Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 18, 2004, 07:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Larry, you still have no proof that god doesn't exist...only proof that some people are morons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
He doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist, the case for proof of existence has yet to be presented.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In his post he claimed to have proof that god couldn't exist because of examples he provided where people did foolish things.

There is neither proof that god exists or that he doesn't exist. To choose either side is neither true or false...it's simply opinions and semantics.

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 01:32 am

MRS Einstien

In refference to aliens; I don't know FOR SURE that they are
aliens but it seems statistically probable given the massive size and scope of the universe. Furthermore I am endlessly amused at Christians that ignore parts of the Bible that don't make sense or are irrelevant based upon new science. If you are a true Christian then you are obligated to believe in the WHOLE Bible as the work of men inspired by God, not just the parts that make you feel good inside. That means you MUST believe Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc, that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the one sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"). You can't just ignore the parts that you know are bs to allow you to you to keep believing that you are a special creature that will never really die. In regards to the specifics in the Bible it is also important that the Catholic Church forced Galileo into house arrest for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite, and then promptly changed the Bible knowing that Galileo's evidence was above refute. The proponents of the Bible weren't given this luxory after the Bible was made availible to the common man. That's why the Pope had John Wycliff (the man that translated the Bible into English) assasinated, for taking away their ability to control the "word of God".

I also noticed that you simply ignored the part of my argument <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded
c) Because pretty much every religious person is convinced that they know the plan of the all powerfull creator of the universe or at least know what moral code that creator wants man to abide by, they get particullarly zealous in regards to promoting this moral and ethical code. This has lead to horrific things such as The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jihads, genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars and enforcement of draconian justice (prostitution laws and drug laws in this country [America] and horrific things like stoning executions of women that endevour to learn to read, cutting off of limbs for things as simple as theft in hardline Islamic countries and dowry burnings and the like in India where Hindism is the thing). While I concede that religion also creates a culture of charity and philanthropy in many cases, this doesn't absolve religion from it's responsibility for the horrific acts perpetrated by it's adherents. I can also hear you thinking "Well that's just the sinful nature of man, not the fault of God", it's is because these people believe in God and the superiority of "His" moral code that these sort of things occure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
this describes why religion is a bad thing to subscribe to in easily quantifiable terms.

I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die. How is God tangible if not through human senses?

To reply to Larry
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You might have noted that you really pissed me off when you put me on an even footing with nutcases? You agnostic, you.

larry <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I couched my argument in noninflamitory terms to ease the exitement of all those fundies out there. It was my goal to try to calm them before the onslaught of logic in the interest of gaining some semblance of reason within them. I'M NO AGNOSTIC!!! I've done ample amounts of research into the origins of every major religion and can safely say that I'm sure each one of them is no more than an attempt by a small group of individuals to garner some sort of allegeance to a narrowminded moral code by massive amounts of people. I beg your forgiveness in relation to equating your stalward arguments to those of the agnostics.

Sorry if there's any point I missed... but I've been in the habbit of having a few drinks before I get on to do my posting in the evening.

Poetic_Justice · Feb 19, 2004, 01:54 am

Well libertyminded,

I agree, anyone who subscribes to Christianity at least, must take the whole Bible, unless they somehow have divine revelation from God as to what's true and what's not

As our only knowledge of Christ is from the Bible, to deny one part of the Bible, is to deny it all, and to deny it all, is to deny Christ. If you deny Christ, you're obviously not a Christian.

Now, on to the meat. I'll agree that the religion of many is directly to blame for many atrocities, and indirectly or partially to blame for many others. However, from my experience it seems like people will construct their own religion if the religion they start with won't help them out in their ambitions. Also, it usually seems like if you actually get into the fundamentals of many religions, they actually deny the actions of 'fundamentalists'(a very strange name for those who ignore large aprts of their religions).

One obvious example that I'll show is Christianity. In the Old Testament God ordained many wars of the Israelites, so the Church said, see, He wants us to have inquisitions, crusades, etc. They however ignored how God punished Israelite kings when they attacked unbelievers whom He had NOT commanded them to asttack. Considering that the Church says that God doesn't talk to them through anything but the Bible anymore, it would be kind of hard for Him to tell the Church to excise some group of infidels wouldn't you say? Yet 'fundamentalists' easily ignore this. I prefer to call fundamentalists "Violent Choosers" because that is what they do, they choose that which justifies their violence, rather than observing the fundamentals of their religion.

Another good example is the muslim extremists who preach jihads against the Jews, whilst Mohammed himself told them that Jews and Christians were to be respected.

One can also go into the more recent examples of Atheists in places like Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist Ethiopia to show again that any belief can be twisted to man's ambition and hatred for one another.

One of my favourite examples is that of the father who teaches his son about "the birds, the bees, and the F-18's". Why? Because reproduction for most people seems centered around the need for more soldiers.

Liberty For All,
Dave

Poetic_Justice · Feb 19, 2004, 01:55 am

Oh, and I almost forgot, thank you libertyminded for being respectful and polite in your posts. I love to see civility :)

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 02:12 am

MRS Einstien

In refference to aliens; I don't know FOR SURE that there are
aliens but it seems statistically probable given the massive size and scope of the universe.
Furthermore I am endlessly amused at Christians that ignore parts of the Bible that don't make sense or are irrelevant based upon new science. If you are a true Christian then you are obligated to believe in the WHOLE Bible as the work of men inspired by God, not just the parts that make you feel good inside. That means you MUST believe Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc, that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"), that eternal torture awaits all those that have died without accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal savior", that this whole universe is only 10,000 years old, that women are inherently unstable and only to be thought of as second class citizens if not outright property. You can't just ignore the parts that you know are bs to allow you to you to keep believing that you are a special creature that will never really die. You cannot selectively subscribe to things that make you feel good and deny those that conflict with undeniable facts.
In regards to the specifics in the Bible it is also important to note that the Catholic Church forced Galileo into house arrest for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite, and then promptly changed the Bible knowing that Galileo's evidence was above refute. The proponents of the Bible weren't given this luxory of control after the Bible was made availible to the common man. That's why the Pope had John Wycliff (the man that translated the Bible into English) assasinated, for taking away their ability to control the "word of God".

I also noticed that you simply ignored the part of my argument <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded
c) Because pretty much every religious person is convinced that they know the plan of the all powerfull creator of the universe or at least know what moral code that creator wants man to abide by, they get particullarly zealous in regards to promoting this moral and ethical code. This has lead to horrific things such as The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jihads, genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars and enforcement of draconian justice (prostitution laws and drug laws in this country [America] and horrific things like stoning executions of women that endevour to learn to read, cutting off of limbs for things as simple as theft in hardline Islamic countries and dowry burnings and the like in India where Hindism is the thing). While I concede that religion also creates a culture of charity and philanthropy in many cases, this doesn't absolve religion from it's responsibility for the horrific acts perpetrated by it's adherents. I can also hear you thinking "Well that's just the sinful nature of man, not the fault of God", it's is because these people believe in God and the superiority of "His" moral code that these sort of things occure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
this describes why religion is a bad thing to subscribe to in easily quantifiable terms.

I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die. How is God tangible if not through human senses?

To reply to Larry
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You might have noted that you really pissed me off when you put me on an even footing with nutcases? You agnostic, you.

larry <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I couched my argument in noninflamitory terms to ease the exitement of all those fundies out there. It was my goal to try to calm them before the onslaught of logic in the interest of gaining some semblance of reason within them. I'M NO AGNOSTIC!!! I've done ample amounts of research into the origins of every major religion and can safely say that I'm sure each one of them is no more than an attempt by a small group of individuals to garner some sort of allegeance to a narrowminded moral code by massive amounts of people. I beg your forgiveness in relation to equating your stalward arguments to those of the agnostics.

Sorry if there's any point I missed... but I've been in the habbit of having a few drinks before I get on to do my posting in the evening. And everyone remember:

"The most informed argument is usually the correct one" -Socrates

for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds.

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 02:13 am

Looks like I posted twice somehow... sorry folks

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 02:14 am

the second post is better take it as value.

Anniee · Feb 19, 2004, 02:47 am

"I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die."

"for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds"

I was raised by nonbelievers and I was a staunch atheist (not agnostic) until I was an adult. Being of high intelligence, I need things proven to me. Christianity in particular was loathsome to me. It was my own endless hours (years) of study seeking REAL information that led to my belief in the bible, not the other way around. I was quite hostile to the possibility that it was true in fact, and not easily won. While many people (probably the majority) do become Christians via very subjective and emotional means, NOT ALL DO. Some of us do so first through our minds - in fact nothing else would have ever reached me, much less some emotional experience. So your characterization, in addition to being wrong, makes some very insulting assumptions about the intelligence, effort, and amount of study someone might have put into their decision.

I could list many scientists, from nuclear physicists to FERMI lab authorities to astrophysicists and Nobel winners, all who believe in the Christian God. While I'm not appealing to authority here, I am noting that I'd enjoy seeing you tell some of them they haven't put in the hours of getting REAL information or that they have "inferior (or subjective) minds".

**Pooeypants** · Feb 19, 2004, 03:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PaulOtt,)
Have you ever questioned why you assume your five senses are the highest authority? What aspects of our world are defined by the senses? Have you ever begun from the other end of the spectrum, and considered how God might be and how you might be able to detect Him without presuming an impersonal, repeatable experiment using your five senses (all the while not even believing that He exists) is the only way?

Just some questions to ponder.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I have wondered, if I can never detect God (directly or indirectly) then why should I assume God exists, infact why should I care? If God is undetectable then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe and hence might as well not exist at all. I don't need imaginary beings in my life, why do you?

**Pooeypants** · Feb 19, 2004, 03:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
the second post is better take it as value.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You can modify the post you know. :rolleyes:

Anniee · Feb 19, 2004, 03:42 am

Actually...

"If God is undetectable [by our 5 senses]"

doesn't logically lead to...

"then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe."

necessarily. I'm just saying. You don't have to care about the existence of God, though; that's entirely your prerogative.

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 03:48 am

Well then Aniee, maybe you could take a moment to explain how your "logical" mind was able to overcome the intellectual acrobatics reqired to ignore things like
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded
Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc (in spite of the fact that there are at least 15 phisically distinct races, animals like kangaroos and polar bears confined to specific climate and geographically isolated regions, Native Americans on the other side of the world from where Noah is supposed to have ended his journey with NO shipbuilding technology), that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"), that eternal torture awaits all those that have died without accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal savior" regardles of personal happenstance, that this whole universe is only 10,000 years old, that women are inherently unstable and only to be thought of as second class citizens if not outright property<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Or any of the other impossibilities laid out for the existance of the Christian God.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded

1. If God is omnipotent, does he also have the ability to strip himself of his omnipotence? (Can God create an object that he cannot destroy?)

2. God cannot both be the creator of all things and yet be omnibenevolent. For if God is the creator of all things that would mean that he was also the creator of all evil, ergo he cannot be omnibenevolent.

3. If nothing comes from nothing, and all things in existance require a creator, then God too must have required a creator of some sort, meaning that God's existance would be reliant upon an even more powerful creator, which is impossible because you don't get anymore powerful then all "all-powerful" (omnipotent) correct?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

or even
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded

1) This God is supposed to trancend time and space right? He doesn't exist on the same physical plain we do. Also he is all-knowing. Yet for some reason, at certain points he is required to exist on a finite plain, meaning he has to exist within certain boundries (which flies in the face of being an omnipotent being but that's comming later) Examples of when God must exist within normal space time would be durring the creation of the universe. According to the Bible, God set about specific tasks, like creating the sun and animals and what not in a sequential order. Meaning God took time to do things meaning he was existing on a linear (or third dimensional) plain. He did not just create the future and the past all at once. So now God no longer trancends time but rather, just like you an me, is confined to a linear existance. How do you confine an all powerful being?

2) If I'm missing something and God is, for some inexplicable reason able to trancend time then there is no such thing as free will. If God is the creator of all things then he created and engineered everything from start to finnish all at once, including every decision ever made. This follows a simple cause and effect logic pattern. We humans are confined to that damn linear existance thing. If you and I are all just a creation of some giant prairie ape in the sky then whatever we do has already been predestined. This is especially true if you believe that God controls certains events. Like say freeing the Jews from Egypt or whatever. As the story tells it, God doesn't come down with an army and smash Pharoh and ride off into the sunset with his chosen people but rather through pestilence and plauge eventually Pharoh decides (on his own, as in free will) that he needs to free the Jews. So my question is this; how can we have free will if God has a "plan" for us. See, cause and effect... it's quite simple really. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thanks

Anniee · Feb 19, 2004, 04:15 am

Not really. My point wasn't to debate or even discuss the content of my studies but merely that they existed and were the means by which I came to believe the bible was true. That it isn't, as you characterized it, always an emotional decision and definitely not always a case of "believing what you were told/brainwashed" (the opposite in my case; my family turned against me for this, and I never believe what I'm told.) You'll notice I'm not on the evolution/creation debate either; not because I have no knowledge but because I've done it to death. I've made the only point I intended to make.

If your interest in the questions you asked is genuine I'm always willing to give book lists.

m5lange1 · Feb 19, 2004, 11:05 am

EDIT: Please note I was in error attributing this quote to Anniee. It, indeed was not hers. I thought it only fair that I leave it as is and admit my error rather than deleting it so that references Annie made to it will make sense.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Anniee
"for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Regarding the phrase "inferior minds". Could you please clarify inferior to whom, or whose if you prefer.?

Anniee · Feb 19, 2004, 11:29 am

It isn't MY QUOTE, I pasted two quotes from Libertyminded and then replied...which is very clear if you note the vast difference in that his quotes are antireligious and mine are those of someone who believes in God, and also clear if you continue reading the post, or if you'd read his posts. The portion you quoted was me quoting him.

PaulOtt · Feb 19, 2004, 12:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
I have wondered, if I can never detect God (directly or indirectly) then why should I assume God exists, infact why should I care? If God is undetectable then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe and hence might as well not exist at all. I don't need imaginary beings in my life, why do you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>But God is detectable. The point I have been trying to make (seemingly unsuccessfully) is that you, nor anyone else, should expect God to reveal Himself through the scientific method. This does not mean He cannot reveal Himself physically, because He can. This does not mean you cannot detect Him, because you can. You currently do not acknowledge Him because you require an impersonal, repeatable experiment with a controlled subject. To the best of my knowledge and personal experience, this is not how He chooses to manifest Himself before inquirying hearts. "Do not test the LORD your God..."

It is akin to sticking your head in the sand then complaining that you cannot see anyone.

Remove your own self-imposed requirements and hoops for God, and approach Him with humble sincerity. Then, perhaps, you will truly see.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 19, 2004, 12:41 pm

From your point of view, it's a futile argument, so you can keep your blind faith and I'll keep to logic and reason. Now we're all happy.

From PP's bible - "Do not follow blindly, test and question everything if need be"

**Pooeypants** · Feb 19, 2004, 12:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
Actually...

"If God is undetectable [by our 5 senses]"

doesn't logically lead to...

"then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe."

necessarily. I'm just saying. You don't have to care about the existence of God, though; that's entirely your prerogative.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
When I say undetectable it includes any instruments we have, direct or indirect observations. A deity interacting on the universe could be observed as indirect evidence, hence the logic does follow as it is what we are limited to assuming.

libertyminded · Feb 19, 2004, 03:20 pm

If there were any such thing as incontrovertible proof of God's existance I'm entirely sure whoever had it would let the whole world know in short order. God is, of necessity unprovable, that's is why he requires you to have "faith". And as we've all gone over in these posts, faith is what you call believing in something WITHOUT proof.

Herein lies the problem for me and a lot of other athiests on this thread. We base our understanding of this world entirely on what can be tested and proven in an effort to run our lives as we wish without outside coercion as far as is possible and make an objective, educated judgement as to where we came from and what the future holds. Enter religion: a moral code that is forced upon or willingly accepted by people with no testable or provable basis or reasoning for forcing you to abide by said code.

When I go and study religions and find out where it started and why I ALWAYS find some sordid origins and multiple PROVABLE inconsistancies in the claims of "sacred texts" many of which I laid out in previous posts.

I often hear from the religious that my position is a result of my own human pride and arrogance and there may be some truth to this. My counterpoint to this is that a desire for personal liberty is not a sinister motivation and that I'm perfectly willing to supress selfish motivations insofar as I look down upon any personal action that infringes upon another individual's person or property. Indeed it seems to me that the religious person's desire to force others to adhere to their religious moral code is in itself a much more arrogant and pridefull motivation than any other.

Poetic_Justice · Feb 19, 2004, 03:34 pm

Of course, does not the foundation of any person's beliefs require faith?

View Poll Results: Do you believe that a god exists?
Yes	72	45.86%
No	58	36.94%
I don't know	27	17.20%
Voters: 157. You may not vote

Feb 18, 2004, 07:34 pm	#181 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Larry, you still have no proof that god doesn't exist...only proof that some people are morons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist, the case for proof of existence has yet to be presented.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In his post he claimed to have proof that god couldn't exist because of examples he provided where people did foolish things. There is neither proof that god exists or that he doesn't exist. To choose either side is neither true or false...it's simply opinions and semantics.

Feb 19, 2004, 01:32 am	#182 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	MRS Einstien In refference to aliens; I don't know FOR SURE that they are aliens but it seems statistically probable given the massive size and scope of the universe. Furthermore I am endlessly amused at Christians that ignore parts of the Bible that don't make sense or are irrelevant based upon new science. If you are a true Christian then you are obligated to believe in the WHOLE Bible as the work of men inspired by God, not just the parts that make you feel good inside. That means you MUST believe Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc, that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the one sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"). You can't just ignore the parts that you know are bs to allow you to you to keep believing that you are a special creature that will never really die. In regards to the specifics in the Bible it is also important that the Catholic Church forced Galileo into house arrest for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite, and then promptly changed the Bible knowing that Galileo's evidence was above refute. The proponents of the Bible weren't given this luxory after the Bible was made availible to the common man. That's why the Pope had John Wycliff (the man that translated the Bible into English) assasinated, for taking away their ability to control the "word of God". I also noticed that you simply ignored the part of my argument </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded c) Because pretty much every religious person is convinced that they know the plan of the all powerfull creator of the universe or at least know what moral code that creator wants man to abide by, they get particullarly zealous in regards to promoting this moral and ethical code. This has lead to horrific things such as The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jihads, genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars and enforcement of draconian justice (prostitution laws and drug laws in this country [America] and horrific things like stoning executions of women that endevour to learn to read, cutting off of limbs for things as simple as theft in hardline Islamic countries and dowry burnings and the like in India where Hindism is the thing). While I concede that religion also creates a culture of charity and philanthropy in many cases, this doesn't absolve religion from it's responsibility for the horrific acts perpetrated by it's adherents. I can also hear you thinking "Well that's just the sinful nature of man, not the fault of God", it's is because these people believe in God and the superiority of "His" moral code that these sort of things occure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> this describes why religion is a bad thing to subscribe to in easily quantifiable terms. I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die. How is God tangible if not through human senses? To reply to Larry </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You might have noted that you really pissed me off when you put me on an even footing with nutcases? You agnostic, you. larry <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I couched my argument in noninflamitory terms to ease the exitement of all those fundies out there. It was my goal to try to calm them before the onslaught of logic in the interest of gaining some semblance of reason within them. I'M NO AGNOSTIC!!! I've done ample amounts of research into the origins of every major religion and can safely say that I'm sure each one of them is no more than an attempt by a small group of individuals to garner some sort of allegeance to a narrowminded moral code by massive amounts of people. I beg your forgiveness in relation to equating your stalward arguments to those of the agnostics. Sorry if there's any point I missed... but I've been in the habbit of having a few drinks before I get on to do my posting in the evening. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 02:12 am	#185 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	MRS Einstien In refference to aliens; I don't know FOR SURE that there are aliens but it seems statistically probable given the massive size and scope of the universe. Furthermore I am endlessly amused at Christians that ignore parts of the Bible that don't make sense or are irrelevant based upon new science. If you are a true Christian then you are obligated to believe in the WHOLE Bible as the work of men inspired by God, not just the parts that make you feel good inside. That means you MUST believe Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc, that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"), that eternal torture awaits all those that have died without accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal savior", that this whole universe is only 10,000 years old, that women are inherently unstable and only to be thought of as second class citizens if not outright property. You can't just ignore the parts that you know are bs to allow you to you to keep believing that you are a special creature that will never really die. You cannot selectively subscribe to things that make you feel good and deny those that conflict with undeniable facts. In regards to the specifics in the Bible it is also important to note that the Catholic Church forced Galileo into house arrest for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite, and then promptly changed the Bible knowing that Galileo's evidence was above refute. The proponents of the Bible weren't given this luxory of control after the Bible was made availible to the common man. That's why the Pope had John Wycliff (the man that translated the Bible into English) assasinated, for taking away their ability to control the "word of God". I also noticed that you simply ignored the part of my argument </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded c) Because pretty much every religious person is convinced that they know the plan of the all powerfull creator of the universe or at least know what moral code that creator wants man to abide by, they get particullarly zealous in regards to promoting this moral and ethical code. This has lead to horrific things such as The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jihads, genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars and enforcement of draconian justice (prostitution laws and drug laws in this country [America] and horrific things like stoning executions of women that endevour to learn to read, cutting off of limbs for things as simple as theft in hardline Islamic countries and dowry burnings and the like in India where Hindism is the thing). While I concede that religion also creates a culture of charity and philanthropy in many cases, this doesn't absolve religion from it's responsibility for the horrific acts perpetrated by it's adherents. I can also hear you thinking "Well that's just the sinful nature of man, not the fault of God", it's is because these people believe in God and the superiority of "His" moral code that these sort of things occure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> this describes why religion is a bad thing to subscribe to in easily quantifiable terms. I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die. How is God tangible if not through human senses? To reply to Larry </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You might have noted that you really pissed me off when you put me on an even footing with nutcases? You agnostic, you. larry <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I couched my argument in noninflamitory terms to ease the exitement of all those fundies out there. It was my goal to try to calm them before the onslaught of logic in the interest of gaining some semblance of reason within them. I'M NO AGNOSTIC!!! I've done ample amounts of research into the origins of every major religion and can safely say that I'm sure each one of them is no more than an attempt by a small group of individuals to garner some sort of allegeance to a narrowminded moral code by massive amounts of people. I beg your forgiveness in relation to equating your stalward arguments to those of the agnostics. Sorry if there's any point I missed... but I've been in the habbit of having a few drinks before I get on to do my posting in the evening. And everyone remember: "The most informed argument is usually the correct one" -Socrates for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 02:13 am	#186 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	Looks like I posted twice somehow... sorry folks "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 01:54 am	#183 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Well libertyminded, I agree, anyone who subscribes to Christianity at least, must take the whole Bible, unless they somehow have divine revelation from God as to what's true and what's not As our only knowledge of Christ is from the Bible, to deny one part of the Bible, is to deny it all, and to deny it all, is to deny Christ. If you deny Christ, you're obviously not a Christian. Now, on to the meat. I'll agree that the religion of many is directly to blame for many atrocities, and indirectly or partially to blame for many others. However, from my experience it seems like people will construct their own religion if the religion they start with won't help them out in their ambitions. Also, it usually seems like if you actually get into the fundamentals of many religions, they actually deny the actions of 'fundamentalists'(a very strange name for those who ignore large aprts of their religions). One obvious example that I'll show is Christianity. In the Old Testament God ordained many wars of the Israelites, so the Church said, see, He wants us to have inquisitions, crusades, etc. They however ignored how God punished Israelite kings when they attacked unbelievers whom He had NOT commanded them to asttack. Considering that the Church says that God doesn't talk to them through anything but the Bible anymore, it would be kind of hard for Him to tell the Church to excise some group of infidels wouldn't you say? Yet 'fundamentalists' easily ignore this. I prefer to call fundamentalists "Violent Choosers" because that is what they do, they choose that which justifies their violence, rather than observing the fundamentals of their religion. Another good example is the muslim extremists who preach jihads against the Jews, whilst Mohammed himself told them that Jews and Christians were to be respected. One can also go into the more recent examples of Atheists in places like Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist Ethiopia to show again that any belief can be twisted to man's ambition and hatred for one another. One of my favourite examples is that of the father who teaches his son about "the birds, the bees, and the F-18's". Why? Because reproduction for most people seems centered around the need for more soldiers. Liberty For All, Dave

Feb 19, 2004, 01:55 am	#184 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Oh, and I almost forgot, thank you libertyminded for being respectful and polite in your posts. I love to see civility :)

Feb 19, 2004, 02:14 am	#187 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	the second post is better take it as value. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 02:47 am	#188 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	"I am having a tough time wrapping my mind around this "God is not subject to our senses" argument. If God's not subject to these senses then how did any of you religious folk come to an understanding of Him in the first place. I can only assume you used your sense of sight to read the Bible, your sense of sound to listen to your parents and sunday school teachers when they were brainwashing you and your sense of emotion when you got that warm feeling inside once you'd convinced yourself that you would never really die." "for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds" I was raised by nonbelievers and I was a staunch atheist (not agnostic) until I was an adult. Being of high intelligence, I need things proven to me. Christianity in particular was loathsome to me. It was my own endless hours (years) of study seeking REAL information that led to my belief in the bible, not the other way around. I was quite hostile to the possibility that it was true in fact, and not easily won. While many people (probably the majority) do become Christians via very subjective and emotional means, NOT ALL DO. Some of us do so first through our minds - in fact nothing else would have ever reached me, much less some emotional experience. So your characterization, in addition to being wrong, makes some very insulting assumptions about the intelligence, effort, and amount of study someone might have put into their decision. I could list many scientists, from nuclear physicists to FERMI lab authorities to astrophysicists and Nobel winners, all who believe in the Christian God. While I'm not appealing to authority here, I am noting that I'd enjoy seeing you tell some of them they haven't put in the hours of getting REAL information or that they have "inferior (or subjective) minds". Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 19, 2004, 03:38 am	#189 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PaulOtt,) Have you ever questioned why you assume your five senses are the highest authority? What aspects of our world are defined by the senses? Have you ever begun from the other end of the spectrum, and considered how God might be and how you might be able to detect Him without presuming an impersonal, repeatable experiment using your five senses (all the while not even believing that He exists) is the only way? Just some questions to ponder.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have wondered, if I can never detect God (directly or indirectly) then why should I assume God exists, infact why should I care? If God is undetectable then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe and hence might as well not exist at all. I don't need imaginary beings in my life, why do you? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 19, 2004, 03:41 am	#190 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,) the second post is better take it as value.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can modify the post you know. :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 19, 2004, 03:42 am	#191 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	Actually... "If God is undetectable [by our 5 senses]" doesn't logically lead to... "then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe." necessarily. I'm just saying. You don't have to care about the existence of God, though; that's entirely your prerogative. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 19, 2004, 03:48 am	#192 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	Well then Aniee, maybe you could take a moment to explain how your "logical" mind was able to overcome the intellectual acrobatics reqired to ignore things like </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded Jonah survived inside of a whale, that all the animals and people in this world are decendants of occupants of the Arc (in spite of the fact that there are at least 15 phisically distinct races, animals like kangaroos and polar bears confined to specific climate and geographically isolated regions, Native Americans on the other side of the world from where Noah is supposed to have ended his journey with NO shipbuilding technology), that Josuah really did make the sun stand still (of course we know the sun doesn't move), that man is the sole sentient creation of God, that God created all other animals and THEN man (and then rested, althogh I don't see why an omnipotent thing like God would even need a "rest"), that eternal torture awaits all those that have died without accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal savior" regardles of personal happenstance, that this whole universe is only 10,000 years old, that women are inherently unstable and only to be thought of as second class citizens if not outright property<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Or any of the other impossibilities laid out for the existance of the Christian God. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded 1. If God is omnipotent, does he also have the ability to strip himself of his omnipotence? (Can God create an object that he cannot destroy?) 2. God cannot both be the creator of all things and yet be omnibenevolent. For if God is the creator of all things that would mean that he was also the creator of all evil, ergo he cannot be omnibenevolent. 3. If nothing comes from nothing, and all things in existance require a creator, then God too must have required a creator of some sort, meaning that God's existance would be reliant upon an even more powerful creator, which is impossible because you don't get anymore powerful then all "all-powerful" (omnipotent) correct? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> or even </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded 1) This God is supposed to trancend time and space right? He doesn't exist on the same physical plain we do. Also he is all-knowing. Yet for some reason, at certain points he is required to exist on a finite plain, meaning he has to exist within certain boundries (which flies in the face of being an omnipotent being but that's comming later) Examples of when God must exist within normal space time would be durring the creation of the universe. According to the Bible, God set about specific tasks, like creating the sun and animals and what not in a sequential order. Meaning God took time to do things meaning he was existing on a linear (or third dimensional) plain. He did not just create the future and the past all at once. So now God no longer trancends time but rather, just like you an me, is confined to a linear existance. How do you confine an all powerful being? 2) If I'm missing something and God is, for some inexplicable reason able to trancend time then there is no such thing as free will. If God is the creator of all things then he created and engineered everything from start to finnish all at once, including every decision ever made. This follows a simple cause and effect logic pattern. We humans are confined to that damn linear existance thing. If you and I are all just a creation of some giant prairie ape in the sky then whatever we do has already been predestined. This is especially true if you believe that God controls certains events. Like say freeing the Jews from Egypt or whatever. As the story tells it, God doesn't come down with an army and smash Pharoh and ride off into the sunset with his chosen people but rather through pestilence and plauge eventually Pharoh decides (on his own, as in free will) that he needs to free the Jews. So my question is this; how can we have free will if God has a "plan" for us. See, cause and effect... it's quite simple really. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thanks "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 04:15 am	#193 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	Not really. My point wasn't to debate or even discuss the content of my studies but merely that they existed and were the means by which I came to believe the bible was true. That it isn't, as you characterized it, always an emotional decision and definitely not always a case of "believing what you were told/brainwashed" (the opposite in my case; my family turned against me for this, and I never believe what I'm told.) You'll notice I'm not on the evolution/creation debate either; not because I have no knowledge but because I've done it to death. I've made the only point I intended to make. If your interest in the questions you asked is genuine I'm always willing to give book lists. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 19, 2004, 11:05 am	#194 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 650	EDIT: Please note I was in error attributing this quote to Anniee. It, indeed was not hers. I thought it only fair that I leave it as is and admit my error rather than deleting it so that references Annie made to it will make sense. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Anniee "for those of us that have spent endless hours informing ourselves in regard to REAL information and facts, the arguments from those of you that base your undestanding of this world on your subjective emotions are nothing more than the quiveling of inferior minds"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Regarding the phrase "inferior minds". Could you please clarify inferior to whom, or whose if you prefer.? Protester against the culture war!!!!

Feb 19, 2004, 11:29 am	#195 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	It isn't MY QUOTE, I pasted two quotes from Libertyminded and then replied...which is very clear if you note the vast difference in that his quotes are antireligious and mine are those of someone who believes in God, and also clear if you continue reading the post, or if you'd read his posts. The portion you quoted was me quoting him. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 19, 2004, 12:13 pm	#196 (permalink) (top)
PaulOtt Sedimentary Rock Location: Tennessee Posts: 13	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) I have wondered, if I can never detect God (directly or indirectly) then why should I assume God exists, infact why should I care? If God is undetectable then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe and hence might as well not exist at all. I don't need imaginary beings in my life, why do you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>But God is detectable. The point I have been trying to make (seemingly unsuccessfully) is that you, nor anyone else, should expect God to reveal Himself through the scientific method. This does not mean He cannot reveal Himself physically, because He can. This does not mean you cannot detect Him, because you can. You currently do not acknowledge Him because you require an impersonal, repeatable experiment with a controlled subject. To the best of my knowledge and personal experience, this is not how He chooses to manifest Himself before inquirying hearts. "Do not test the LORD your God..." It is akin to sticking your head in the sand then complaining that you cannot see anyone. Remove your own self-imposed requirements and hoops for God, and approach Him with humble sincerity. Then, perhaps, you will truly see. <span style='font-family:Verdana'><span style='color:purple'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>God lives.</span></span></span> <span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'>--------------------</span>

Feb 19, 2004, 12:41 pm	#197 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	From your point of view, it's a futile argument, so you can keep your blind faith and I'll keep to logic and reason. Now we're all happy. From PP's bible - "Do not follow blindly, test and question everything if need be" War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 19, 2004, 12:45 pm	#198 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,) Actually... "If God is undetectable [by our 5 senses]" doesn't logically lead to... "then the said deity wouldn't interact with this universe." necessarily. I'm just saying. You don't have to care about the existence of God, though; that's entirely your prerogative.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> When I say undetectable it includes any instruments we have, direct or indirect observations. A deity interacting on the universe could be observed as indirect evidence, hence the logic does follow as it is what we are limited to assuming. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 19, 2004, 03:20 pm	#199 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	If there were any such thing as incontrovertible proof of God's existance I'm entirely sure whoever had it would let the whole world know in short order. God is, of necessity unprovable, that's is why he requires you to have "faith". And as we've all gone over in these posts, faith is what you call believing in something WITHOUT proof. Herein lies the problem for me and a lot of other athiests on this thread. We base our understanding of this world entirely on what can be tested and proven in an effort to run our lives as we wish without outside coercion as far as is possible and make an objective, educated judgement as to where we came from and what the future holds. Enter religion: a moral code that is forced upon or willingly accepted by people with no testable or provable basis or reasoning for forcing you to abide by said code. When I go and study religions and find out where it started and why I ALWAYS find some sordid origins and multiple PROVABLE inconsistancies in the claims of "sacred texts" many of which I laid out in previous posts. I often hear from the religious that my position is a result of my own human pride and arrogance and there may be some truth to this. My counterpoint to this is that a desire for personal liberty is not a sinister motivation and that I'm perfectly willing to supress selfish motivations insofar as I look down upon any personal action that infringes upon another individual's person or property. Indeed it seems to me that the religious person's desire to force others to adhere to their religious moral code is in itself a much more arrogant and pridefull motivation than any other. "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 19, 2004, 03:34 pm	#200 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Of course, does not the foundation of any person's beliefs require faith?