MVP
Well-Known Member
Fair enough which again leads us to choices. You can chose to believe what is not proven I can chose to not believe what is not proven
God Deniers
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
Fair enough which again leads us to choices. You can chose to believe what is not proven I can chose to not believe what is not proven
MVP
Well-Known Member
Well, it is proven god of thunder or god of water does not exist anymore right? It is matter of time when all myths and legens about gods will vanish.
Again, we should remember that we talk about choices. Some people chose to believe in god some not. It is all good. What is not good is trying to sell old tales, legends and myths as facts.
For example Loch Ness monster - numerous people believe it exists, they claim they saw it and it is real but is it a fact? Not until proven. Same with god.
To piggy-back on the Loch Ness Monster bit...
It's one thing to say it's possible there is some strange creature living in Loch Ness. It's another to say you know there is a strange creature in Loch Ness called the Loch Ness Monster. Just saying you know it to be true and therefore it's up to others to prove that you're wrong is not playing by the rules. You've made an assertion regarding the existence of this creature. If all the evidence you have is some fuzzy images, people who claim to have seen it and your own belief that it's all true then you haven't made the case. None of the physical evidence supports the claims, none of the eye witness accounts can be corroborated and you're belief is irrelevant to the facts.
It's one thing to say it's possible there is some strange creature living in Loch Ness. It's another to say you know there is a strange creature in Loch Ness called the Loch Ness Monster. Just saying you know it to be true and therefore it's up to others to prove that you're wrong is not playing by the rules. You've made an assertion regarding the existence of this creature. If all the evidence you have is some fuzzy images, people who claim to have seen it and your own belief that it's all true then you haven't made the case. None of the physical evidence supports the claims, none of the eye witness accounts can be corroborated and you're belief is irrelevant to the facts.
The physical evidence doesn't prove anythign one way or the other. I believe from personal experience and that is good enough for me.
As well it should be.
If a person who claims to have seen the Loch Ness Monster is sure that what they saw was the Loch Ness Monster then I wouldn't expect to be able to talk them out of their belief. On the same note, their belief is not the kind of proof that would convince me without having seen the Monster myself.
Let's just say, I've never seen the monster.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Good point. Strange that Black Swordsman can't get it that whats good enough for him may be not good enough for others.
While I have some specific God beliefs, it has been my experience that my beliefs can benefit from careful examination, questioning and seeking. . . . . not that I expect the kind of "proof" I can take to bank, to the market, or that I can or should use to bludgeon others into accepting on my say-so.
I make correlating observations about how beliefs are held, and what they are based on. For example, I actually read Darwin's Origin of Species and noted his discussion of why he felt his observations should not relate to people's faith or belief in God. He realized he was seeing stuff that might not fit with a lot of people's fairly uninformed understanding of the Biblical narrative. I have come to accept that our earth is something like about five billion years in it's existence since a lot of our earth mass was displaced from the sun by a high energy event, perhaps. Our Sun is older than that, and is the more likely relevant "source", though I don't understand how Suns are made, or much about their life cycles. . . . I can't imagine how people whose experience is principally herding cattle or wandering in deserts could really be expected to just "know" all about science or theology, and I can't imagine how a "God" who is theoretically practically human in nature, at least so far as thinking and values go, who ostensibly would "know" all about how it was all done, could "teach" people in such a way that the teaching would actually be understood. Well, I mean I could explain nuclear physics to my kids, but it would probably be amusing to hear them explain how they understand it. And that's about what I think of the Biblical account of creation. It's a human account, possibly the result of some kind of attempt to inform the human mind, perhaps "inspired" in some manner.
But let's give the Bible credit. For a very brief story that is marginally readable, it has a lot of facts that appear to be pretty much in order, though perhaps a bit generalized. How the earth was formed in a fluid phase, then how land masses were formed and divided from the "water", and the succession of life forms came along. . . .
Mormons have believed the world is about five billion years old since Joseph Smith said so. We have believed there are other worlds like this, which have existed prior to ours. We have believed life was brought here, and introduced in some some reasonable fashion as conditions permitted, and that we humans have occupied a literally endless succession of worlds, probably navigating around the great universal events somehow or another, far beyond anything we can even begin to explain. It really seems like our arguments based on science are just beginning to warm up to such views. . . . far from "proving" them invalid or impossible.
But it is pretty clear the Mormon beliefs I refer to do not even touch the general Christian effort to correlate God with the Creation of all things, the grand Source of it all. Mormons have made some overtures to trying connect to that, and have tried to pretend their beliefs in God equate with other religions beliefs,to make our Jesus the Creator without actually taking it to the Triune point that Christians came to believe as way to achieve monotheism status while calling Jesus the Son/Redeemer, and an expression of Divinity. . . . but I digress, as usual.
Joseph Smith believed in science, and he believed we could build a better belief system using our intelligence, and had a hobby in deconstruction old sectarian dogmas. . . . . And there were a few wannabe scientists in the ranks of early Mormon leaders, who tried to weave their science into their theology. . . with results we can find amusing today. Because the science they had was pretty ignorant. Folks like that, today, would be glad handing the masses while explaining how evolution is the way God does it.
but it is equally true that Mormon beliefs have not explicitly explained Creation in the first "round" of coming into being. . . . in fact it went originally to the point that Creation goes through endless cycles with absolutely NO Beginning, or end, and we only came to sink into the biblical absolutist account in an effort to pretend to be more "regular" or traditional Christians. Which is something of a compliment to the 4th century theologians who found it logically necessary to wave their hands at all the contradictory scriptures and call it all a mystery we will never understand.
Which is to say Mormons don't really think we know any of these things enough to make a stink about just being absolutely right. . . . and favor emphasizing the relevant values that come to bear on living well, or doing well, with our present circumstances, holding hope that someday we will know the mysteries of existence, when it will actually be relevant to what we're doing. . .
I make correlating observations about how beliefs are held, and what they are based on. For example, I actually read Darwin's Origin of Species and noted his discussion of why he felt his observations should not relate to people's faith or belief in God. He realized he was seeing stuff that might not fit with a lot of people's fairly uninformed understanding of the Biblical narrative. I have come to accept that our earth is something like about five billion years in it's existence since a lot of our earth mass was displaced from the sun by a high energy event, perhaps. Our Sun is older than that, and is the more likely relevant "source", though I don't understand how Suns are made, or much about their life cycles. . . . I can't imagine how people whose experience is principally herding cattle or wandering in deserts could really be expected to just "know" all about science or theology, and I can't imagine how a "God" who is theoretically practically human in nature, at least so far as thinking and values go, who ostensibly would "know" all about how it was all done, could "teach" people in such a way that the teaching would actually be understood. Well, I mean I could explain nuclear physics to my kids, but it would probably be amusing to hear them explain how they understand it. And that's about what I think of the Biblical account of creation. It's a human account, possibly the result of some kind of attempt to inform the human mind, perhaps "inspired" in some manner.
But let's give the Bible credit. For a very brief story that is marginally readable, it has a lot of facts that appear to be pretty much in order, though perhaps a bit generalized. How the earth was formed in a fluid phase, then how land masses were formed and divided from the "water", and the succession of life forms came along. . . .
Mormons have believed the world is about five billion years old since Joseph Smith said so. We have believed there are other worlds like this, which have existed prior to ours. We have believed life was brought here, and introduced in some some reasonable fashion as conditions permitted, and that we humans have occupied a literally endless succession of worlds, probably navigating around the great universal events somehow or another, far beyond anything we can even begin to explain. It really seems like our arguments based on science are just beginning to warm up to such views. . . . far from "proving" them invalid or impossible.
But it is pretty clear the Mormon beliefs I refer to do not even touch the general Christian effort to correlate God with the Creation of all things, the grand Source of it all. Mormons have made some overtures to trying connect to that, and have tried to pretend their beliefs in God equate with other religions beliefs,to make our Jesus the Creator without actually taking it to the Triune point that Christians came to believe as way to achieve monotheism status while calling Jesus the Son/Redeemer, and an expression of Divinity. . . . but I digress, as usual.
Joseph Smith believed in science, and he believed we could build a better belief system using our intelligence, and had a hobby in deconstruction old sectarian dogmas. . . . . And there were a few wannabe scientists in the ranks of early Mormon leaders, who tried to weave their science into their theology. . . with results we can find amusing today. Because the science they had was pretty ignorant. Folks like that, today, would be glad handing the masses while explaining how evolution is the way God does it.
but it is equally true that Mormon beliefs have not explicitly explained Creation in the first "round" of coming into being. . . . in fact it went originally to the point that Creation goes through endless cycles with absolutely NO Beginning, or end, and we only came to sink into the biblical absolutist account in an effort to pretend to be more "regular" or traditional Christians. Which is something of a compliment to the 4th century theologians who found it logically necessary to wave their hands at all the contradictory scriptures and call it all a mystery we will never understand.
Which is to say Mormons don't really think we know any of these things enough to make a stink about just being absolutely right. . . . and favor emphasizing the relevant values that come to bear on living well, or doing well, with our present circumstances, holding hope that someday we will know the mysteries of existence, when it will actually be relevant to what we're doing. . .
Which I am fine with. My belief in God does not require me to insesantly try to cinvince others. Just speak my belief when the topic or questions arise.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
Funny how you avoid simple answers I ask you, or ignore obvious evidence I provide. But I have a feeling that the more and more questions I ask the more and more frustrated you get as you have no answers. Thats ok, thats why there is reasons god was not proven to exist yet. What is not ok, is you still trying to argue about it and switch your topics in desperation. You talked about atheists kiling people like it was purely because of atheism which was complete BS, I showed you wars were millions of people were killed because of different religion, then you tried to argue that it was hundreds years ago, then when I pointed to Sudana and Lebanon you disappeared as always.
And if you think you being a student is more scientific then me who has doctors and masters degrees and graduated with distinction 18 years ago you are wrong again. As always
Um I dismantled all your rebuttals while you simply ignored mine....
You can say 2+2 = 5 all you want it doesn't not change the fact that 2+2=4...
After I tore down your other arguments against god's existence (which you did't really provide any, you simply linked an amateur atheist's website) I refuted your claim that religion is bad to society. There are many ways to do this, I have already linked 17 research articles but it can also be done simply by comparing Osama Bin laden to Pol Pot you see that Muslim fanatics are not nearly as bad as Atheist fundamentalists. I realize this isn't an evidence of god, I was just tearing apart your childish accusations. For my reasons to believe in God, and more specifically my God I have already posted you my own thread. Btw, you did not respond to a single of my mountains of evidence towards god's existence.
You can close your ears with your hands and shout "there is no god, there is no god" all you want. This isn't any evidence against the existence of god. Atheism is the opiate of the foolish and the criminals.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Thats exactly what I was talking about. The fact that you believe you did this ^ does not mean it happened. Same with god. You believe it - it is fine with me. Don't try to act all smart and state you did something to prove it when you did not. ANd you simply lying here. I never said religion is bad to society. You tried to argue that religious people are better - false claim which I destroyed with data from prison statistics.
Read my answers again, I smashed all your so called evidence ( seriously, quote from Quran is your evidence?? ) as it is way to easy. There is no evidence god exists, period. There are beliefs, legends, myths - same as Loch Ness monster.
You on the other hand did not answer a single simple question of mine. Man up already and answer them. I will repeat few:
Do you believe god created heavens and earth first and then created light?
Do you believe god created women from Adams rib? Come on medical student, tell me you believe it and I will start feeling sorry for your future patients. Wait, I already do.
Do you believe he created sea creatures and birds first and then land creatures after that?
Do you believe all humans on earth now are all related to Adam and Eve?
MVP
Well-Known Member
But you are the one saying 2+2=5!!!
I support myself with facts. 2+2=4 is fact. 2+2=5 is myth, personal belief, legend