What are your thoughts on god? by christhecynic

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
You just haven't thought them through properly (and there were only three because you never came back to either refute those or ask for more).

I know, and I'm sorry, reading through that thread I felt so bad that I left. Unfortunately I had personal reasons for doing that which were more important to me than an online debate.

Quote:

Totally fallacious argument that completely misses the point. The issue is whether life in its original form can come into existance without a creator, whether life (an Intelligent Designer such as ourselves) can recreate life has nothing to do with our own existance one way or another.

My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.

Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)

Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.

Quote:
"Divine Intervention" in that something happens that violates the basic laws of physics. A Deus ex Machina as it were

Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.

It is a violation of the laws of physics as they were understood before the thing was obvserved, but considering how often it has happened and how many atheists there are on earth I hardly think it is proof of god.

Quote:
An example could be if it were demonstrated that matter could definitely not spontaneously appear by nothing more than random chance. This would mean the Universe would have to be created, it could not simply happen.

You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.

One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.

Quote:
Well for a start how about water into wine under full lab conditions

Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.

Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.

If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really defing the laws of physics.

Wouldn't have any bearing on god in terms of proof or disproof, for public relations it might be nice, but in terms of proof it's worthless.

Quote:
I'm sure you could think of something yourself if you really had an open mind.

If I were THAT open minded I'd worship the first con man to come by. And surely you're not advocating believing someone is god just because they've shown the current understanding of the laws of physics to be wrong.

(If you are I know god's name, well one of his many names: Einstein.)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Random chance operates within probability, there are things that are so improbable that the universe simply isn't old enough for them to have happened by random chance anywhere but in any case please read up on Irreducable Complexity because you clearly need to understand it better.

First off, whenever we find something that we think couldn't have come about in the time that the universe has existed (and we have) we just say the universe must be older than whe thought. How would finding another such thing be treated differently than the other times we've found such things?

Also, I understand probability. For your information any state that is possible is possible at any time if the system is truely random. The age of the universe doesn't matter. Something that is possible the 5 billionth time you flip a coin is also possible the first.

In science if something is observed it is assumed to be possible, and thus (if random) must have been possible from the start. (To assume it is impossible would go against the natures of the proofs we use and thus not help in proving anything, god or otherwise.)

That is of course only random chance, not evolution, I'll get to evolution.

Quote:
If something can be found that could have neither evolved, nor realistically happened by random chance (the infinitely improbable), then that would be a good indication of the existance of a "God" in some form.

Ok please define, "realistically." And remember that evolution makes not claims as to speed. With the exception of the birth canal size it is possible, based on random chance and our understanding of the laws of physics, for a human being to be parrented by a fish. If that human were born in a place well suited to humans evolution claims it would probably surivive as the human traits would give it an advantage.

A less unlikely, yet still out there, totally possible and in keeping with the laws of physics thing is to point out that something could evolve by having each gene in it mutate in a single generation producing a new well-adapted species on the spot.

Of course what can happen once can happen twice so something could evolve that way every generation. (For each generation the odds would be the odds of a single gene mutating in a benificial way, times the number of genes involved divided by the number of possible ways for it to happen.)

Physics says it is possible, random chance is what makes it possible, and evolution says that if it happened it would survive.

So taking into account that a complete change is possible every generation, and a generation can be a day or less, how can something be too complex for evolution?

I mean think about it, you could quadruple (or octuple or take your pick) the number of chromosomes every cell divsion and there is that nice little chance that what resulted would be viable and ready for the world. If the thing was asexual it wouldn't even need a mate to survive so the odds are better than you might think.

A system could evolve that was so complex that it would take an infinite amount of time to catalouge it, because by the time you observed one part of it 100 more had shown up, in other words the system is infinate for practical purposes and STILL it wouldn't irreducable.

Quote:
It's certainly better than the utter lack of possible proof for the non-existance of God.

How so? You are arguing that the way to prove there is a god is to prove that the universe, as we know it, can not exist without one. You're arguing that god can be proved by proving the nonexistance of a godless universe.

It's still an issue of nonexistance and the examples you give of how to do it don't stack up, because even if I am wrong about irreducable complexity, and even if you could prove that life required a creator and that something that somehow couldn't evolve came into being anyway it doesn't even imply a consciousness at work, just another force mixed in with all of the other non-god related forces of nature. A creator force that shortcuts evolution and goes against random chance perhaps, but it need not be any more conscious than my computer.

-
--
-

If consciousness is not a facet of god I concede that god can be proven, and I shall do it: Many religions say, "God is everything," and if you look around you can see that everything that does exist really does exist. It's nice how that works.

Thus god exists.

What's more since god comprises all things god must have all of the power in existance, and furthermore god must know all that is known because every brain is a part of god.

Of course I can't prove that there is some overarching consciousness connecting those things, but there need not be one, consciousness is not assumed to be a facet of god.

The argument is valid, if I didn't type it incorrectly, but also completely pointless. There are a lot of different versions of god and it does make the question of falsiablility harder, but I think if you want to say that god can be proven you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included.

Otherwise you've already got it, near as we can tell life did need a creator, it needed a certain type of atmosphere and that atmosphere wouldn't come about on it's own. Current theory says were were broadsided by another planet, that created the right conditions and thus life on this earth. But if it was just a mindless natural process then it hardly qualifies as a god of any kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:16 PM

SLICKT0MMY

I believe in God. Not religion.
What I mean is, I believe in God and that you
should have a personal relationship with him.

I'm not going to tell you how you should believe but this is what I believe.
God created the universe. And then created Joss Whedon so he could create the other 'verse. lol

But seriously, I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. He watches over us and helps us through life. And we should trust in Him to provide for us.

For instance, my youth pastor shared this with me...

He (my youth pastor) and his wife have been trying to have a baby for a while. 9 months ago (they had the baby a week ago), they found out that she was pregnant.

They told everyone and all was well. During the course of 8 months, he realised that to support the baby he was going to have to either work overtime or get a second job. He started to doubt God because they didn't have the money.

We believe in giving 10% back to God and he'll give back to you. My youth pastor gives 10% of any money he gets. He always has. So when he is in DESPERATE need of money, he was wondering, "Well, where's God? He says in the Bible that he'll provide for me!"

So basically, they needed $3000 dollars to have everything they needed in preparation for the baby.

About 2 weeks ago, my youth pastor was so frustrated with God that he prayed, "God, if I don't get this money, you don't exist. I've been believing in nothing all my life." (something along those lines)

Then that Sunday, he came to church like normal. Before church started, an elderly woman that never talks to anyone came up to him and handed him an envelope. He opened it and inside was a check for $4000 dollars. All the old lady said was, "I just felt you might need some help with the baby coming."

That same Sunday, he was asked to pray to dismiss the service. He went up and told us everything I just told you. He cried like a baby (I've never seen him cry before) as he shared all this.

Now, if that's not a sign of God, I don't know what is. I mean, you could call in coincidence but what are the chances of an old lady that never talks to or cares about anyone, thinking, "Babies are expensive. I should give them $4000."

That to me, is just one of many signs of God that I've witnessed throughout my life. You may call it chance but I believe it's God.

As for evolution, I think it's in no way true. I mean, there I times that I look at a beautiful sunset and think, "How can someone think that this just happened by chance?" I heard that if you took 1"x1" tiles and lined the US and Europe with them. But on one of them, you drew an X on it. Your chances of walking around those countries and picking up THAT tile is about the chance of evolution being true.

But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.

"Put Book front and center. He's our friend; we should honor him." -Mal

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by slickt0mmy:
I believe in God. Not religion.

If you read through this and the other two "What are your thoughts on god?" threads I think you'll find that you're not alone in that.

Quote:
But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.

That's more or less the point of these threads, argument is, for me at least, only to better understand the veiwpoints of others or unrelated to god, or both.

(Whether or not god can be proven, for example, is a question of logic and science more than god, after all if god can't be proven, as I argue, that doesn't effect whether god is real and the nature of god doesn't effect that. Same the other way round.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:38 PM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.

It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)

Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.

If you want to prove a specific God that's another matter but still not impossible which makes it infinititely easier than proving their non-existance.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.

Yes but at least there's a hypothetical starting point to proving the basic existance of a God even if proving which one it is is trickier.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.

The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes

In any case you asked for a hypothetical and given that our grasp on science improves on an ongoing basis eventually we likely will have a full understanding of the Universe. If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.

One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.

You're not grasping it I'm afraid. It's not trying to prove non-existance at all it's showing that something requires a "supernatural" causation.

For example. As our physics improves we are getting closer and closer to understanding the conditions and physics of the Big Bang. If when we get there we find it had to be started by something, and could not just happen on its own, that would indicate creation and/or design. Again a hypothetical but certainly a possibility.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.

Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.

What is your definition of God then? Omnipotence would be pretty high on most peoples lists surely. If you don't like the classics like water into wine how about "can you turn Jupiter into a star for a few minutes then turn it back"?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really defing the laws of physics.

Wouldn't have any bearing on god in terms of proof or disproof, for public relations it might be nice, but in terms of proof it's worthless.

Hardly worthless, in this case just not as overwhelming perhaps as some might like. If you turn your mind to it there are certainly other things a "God" could do to demonstrate their power. If you believe the Holy Books of a multitde of different religions their God made a good show of proving his existance beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If I were THAT open minded I'd worship the first con man to come by. And surely you're not advocating believing someone is god just because they've shown the current understanding of the laws of physics to be wrong.

I'mmore open minded on the issue than you and I'm the sceptic non-believer here remember

I've been giving examples of possible evidence for the existance of a God or Gods. Whether you think they're perfect or not (and irreducable complexity is pretty good o that standpoint) the fact remains that there are possible evidences for God's existance but no such possible evidences for non-existance.

Even if you think the evidence in one form is weak. That would still be infinitely more evidence than is possible for the other side.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
First off, whenever we find something that we think couldn't have come about in the time that the universe has existed (and we have) we just say the universe must be older than whe thought. How would finding another such thing be treated differently than the other times we've found such things?

Okay. How about the chances of all the air molecules in a football stadium suddenly rushing out of the doors leaving a vacuum. It's certainly possible but work out the odds and "highly improbable" would be the understatement of the epoch

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Also, I understand probability. For your information any state that is possible is possible at any time if the system is truely random. The age of the universe doesn't matter. Something that is possible the 5 billionth time you flip a coin is also possible the first.

Yes but scale that a trillion fold and consider the chances. It's not an issue of certainty it's one of taking the safe bet.

If the stadium scenario happened I'd have to play the odds and think there was a higher power at work there.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Ok please define, "realistically." And remember that evolution makes not claims as to speed

Realistically as in remotely probable. Your direct Fish/Human scenario must be quadrillions to one against.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
A less unlikely, yet still out there, totally possible and in keeping with the laws of physics thing is to point out that something could evolve by having each gene in it mutate in a single generation producing a new well-adapted species on the spot.

Still unbelievably improbable given the complexity of DNA and the necessity of each mutating gene doing so a certain way.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Physics says it is possible, random chance is what makes it possible, and evolution says that if it happened it would survive.

So taking into account that a complete change is possible every generation, and a generation can be a day or less, how can something be too complex for evolution?

It's a question of how likely it is. Think about the odds against it happening.

I'll answer the rest of your post later when my girlfriend isn't demanding my attention.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:27 PM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
It's certainly better than the utter lack of possible proof for the non-existance of God.

How so? You are arguing that the way to prove there is a god is to prove that the universe, as we know it, can not exist without one. You're arguing that god can be proved by proving the nonexistance of a godless universe.

I'm simply arguing that evidence for the existance of "God" is hypothetically possible whereas evidence for their non-existance isn't.

Even if some might argue the evidence might not be conclusive (although certain types of evidence would really have the odds overwhelmingly on their side) the fact remains that something, no matter how small, is always infintely more than nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
It's still an issue of nonexistance and the examples you give of how to do it don't stack up, because even if I am wrong about irreducable complexity, and even if you could prove that life required a creator and that something that somehow couldn't evolve came into being anyway it doesn't even imply a consciousness at work, just another force mixed in with all of the other non-god related forces of nature.

So you want possible proofs of the existance of your conception of God?

Regardless of whether it would meet your criteria of what a God should be the fact remains that a primal creator intelligence, of whatever level, would be that which bought the Universe into being and therefore "God". The fact we could not know how smart or powerful this demonstrable God actually is is irrelevant to the fact that we could hypothetically prove they existed.

Even if the possible evidence would not be proof positive (nothing could be in any argument if you set the bar too high) the fact that such evidence is possible means that you cannot equate Atheism and Theism as similiar faith positions. Even a miniscule amount of something (proof/evidence) is still infinitely more than absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If consciousness is not a facet of god I concede that god can be proven, and I shall do it:

Okay now moving on how about you think about how an omniscienct, omnipotent being might choose to demonstrate their existance. If they are truly all-knowing and all-powerful they can surely find a way right?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Many religions say, "God is everything," and if you look around you can see that everything that does exist really does exist. It's nice how that works.

Thus god exists.

Assuming they're right. Of course how could you back that assumption?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

What's more since god comprises all things god must have all of the power in existance, and furthermore god must know all that is known because every brain is a part of god.

Again assuming the initial unfounded premise is correct.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Of course I can't prove that there is some overarching consciousness connecting those things, but there need not be one, consciousness is not assumed to be a facet of god.

Well there's certainly plenty of assumption

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The argument is valid, if I didn't type it incorrectly, but also completely pointless. There are a lot of different versions of god and it does make the question of falsiablility harder, but I think if you want to say that god can be proven you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included.

The argument relies on a leap that God really is "all things" so it's not that valid.

As regards "you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included" that would assume I'm trying to prove the existance of a particular Deity and I'm not and I don't have to.

There are possible ways to prove that a God exists (or a Creator God perhaps) but no ways to prove otherwise. This means that the burden of proof must lay with the Theist as I said earlier because the Atheist cannot be obliged to do the impossible whilst the Theist is merely obliged to do, at worst, the improbable.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Otherwise you've already got it, near as we can tell life did need a creator, it needed a certain type of atmosphere and that atmosphere wouldn't come about on it's own. Current theory says were were broadsided by another planet, that created the right conditions and thus life on this earth. But if it was just a mindless natural process then it hardly qualifies as a god of any kind.

That's not a Creator God by my definition since that's a natural rather than a supernatural phenomena.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:37 PM

ALLHAILJOSSWHEDON

I used to be a steadfast Catholic...when I was in elementary. Then I strayed toward agnosticism in high school. I even joined some religious groups then because god was sort of my blankie and a part of me didn't want to let go(plus the meetings always served great food). But still after a while a lot of what they used to feed me(the doctrine, not the food) just didn't make sense anymore. It had an odd feel to it. Also, they started serving fastfood.

I was confused so I did some research. I even tried talking to a priest but I was afraid I would offend him with my heathen views so I didn't get much from that. Plus news of priests molesting little boys didn't help much either. Discussions with some of the religious people I knew tend to devolve quickly into a fist-fight or mud-slinging at the very least so that didn't work either.

So I stuck to my one true friend, the internet. Here I came upon http://www.iidb.org. Very informative site as far as my limited mental capacity allows me to understand. Now I lean more towards atheism. I reject all the gods described by the major religions. A lesser deity could perhaps exist. No one can really know. But I ain't worshipping him/her, that's for sure.

"The General has given me the pick of all the men that can be spared and ordered me to defend the Pass. I realize what a terrible task has been given me. And yet I feel that this is the most glorious moment of my life. What I do is done for my beloved country. No sacrifice can be too great." -- Gen. Gregorio del Pilar, Battle of Tirad Pass(Dec. 2,1899)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 2:48 PM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"

So if I believed in Zeus (who did not create life according to any myth or legend I know of) I would not be believing in a god?

I mean if proving a creator proves a god then we'll need to reevaluate the idea of god quite a bit, obviously many religions worship things that are not gods, and since a creator need not be an intellegent or even sentient creator and certainly not powerful no religion or belief system I know of worships or advocates the existance of such a thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.

Only by a very narrow definition of god which would include no god I know of from any religion or school of thought. Just like I can prove a pantheistic god by saying, "Look there is something, god is everything, and thus that something, and that something exists, so god exists." Yeah, I proved a very slim version of god, and I can do it as often as you want to as many people as you want, but most don't consider that a good reason to give up atheism. The reason is that I picked of a real and widely used defintion of god, "God is everything," that on its own, without any qualifiers, does not cover what atheists say doesn't exist.

Of course I can do that with many defintions of god:
"God is everything." Well then god exists and that is easily proved.
"God is that which created man," Well then god is the process known as evolution, which I'm fairly sure exists.
"God is the creator," well then god is the big bang or whatever else caused everything.
"God is the supernatural." Well then god does not exist and furthermore can be proved to not exist because, by definition, everything that does exist is part of nature.

If you define god simply as, The Creator, then of course god exists. God is, probably, the big bang, a natural process that has no conciousness to it. Even if not god still exists and the reason is obvious, EVERYTHING is natural, if god did show up and, as you requested, turn water to wine under lab conditions that wouldn't be unnatural, it would go against our current understanding of the laws of physics, but it wouldn't be unnatural. It would simply be a natural force being demonstrated for the first time.

So if god created the universe that would, by defintion of, "natural," in terms of the laws of physics, be the creation of the universe by natural forces alone. Well we already believe that happened.

There are few things that apply to all versions of god out there, being the creator is not one of them, being a sentient being is. You'd have to prove a sentient creator, and unless you've got something up your sleve that I've never heard of that can't be done because any actions undertaken by a sentient being could also have been done by a non sentient thing that merely appeared to be sentient, any extra intervention needed implying a creator could and would be explained as another of the many coincidences needed for the universe to turn out as it did.

If you did that that still wouldn't cover things like all powerful, which you yourself put forth as an atribute of god.

Quote:
The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes

Which is my point because:

Quote:
If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.

That would mean that our theory of everything was wrong and our understanding of the laws of physics would change. Even if they changed to include the concept of a god (imagine that) they would not be violated. (If you could give a hypothetical situation in which they would change in such a way I'd be quite interested.)

Quote:
You're not grasping it I'm afraid. It's not trying to prove non-existance at all it's showing that something requires a "supernatural" causation.

Supernatural is a nonsense word and you know it, if god does exist he/she/it/they are still part of nature by defintion of nature. I just wanted to get that out of the way, again, before anything else.

That said, I think you're using "supernatural" to mean "god indicating" and "natural" to mean "non-god indicating." If that is the case than the only way to prove that something requires a "supernatural" causation is to prove that a "natural" one doesn't exist. It is still a proof of nonexistance.

Quote:
If when we get there we find it had to be started by something, and could not just happen on its own, that would indicate creation and/or design. Again a hypothetical but certainly a possibility.

But it's not related to god, if we find that something had to come before the big bang to start it there is no reason to believe that that something is any less "natural" than we currently believe the bang to be.

Quote:
What is your definition of God then? Omnipotence would be pretty high on most peoples lists surely. If you don't like the classics like water into wine how about "can you turn Jupiter into a star for a few minutes then turn it back"?

The ability to cause a fusion reaction in jupiter or effect the molecules of a substance is hardly ALL powerful. It is actually kind of limited, I mean to be able to do that something need not be able to get from point a to point b when they are two feet appart.

I'd go with Omnipotence as a decent definition as well even if it doesn't seem to include most gods out there. Perhaps the best defintion for gods spelled with an uppercase G is, "God is a being with no limitions except those which are self-imposed."

But you can't prove all-powerful, you can spend an eternity doing "impossible" things and still not prove you are all powerful. What's more it fails to take into account the far more likely possibility that this guy is just skilled at fooling people, even ones with scientific equipment in front of them. After all the one who writes the report isn't the telescope, it's the one who looks through it. People and cameras have been convinced that the space shuttle disappeared by a simple magician, are you honestly telling me that you think someone would need to be ALL POWERFUL make it appear to the few billion on the Jupiter side of the planet that jupiter transformed and then reverted?

Of course that's sort of a side note, here's the real problem: all powerful is too far even if it isn't a trick, because no matter what is done to assume the doer is all-powerful violates Occam's Razor. Proofs, as opposed to simple beliefs, can't do that and remain valid.

(On a side note if you are right, and I am wrong, and god can be defined simply as, "The Creator," with no qualifiers other than that then even being all powerful isn't a reason to believe something is god since it makes no implications about creation.)

A simple god is a lot harder to define, certainly most gods talked of are far from all powerful. They have power over various parts of reality, and that power is sometimes undectable (e.g. some gods of greed are said to exist in the hearts and minds of people, there's no way I know of to separate a person's own greed from a greed only dectetable in their mind put there by a source other than them that lives in their mind none the less.) I guess a simple thing would be a non-physical/nonstatic entity with great, though non-absolute, power over reality.

Of course if it isn't physical or it is a shapeshifter how do you prove that is what it is? A very powerful shapeshifting former goat does not make a Zeus. But if a god can be created from an ordinary thing (that is to say that "god" is a state of being that can be entered into as opposed to what something it is born as) then that doesn't matter and I suppose showing the existance of a very powerful shapeshifting former goat would prove the existance of a minor god. It just wouldn't apply to the upper case "God"s that a lot of people do believe in. These are two very different things and proving one doesn't prove the other (more importantly a way to prove one is not a way to prove the other), I guess I agree that you could prove the existance of a very powerful shapeshifting former goat calling itself, "God," but that isn't evidence of the provablilty of God (note the capital G) because those things that are called, "God," are said to be a different type of entity entirely which, unfortunately, share the same name.

It's sort of like the old argument:
You can prove god exists because Jesus is god in human form so just prove he existed. Well at this point most atheists believe he existed but a being able to prove the existance of a man who some call God is not the same as proving the existance of a god or a God. Even if you can prove that he did all people said he did it doesn't prove the existance of god, instead it makes us reevaluate the power had by men and the way people interact with the universe.

After all if you can prove that a man changed water to wine or fed the masses with a few loaves of bread that just proves that a man did it, saying, "A man did it because of an all powerful being that was not detected," is multiplying entities more than necessary and thus only valid in supposition, not in proof. I can tack, "because of an all powerful being that was not detected," onto the back of anything, doesn't make it true, and even if it is true I'm not allowed to do it in a proof.

Quote:
Hardly worthless, in this case just not as overwhelming perhaps as some might like. If you turn your mind to it there are certainly other things a "God" could do to demonstrate their power. If you believe the Holy Books of a multitde of different religions their God made a good show of proving his existance beyond reasonable doubt.

What is beyond a resonable doubt? There was a time when the plauges of Egypt seemed like a big deal, now it's looking like they were all natural. Well now we'd like different thing, turn Jupiter into a star and then back again, impressive, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, more likely we'd start to seriously research the creation of stars and also try to find out where the man (or woman if you'd like) who claimed to cause it learned astronomy and fusion and chalk it up to prediction (or suggestion if it was a request) instead of causation. (Houdini was great at suggestion, he'd get someone to ask him to do something he wanted to do and all the while the person making the request would think that they were the one to come up with it.) Then we'd try to find out how it happened, if it would happen again, and how it would effect us if it did.

Or are you saying that, now that you've listed it as a proof, if Jupiter turns into a star and then back again, you'll instantly convert to the side of god even if science comes up with a perfectly logical explantion for it?

Quote:
I'mmore open minded on the issue than you and I'm the sceptic non-believer here remember

To be a non-believer is to be open minded, or are you still saying that asserting, "There exists a universe without a god and this is it," doesn't require belief?

Quote:
I've been giving examples of possible evidence for the existance of a God or Gods. Whether you think they're perfect or not (and irreducable complexity is pretty good o that standpoint) the fact remains that there are possible evidences for God's existance but no such possible evidences for non-existance.

Even if you think the evidence in one form is weak. That would still be infinitely more evidence than is possible for the other side.

I don't think the evidence is weak I think it's nonexistant, except possibly in the case of a minor greek-style god. You've given nice examples that either don't suggest god or can't be proven, or both. I can do the same on the other side.

If I could prove that freewill is impossible then I could prove the non-existance of an all powerful being (god) because it would be unable to act freely, and thus not be all powerful.

So why isn't it proof of the falsifiablity of god? Well it's because I can't prove that free will is impossible, not even in the hypothetical. Just like you can't prove the necessity of a "supernatural" cause, you can say, "If we proved that there was a necessity for a 'supernatural' cause that would prove god," but I can say, "If we proved that man is the most powerful being in existance that would prove that god doesn't exist," just as easily. The "if" parts of both statements are impossible so it doesn't matter.

I can pump these out in the same way you can, but it doesn't change anything, for something to be proveable it must be, at least hypothetically, possible to be proved, and even in the hypothetical that means that the thing proving it must also be provable (or an axiom.) Obviously I can take any number of unprovable things and then use them to claim various other unprovable things are proveable because, "If I prove unprovable-thing-1 that will prove unprovable-thing-2," but that is an invalid claim, otherwise the non-existance of god would be provable.

For example the existance or nonexistance of god could be proved if a person who knows everything and never lies told us which was correct. Well that's true, but it's impossible, even hyptothetically, to prove that a given person knows everything and never lies. It is possible to prove that a person who never lies, not even accidentally, knows everything, just ask them and if they say yes you've got your proof, but you can't prove that someone never lies. Such a person could exist in the hypothetical, but never be proven to exist. So it doesn't work.

Similarly it is possible that a mechinism requiring a god (or sentient "creator" if you prefer) could exist but since it could never be proven to exist, even in the hypothetical, saying, "If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of 'God'," is not evidence of proveability because it is just as possible to do that as it is to prove that there is a mechinism prohibiting a god, which would disprove god quite nicely.

Quote:
Okay. How about the chances of all the air molecules in a football stadium suddenly rushing out of the doors leaving a vacuum. It's certainly possible but work out the odds and "highly improbable" would be the understatement of the epoch

And if it did happen would everyone suddenly fall to their knees and say, "Yes, there is a god for he has done something to an infintessmally small portion of creation that isn't even impossible"?

I doubt it, I think insurance companies would call it an act of god, and those who believe whatever the latest fad is might believe in god, but I don't think anyone who knows about proof would consider it proof of anything other than an oddity, even if they were converted as a result.

More likely (if it happened unexpectedly in the US) the president would come on TV with condolances promsing to either:
1 Have scientists investigate the phenomena so that it could be understood, harrnessed for industrial use, and prevented in the future
or
2 Stop the ones who had commited this high-tech act of terrorism against the US. (Finding a way to make something like that happen could hardly be low-tech after all.)

If it was done as a demonstration of proof of god I doubt it would get any more credit, first thing is it would be called a hoax, when it was proven that it did happen it would still be called a hoax, just a different kind, and then people would go about finding out how the hoax was pulled off, again people would probably turn their eyes to the high-tech.

Quote:
Yes but scale that a trillion fold and consider the chances. It's not an issue of certainty it's one of taking the safe bet.

You said it was proveable and that the burden of proof rested on those who had the proveable side. Why did you stop that and move on to "safe bet"?

It's easy enough to come up with a situation where the non-existance of god would be a safe bet.

What if it turned out that every single religion or belief system including god was wrong. It is possible since these things come with stories and messengers. You could disprove all of the stories told, and also, just as fun, it is possible that you could find a the dairies of the big guys, Moses, Jereimiah, Jesus, Mohamud, Zoroaster, Buddah, and so on, the little ones two, everyone who ever claimed to have contact with god (that is possible) though unlikely, prove that they do belong to those people (that would be highly difficult, but is not actually impossible.) If they all agree that there is no god and they just made it up, well that puts the odds in favor of the, "There is no god," camp because everyone who ever claimed they knew there was one was a liar.

After all gods are genrally said to be powerful, repeatedly-interventional, sentient, present both now and in the past, and unlike all directly observable life on and off earth. So if we take those broad strokes which cover all gods I know of (but also invisible-massless-nonphysical-nondisplacing-intervening-aliens-who've-been-around-a-bit unfortunately) the fact that every report of god turned out to be a lie would make the odds of such an interventional being quite low. Not disproved, but the odds that something has been intervening for all of human history and left not a single report from someone who believed what they were saying puts the odds of it's existance at slightly less than the odds of chupacabras being real. (I certainly don't believe in chupacabras.)

Doesn't disprove it, something could intervene constantly without ever leaving a believer, but usually intervention leaves reports and thus the safe bet in this hypothetical case is that there is no god by any of the definitions now in use by believers.

That's the safe bet based on the odds, just like you claim yours is a safe bet based on odds, but it isn't proof in any sense of the word.

Sorry for the bad example, a better one will come your way if you want, I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment.

If we go with safe bet instead of proof then the non-existance of god can be the safe bet. So the non-existance of god and the existance of god are on equal footing in the realm of the safe bet.

Quote:
If the stadium scenario happened I'd have to play the odds and think there was a higher power at work there.

I'm not saying you wouldn't, but it isn't proof, you said proof, you said one side can be prooved and the other can't.

Quote:
Realistically as in remotely probable. Your direct Fish/Human scenario must be quadrillions to one against.

But not at all impossible and if it happened atheists would probably, for the most part with the possible exception you, remain atheists. Even if all of a sudden it happened every fish birth from now till the end of fish it doesn't imply god, just like an "irreducably complex" thing, if such a thing really exists, wouldn't imply god.

It would imply that the person who taught you stats in highschool was right when they told you grouping was a normal phenomena. (Stats traditionally comes right after calc so it should have been covered, only basic stats, but you should have at least heard about grouping. If schools near you don't go that far, and with the state of education in the world they might not, you might want to consider working on basic education reform in your area.)

Quote:
It's a question of how likely it is. Think about the odds against it happening.

Do you know how unlikely the universe being as it is is? Yet most people don't claim it as proof for god, (some do) take the universe as it is right now, the position and velocity of every particle, and you've got something so unlikely it's damn near impossible. But it happened.

Besides that you came in touting proveability and now you're hitting me with likelyhood. They aren't the same thing, proof by probability isn't a real thing. I don't care at the moment though, my cat's dying and to be totally honest I care more about her than even the god I do believe in. I don't remember whether it was yesterday or earlier today but at some point I was talking about her on this board, in this thread. I knew she was sick then, knew she was wasting away, but didn't know she was dying, thought she on the path to getting better actually, apparently cancer doesn't show up on blood tests, if it was cancer. The cause doesn't really matter, just the fact that her chest and abdomin are full of fluid, she isn't strong enough to have it extracted, and she has no hope of living.

So at this point I honestly don't care if you say that god is provable without any evidence to back it up, I don't even care if PIZ keeps on using false logic.

I'll be around, maybe.

[This is probably going to be my second to last post for a while, I realized that with a trip to the vet in the middle of it and my cat on my mind I left it in a very poor state, some sentances were incomplete, I think there was a, "But it," followed by absolutely nothing at one point for example, and the formating was crap. I've come back and edited it to fix that stuff because I think it's rude to post something like that, disrespectful to the reader I mean. Hopefully this is slightly better now.

Unfortunately it might not be, I'm afraid that the rushed, interupted, and finally distracted nature of the post has left repetions.]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 4:53 PM

too...many...posts, my eyes are still hurting from the unending wall of white

I would just like to add my beliefs to this whole thing

I am a Christian ,but I am not devout to the point of fanaticism, I believe that God created Adam and Eve and that when they disobeyed Him by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (on a side note I think that the apple is more a symbol than the actual fruit) they brought sin into the world. then ____ years later Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and He lived for around 35 years and that then He was crucified by the Romans and that through that death, the death of a perfect person, our sin could be washed away and that we could go to heaven and live eternally with the Trinity (for those of you who don't know that is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit)
in paradise.

Those are my beliefs and if you wish to discuss them in more detail then pm me

thank you

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:45 PM

SHADOWFLY

This photograph is a sign that there is no god in this 'verse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:25 PM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

how, exactly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 8, 2006 6:38 AM

This will probably be my last post, at the very least in this thread, for a while.

Anyway,

Quote:
Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
too...many...posts, my eyes are still hurting from the unending wall of white

There's more than you know.

This thread was closed down quite some time ago because it's length was making it annoying for people with slower connections.

In it's place part two was opened, part two can be found here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16682
That too was running long and part three was opened:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16736

I have no idea why ROCKETJOCK decided to respond to this thread a month to the day after it was closed and again almost 6 months after that, but that's why we're currently in part one of three instead of three of three.

Thought someone might be interested in that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:34 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryan:

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves

A supreme God may exist but as of now its the Atheists, Agnostics and Free Thinkers who make more rational sense
https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/668099693616984065

https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/671103583543238658

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 30, 2015 11:41 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

A supreme God may exist but as of now its the Atheists, Agnostics and Free Thinkers who make more rational sense

Rational sense, or not, you're posting in the middle, not the end.
Part 2 is at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16682&p=1
or Part 3 at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16736&p=1

Finn mac Cumhal very nicely ends the discussion about supernatural belief in gods at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16736&mid=236826#23
6826

I am unimpressed with your Bill Maher quote, "I see the computer hackers Anonymous are going after Isis - if successful, it'd mean martyrs DO get screwed by virgins!"

But your Sam Harris twitter account sent me, eventually, to a video that impressed me. Summed up in few words: “Supernatural explanations are unhelpful.” A useful explanation by physicist David Deutsch is in that video starting at 3:30 and I have Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity open on my screen. What a divinely inspired coincidence!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 30, 2015 2:59 PM

These days all I have to say on the subject is "meh"...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 30, 2015 6:01 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

All I'll say on the subject is that I will know soon enough, or not know as the case may be. Until then, I ain't worrying about it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2015 1:42 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I am unimpressed with your Bill Maher quote, "I see the computer hackers Anonymous are going after Isis - if successful, it'd mean martyrs DO get screwed by virgins!"
Come on, that's a good line. Bill Maher is almost never that funny or clever.

I ought to respect Bill Maher more because I just now realized Sean Maher {aka Simon Tam} has the same name. Did you know that Kaylee {Kaz} took Bill Maher's Religulous (2008) and edited the best scenes into five minutes? Watching the entire movie gave me a raging headache years ago. Watching five minutes today was enough to bring on the beginning of another.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:26 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Those are 5 good minutes - my ears are starting to ring a bit and I'm catching the faint but unmistakeable smell of a burning fissure...

Have you got two minutes? Here is a second video. Colbert the Catholic talks God to Maher the ex-Catholic: "If I'm right, you're going to Hell."

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 12:00 PM

Maher should say "And if I'm right, you've spent your life in mindless repetition for NOTHING. At least I got to sleep in on Sundays and eat bacon wrapped shrimp, and wear my PJs and not have to keep an extra eye out for my kids when they are round the creepy guys in skirts..."

Hell now, or hell later, seems to be the question of the day...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 3:05 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I lied. I'll say something else. If there is a god, and he wanted to tell us what he wanted from us, don't you think it would make more sense for him to impart that knowledge to all societies at the same time and in a similar manner? Why should I accept what some obscure tribe wandering the deserts of the Middle East had to say about it? First he's a vengeful, wrathful god that demands sacrifice, then he's full of love and grace as long as we say Jesus was his son. Make up your mind.

Man was not created in god's image, the concept of god was created in the mind of men. That's why there are so many crazy variants.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2015 5:43 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.

See how easy that was?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2015 8:27 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.

See how easy that was?

Is worship of Capitalism's Invisible Hand included in that class of mythologies? Or is the Hand real, not a metaphor?

Just asking because Texans put more time and imagination into receiving blessings from the Invisible Hand than any other god. In Texas the Invisible Hand is worshiped as if it is the most powerful god even though it’s obvious to the naked eye that the economy consists much more of Monopolies and Oligopolists than it does of the atomistic, price-taking competitors often envisioned by economists, fundamentalists and Republicans.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2015 9:00 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.

See how easy that was?
Is worship of Capitalism's Invisible Hand included in that class of mythologies? Or is the Hand real, not a metaphor?

It is a metaphor, Mr. False Dichotomy.

Quote:
In economics, the invisible hand is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to describe unintended social benefits resulting from individual actions. The phrase is employed by Smith with respect to income distribution (1759) and production (1776).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2015 9:22 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:

It is a metaphor, Mr. False Dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

You have heard of wiki. But have you heard of Prosperity theology? It is very big at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston. Sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success, it is a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations (possibly to Christian ministries) will increase one's material wealth. It is a mutant form of religion, and I don't mean mutant metaphorically. It is the Invisible Hand with just a hint of Jesus flavoring to make it tastier for Texans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Criticism

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2015 2:24 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by tanstaafl28:
Science is an open system of inquiry

Where do you rank Atheists? Some of them seem kinda angry

Angry Aussie Atheist : Stacey vs The Muslim Problem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

I agree. Man made and controlled. Besides why would God entrust the world to "men" and allow them to screw things up royally, especially after he
went through all that trouble sacrificing his "son" for our sins.

For those who say I blaspheme, I have two words for you: Catholic priests.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I lied. I'll say something else. If there is a god, and he wanted to tell us what he wanted from us, don't you think it would make more sense for him to impart that knowledge to all societies at the same time and in a similar manner? Why should I accept what some obscure tribe wandering the deserts of the Middle East had to say about it? First he's a vengeful, wrathful god that demands sacrifice, then he's full of love and grace as long as we say Jesus was his son. Make up your mind.

Man was not created in god's image, the concept of god was created in the mind of men. That's why there are so many crazy variants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:28 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I think most Christians could more accurately be described as "Paulists".

I'm one of the few, if not the only person in my family who is not a devout Christian. However, they attend a wide range of different denominational churches, and I'd bet if you sat them down and questioned them, one of the few things they would agree on is the divinity of Jesus. I don't think it matters either way, but if one was to lead their life using his teachings they would be a very good person.

My younger brother and I are probably closer in agreement on things than I am with anyone else in the family, other than me not considering myself a Christian. He does, and yet he once told me about meeting another person, a friend of a friend, and that guy's first words were, "Are you a Christian?" My brother's reply was, "Define what you mean by that?" If the definition is that you have to believe that Jesus was the one and only son of God, sent to Earth to save us, then my answer would be no. If you mean someone who tries to live their life loving other people, doing the best I can to help others and not hurt anyone, then I am. I'm not concerned with any reward or punishment in an afterlife. I would rather concentrate on this life and make it the best I can, since there is no guarantee it's not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

Where do you rank Atheists? Some of them seem kinda angry

Coming from YOU that means...NOTHING, really. Well, maybe irony...

Maybe they are sick to death of not being able to say what they think without bible babble people coming unglued. Maybe they want the right to be left alone without obnoxious people coming to their door to sway them to their narcissistic version of their mythology. Maybe they'd like to attend a family function without hearing how much someone else is in love with their chosen delusion and why aren't *WE* drinking their kool-aid???

Maybe if the non-religious were LEFT THE FUCK ALONE they wouldn't BE SOO ANGRY.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 6:32 PM