERYTHING. What was once thought to be fairy tales has been proven in the past. BUT they didn't start the observations with the assumption that the fairy tale was an undeniable truth.

After all... The platypus was a mythological creature... much like bigfoot... until it was discovered by zoologists. Now its undestood and it's science...


It has it's place. It is great in the realm of action and reaction where it can be repeated 99% of the time. It's what allows for technology and so on. It's very useful and it is dumb to not use it.


Not all science is "useful"... Science is about understanding and observation.. its a "way of thinking"...


However, it has it's limits believe it or not. It is unequipped to deal with consciousness and things that are not based on action and reaction, because it is not repeatable 99% of the time in a lab.


Negative... you are applying the same BS to consciousness as before... series of chemical reactions that you are the one adding the importance to it... you refuse to believe that it could really just be that simple...

Anything that you say Science doesn't understand... science will understand eventually. Scientific knowledge is on an exponential growth curve...


The best it can do is label it as random, and then look for behavior patterns, and brain wave patterns.


Thats all it is... brain waves and chemicals... point blank period. Why must it be so important? If animals are conscious, than I doubt they know "god"


Religion and Philosophy operate in the realm of consciousness, reason and understanding and Science in the realm of action and reaction.


Both are the products of chemical reactions and electrical currents... Thought is nothing but the sum of biological reactions...


Both things need to stay in their proper places, and both are needed. If you can't balance the 2 out, then your technology will doom you, and at the other end of the stick, you'll be stuck in a world of no progress as anyone who goes against the belief of the time is killed.


Technology is not science... Technology is the product of science. Science is a quest for knowledge, and Technology is application of that knowledge... I fail to see how we'd be doomed for our quest to learn...


Yeah, the reason I am no longer an atheist was because I realized how arrogant of a position it was to believe that anything that hasn't come across my reality is by default "probably not there". You're right, I was no longer gullible enough to believe that something came from nothing. And I certainly did want better answers.


Arrogance is assuming that you're special... or that your anything more than a meat puppet

assuming your superior to other life forms.. .being a tree, insect, or mammal,

Assuming a divine being would want to waste their time on what is essentially smaller than a microbe compared to the universe,

automatically assuming that there must be some "purpose" set forth, just for you and your fellow microbes... THAT is the epitome of arrogance...

Its not pretty or "warm and fuzzy"... but, there is only one thing special about each person... and that is the sum of their DNA... and in the grand scheme of things...the DNA of a single individual isn't all that important.


Actually, you were the first person in this thread to bring up Christianity.


Nah, It referred to the bible in the video on the OP... my arguments beyond that one post focus more on christianity because of the arguments i've been presented...

Like I said.. if you want to argue Zeus... present arguments for zeus...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
To me, it's not about what Jesus said, it's what he didn't say.
You say that the God of the Torah was not really God, as God would not do those evil things.
Don't you find it strange that Jesus comes along and says that the God of the Torah IS his father?
He never once informs the people that their books were wrong and that was not really God.
He linked HIMSELF to that God.
Don't you find that just a little bit strange?


Why wouldn't he? I'm not sure what you are saying. The entire time he was pointing out how the people were not actually doing what the father of the Torah says. He was pointing out their hypocrisy and errors.

Jesus comes to fulfill the laws, which means he comes to follow and carry them out as meant to be. He brings understanding and is the example of how someone who lives by the commandments will act. And he showed this example and died doing it, showing that it is better to die than to break a sin and kill to save your own life. Which he also said about those who try to save their life will lose it.

He didn't change the laws, he pointed out that the people misunderstood and were just using it to suit their own purposes, where they basically are able to point out sin in anyone who doesn't go along with the authority of the time. Jesus is killed because the threatens authority after they do this very thing to him, accusing him of blasphemy and having him killed for it.



Then you have the terrible laws in Deuteronomy. Jesus himself saws that he did not come to abolish the laws in the Torah.


Correct, he came to give proper understanding of them. People took that the penalty of sins was death to mean that they should kill people who sinned. As I have pointed out multiple times, they ignore that "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". Meaning, they were not carrying out gods work, they were in fact committing more sin as Jesus points out.



Why in the friggin' heck wouldn't he CONDEMN those laws if they were false?
That should have been his main message!

It doesn't add up...


Because the commandments aren't false. He gives correct understanding of them. The 10 commandments aren't that hard to follow as long as you understand them. It's not like going to church or any of those other traditions of man. Gods laws are the 10 commandments, the rest are man's laws. It's basically loving your neighbor as yourself(treat them as you want to be treated) and love god.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Tell me, what could possibly prove god to you externally?


Seriously?
There are many things!
According to Jesus, you should be able to perform miracles if you believe in God. Heal someone, and have it documented and repeated.
I could think of a thousand ways you could prove God's existence if Jesus' words were correct and if God exists.
Or were Jesus' words also figurative
?
Is this the point where you pick and choose and say that most of Jesus' words were correct, but then the book was hijacked by evil men who changed the words to deceive us all to believe that God doesn't exist if his followers can't perform miracles?


Originally posted by badmedia
Quit asking men to prove god to you, and grow a pair of balls and ask god instead.


But, on the off chance that us atheists are right (just entertain the thought for one second), who is it you would really be asking?
Your own subconscious?

And in what method do you receive the answer from God?
Is it a subconscious "knowing" or "understanding"?
Really? Do tell...

Don't you see the pieces to the puzzle by now?

If you ask yourself a question in hopes that God will respond, of course your subconscious will return something. It's like a computer...

A child also has that same "knowing" when he merely imagines that there may be a monster in the closet. Our mind defines what is real to us.
Garbage in, garbage out.
God in, God out.

Whether God exists or not, you can't deny that this is a natural response of the brain.
To me it seems more likely that something ordinary is behind it rather than extraordinary...


Originally posted by badmedia
Of course, I know you are scared as hell just because - what if it is true, and then suddenly you might have to answer for somethings. Normal fear, not a comfort. Scary for all, admit it or not.


Oh man...
You have no idea how hard it was for me to give up my belief in an afterlife of eternal bliss - as well as the comfort of 'knowing' the truth.
No idea...
I would gladly accept such a fate if it were true, and there's no reason I would want to deny myself the truth.
In all honesty, I would give any physical possession I have and more if it were true. But the universe doesn't bend to our desires...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Because the commandments aren't false. He gives correct understanding of them. The 10 commandments aren't that hard to follow as long as you understand them. It's not like going to church or any of those other traditions of man. Gods laws are the 10 commandments, the rest are man's laws. It's basically loving your neighbor as yourself(treat them as you want to be treated) and love god.


Actually the Ten Commandments are tough to live up to. I can't claim that I've followed them all the time. I believe they show us we can't even live up to the Ten Commandments. That's what Jesus did for us. Now that leads to the question of what about all those people who never heard of Jesus back then and couldn't live up to what God expected. They believed in the promise that God gave them throughout the Old Testament. The promise of a Messiah that would deliver them.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Depends on which 10 commandments you follow...

They appear 3 different times, and aren't the same each time...

Exudus 20
Exudus 34
and Deut 5

Although, since the commandments in Ex 34 include blood sacrafice, most people like to pretend they don't exist


16 "And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods."


20 "The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.
No one shall appear before me empty-handed."

25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.

those are just a few of the lesser known "commandments"



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by TruthParadox
What are you talking about?
You're the one that implied that you need God to be a good person. I was just saying that you don't.


Where?


Here:


Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by TruthParadox
But you don't need the Bible to live a good life...


No you don't need the bible. It's called a personal relationship with the father.




Originally posted by badmedia
Ok, probability. Are you including the factor where you have an extremely tiny perspective on just the known universe, the point where any of your conclusions based solely on the factors included in that tiny perspective, and thus should at best just plain out admit you have no clue one way or another? Isn't that the more probable conclusion for you at this point?


That is what I'm saying - that I don't know either way.
But that does not make it 50%.
I don't know if a Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM exists or not, but there's no evidence to support him.
Are you an agnostic where Purple Cookie Monsters are concerned?
I'd be willing to bet that your pretty darn sure that they don't exist...

Also, I could use your argument against you.
You also have an extremely tiny perspective of the universe.
Is it not possible that God (assuming he does exist) is actually evil and is trying to trick humanity?
Is it not possible that God is Satan and Satan is God?
Is it not possible that Zeus is God, but he created humans to believe there is a God so that other gods will go after an imaginary God instead of Zeus?

The probability must be the same for each scenario, as there is no evidence for or against any of it.
Yet you do not consider yourself unsure where God is concerned, even given an infinite number possibilities.



Originally posted by badmedia
Why wouldn't he? I'm not sure what you are saying. The entire time he was pointing out how the people were not actually doing what the father of the Torah says. He was pointing out their hypocrisy and errors.


You missed my point.
I created a list in a previous post which had a few of the evils of the Bible.
Two of them were God's actions:
* Destroying the first born sons just because the pharaoh was stubborn
* Killing everyone in Noah's flood who was evil, yet forgetting that there must have been countless children and newborns who were innocent

Then you replied and said that was not God.

Don't you see the error?
You believe Jesus, yet Jesus claimed the God who committed these evil acts was his father. He never said "My father never killed the first born just because of the pharaoh". He never set the record straight, so he essentially tied himself to everything that was written about his father.

If what you said was true, then he would have told everyone that the Torah was wrong and was not of God.

He also never told them that the absurd laws in deuteronomy (which was part of their law which they believed was from God) were not from God.

You've said that we are taking the worst parts of the Bible and using it to portray Jesus. But don't you see, he did that himself by tying himself TO the God of the Torah who committed such vial acts...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Actually, if any of the evidence showed any indications...

Prayer and medical patients... no change... (except for one study, which was shown to be flawed in its methods).


I don't actually believe in prayer that much. I am pretty sure an all knowing god already knows what you need and what you don't. Don't think it hurts, but it has been my experience in life that the prayers I have that aren't answered are the truly blessings. Knowing what I know now, I'm glad my prayers weren't always answered.



I could ask god all day to turn my ice water into wine... wouldn't happen...


Actually, I think if you really thought about it, you just believe it won't happen and so you don't allow it. I also have this problem. While I believe it is possible, I still have 30+ years telling me it's impossible. But I can be honest and realize I have all these years believing it's not possible. And when I ask, I completely get what I expect - no change.



An all powerful being could conclusively prove his existence to everyone instantly...


Well look in the mirror, because he is in everyone. Do you understand what it means to be? I think, therefore I am? That is a result of the father within you. No logic can bring about that, no chemicals, no action and reactions.

He does prove it to those who truly seek.



but alas, convieniently, he "doesn't want to"...


No, you just don't seek. You seek to disprove and that is what you find. 2 doors, behind door/possibility #1 is no god. Behind door/possibility #2 is god. You have always found what you seek.




I will set an apple on my counter with a video camera... leave it there for 24 hours... Meanwhile I'll contact the clergy, and have them pray endlessly for that apple to turn into pear...


Doesn't this mean if any multidimensional being came along and changed it out, you would deem them to be god? Seems a good way to be setup for deception if you ask me, all it takes is a little David Copperfield and you are hooked.

As long as you look externally there is an out or way to dismiss it. But god is within, not in the external, and he will appear to you in a vision or dream.




LOL nah, I've been there done that... most Atheists don't start out as atheists... most start out in other religions and move from there...


I was once an atheist. I rejected religion and still reject organized religion. Just because they are hypocrites doesn't mean what is actually there is wrong though.




Decree by fiat... i'm to accept this because you say its true?


No, never. Never should you accept anything I say as being true. Such is the problem. People just accept what people say, and they don't actually understand what is being said. You should understand for yourself what I say. No matter if I am right or wrong, if you accept or believe what I or any other man says, then you are a fool.





Just because that's what you believe, does not make it true. I don't suppose there is the remotest possibility that you are wrong is there?


Doesn't make it true for you, and it shouldn't either. My experience is not your experience. You can deny me of it all you want, and I will understand. But I know for sure god exists. If god proved himself to you, and then someone tried to tell you that because it's never been proven to them, what you experienced and know is not true/real - what would you think/say?

Similiarly. What if you time traveled to 1600. And you tried to tell someone what a cellphone was, and they called you crazy for even talking about such a device. "Boy that guy has one hell of an imagination, boxes that talk to each other with invisible waves nobody else can see or hear, haha". You can probably understand why they think you are crazy, but it's not going to change your mind because they think you are crazy.





Sure you can do that. Or maybe you could instead realize who freaking tiny our individual perspectives are in terms of the entire universe.


LOL funny, I always say the same thing... only I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know, or that science doesn't know something... YET...

Apparently, you need answers... you need everything to be absolute and understandable... Which isn't really your fault... its the genetic predisposition again... The unknown can be scary... Guess its easier to think someone with your best interest in mind is in control.


Actually, there are plenty of things I don't know. Not afraid to admit it either. But doesn't mean I don't know or that I am just making things up as you claim. All you are doing is making assumptions and accusations.





Where did I say that? I've also stated that we know of the existence of things outside of our senses by observing and measuring the interaction it has within the universe. I'm willing to say we don't know everything... but I'm not willing to attribute the unknown to "god".


You aren't willing to attribute anything to god. You have no clue what god even is. Always look "out there", and never "in there".




but it's not the truth, and it is a rather arrogant position to take.


Lets think for a moment exactly how ironic this statement is...

You are telling me that i'm wrong, and your fairy tales are right because you have divine knowledge that I don't have that it is true... then you say questioning your line of reasoning is arrogant?


No, I'm saying to say god doesn't exist is arrogant because you are only saying so based on what you know. There is a reason it's called "unknown". If you do not know, then you just do not know. If you do now know, and you say you do then it's equally as arrogant. But don't rule out the possibility for someone to know because you do not know.



Sounds like you're arrogantly decreeing by fiat that everything is a certain way "because you say so" or "god told you so".


Or maybe I'm telling you your claims that I am just making things up is false.



You hinted at a dislike of "blind faith" in a previous post... now you expect me to employ it...


Far from it. As I explained above.




I'm a programmer, I create technology. I'm not against science, I am against people who can't see beyond science.


Everything is science. Thats what Science is all about... attempting to understand EVERYTHING. What was once thought to be fairy tales has been proven in the past. BUT they didn't start the observations with the assumption that the fairy tale was an undeniable truth.


No, science is trying to understand things. Big difference. Science doesn't create things, it tries to understand it. You need the scientist to have science, because the scientist is the one who can understand it to begin with.



After all... The platypus was a mythological creature... much like bigfoot... until it was discovered by zoologists. Now its undestood and it's science...


keyword = understood.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I don't know if a Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM exists or not, but there's no evidence to support him.
Are you an agnostic where Purple Cookie Monsters are concerned?
I'd be willing to bet that your pretty darn sure that they don't exist...


Actually... We've got video footage of BLUE cookie monsters... it is entirely possible a purple one exists somewhere


I guess It looks like we have more evidence supporting cookie monsters than any other deity!

All hail the purple cookie monster of doom, may he go nom nom nom on the eternal cookie.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


lol, true that.
One could even make the argument that we have 'negative evidence' of God's existence, as if he truly existed, people would be performing miracles all around. The extraordinary would be ordinary.

At least the Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM makes no such promises - therefor making him immune to such arguments
. Crafty guy...

May his cookie live long and prosper with eternal tastiness.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

It has it's place. It is great in the realm of action and reaction where it can be repeated 99% of the time. It's what allows for technology and so on. It's very useful and it is dumb to not use it.


Not all science is "useful"... Science is about understanding and observation.. its a "way of thinking"...


understanding and observation. Both functions of consciousness/soul/god.



Negative... you are applying the same BS to consciousness as before... series of chemical reactions that you are the one adding the importance to it... you refuse to believe that it could really just be that simple...


ok, so tell me how a series of chemical reactions creates the ability to observer, understand and be aware? What are these magical chemicals? What is so special about them that they create these things? Absurd IMO.



Anything that you say Science doesn't understand... science will understand eventually. Scientific knowledge is on an exponential growth curve...


Who has blind faith now?




Thats all it is... brain waves and chemicals... point blank period. Why must it be so important? If animals are conscious, than I doubt they know "god"


If they are consciousness, then they are god. And if it's just random brain waves and chemicals, then how do you get random from a world of action and reaction?




Both are the products of chemical reactions and electrical currents... Thought is nothing but the sum of biological reactions...


See, we already discussed this. I remember now why I said I was leaving the thread. Chemical reactions and electrical currents just magically produce consciousness?

Tell me, have they identified these things yet? Can you provide any proof that this is true? Or are you just operating on blind faith because you have faith and believe that one day that is what the science will prove?




Arrogance is assuming that you're special... or that your anything more than a meat puppet


My flesh is a meat puppet. I am the one that pulls it's strings.



assuming your superior to other life forms.. .being a tree, insect, or mammal,


Yawn, where did I claim to be superior?



Assuming a divine being would want to waste their time on what is essentially smaller than a microbe compared to the universe,


It's not an assumption. You assume I'm making what I say up. You think I am a liar.



automatically assuming that there must be some "purpose" set forth, just for you and your fellow microbes... THAT is the epitome of arrogance...


Opposed to assuming the opposite? An assumption is an assumption either way. Assumptions being true is the epitome of arrogance. You just think I'm a liar is all.



Its not pretty or "warm and fuzzy"... but, there is only one thing special about each person... and that is the sum of their DNA... and in the grand scheme of things...the DNA of a single individual isn't all that important.


Why do you keep assuming it's all warm and fuzzy, it's not. Realizing the truth requires being comforted after. When you realize what the world truly is, and what exactly is and has been going on, it's not all warm and fuzzy. It's quite the opposite.

Well good luck, we are just repeating previous points as I figured before, there is no new discussion going on between us.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
That is what I'm saying - that I don't know either way.
But that does not make it 50%.
I don't know if a Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM exists or not, but there's no evidence to support him.
Are you an agnostic where Purple Cookie Monsters are concerned?
I'd be willing to bet that your pretty darn sure that they don't exist...


Be sure of what you know is in your perspective, rather than what is or possibly could be. That is the honest opinion for someone who doesn't know god, and is respectable. If you can be honest that you don't know, then you can start to seek out answers.



Also, I could use your argument against you.
You also have an extremely tiny perspective of the universe.
Is it not possible that God (assuming he does exist) is actually evil and is trying to trick humanity?
Is it not possible that God is Satan and Satan is God?
Is it not possible that Zeus is God, but he created humans to believe there is a God so that other gods will go after an imaginary God instead of Zeus?

The probability must be the same for each scenario, as there is no evidence for or against any of it.
Yet you do not consider yourself unsure where God is concerned, even given an infinite number possibilities.


I didn't claim god was real until I knew for sure. Before that, I actually put the probability he was real, I just figured nobody knew 1 way or another.

All you are doing is addressing what people have said about god, just as you bring up the zeus stuff. Not debating me, debating what other people say. Whats the point? I gotta stick up for everything everyone else does and says?



You missed my point.
I created a list in a previous post which had a few of the evils of the Bible.
Two of them were God's actions:
* Destroying the first born sons just because the pharaoh was stubborn
* Killing everyone in Noah's flood who was evil, yet forgetting that there must have been countless children and newborns who were innocent

Then you replied and said that was not God.

Don't you see the error?


I said I do not know. It is possible people attributed the things to god, I do not know. I wasn't there, I didn't write it. Ask a Jewish person and they will tell you those things are allegorical. I don't know.



You believe Jesus, yet Jesus claimed the God who committed these evil acts was his father. He never said "My father never killed the first born just because of the pharaoh". He never set the record straight, so he essentially tied himself to everything that was written about his father.


No, you are tieing him to the things written about the father, he tied himself to the actual father.



If what you said was true, then he would have told everyone that the Torah was wrong and was not of God.


He did point out they were not following the laws of god, but the traditions of men.



He also never told them that the absurd laws in deuteronomy (which was part of their law which they believed was from God) were not from God.


He pointed out they were not following the commandments of god right. There understanding of them - and your understanding of them based on what is written, is not the true understanding.



You've said that we are taking the worst parts of the Bible and using it to portray Jesus. But don't you see, he did that himself by tying himself TO the God of the Torah who committed such vial acts...


No, you are just taking the understandings of the time that were written down as being the father. These stories were passed around orally for quite some time and so on. If you want to understand the OT and what is being shown then you should talk to Jewish people at least. I'm pretty sure they do not like it when people take just the written and do not have the oral understanding along with it. Truth is, you don't know what it really means, and I don't either.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
lol, true that.
One could even make the argument that we have 'negative evidence' of God's existence, as if he truly existed, people would be performing miracles all around. The extraordinary would be ordinary.

At least the Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM makes no such promises - therefor making him immune to such arguments
. Crafty guy...

May his cookie live long and prosper with eternal tastiness.


Ah yes, mock and ridicule. Woohoo, what I fool I am right? I must be a liar or ignorant to have my beliefs right?

Good luck.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join