Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 115 discussions (883 posts)

71
jainismusposted 12 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence.

If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it, they have to take shelter of science..............
reply report
1. 83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If a tree falls in the woods, and makes a sound which only you hear, how can you prove to someone else that it happened?
  
  That is where belief lies with many people. They draw conclusions through their own personal experiences; experiences and conclusions that they could not possibly fully share with another individual. Meaning and feeling are lost within words and pictures. There is no way to truly convey your experience, from your point of view, to others. It is left to the interpretation of the listener. We are all different, afterall. That is why those who believe in God cannot prove it to anyone else. You have to find these kinds of answers for yourself. Nobody else can do that for you.
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  kathleenkat, ı agree with you. God doesnt need to prove himself to people. God has given us an innate capacity to believe him. all alive creatures workship for God. only human being is disobedient. as a proof,what do they want to see. everything in universe is in excellent design and harmony. everyday, a new kind of live being or thing is being discovered, today they dont believe maybe for them there is no proof to believe, suppose that after you die, the science and technology will advance so much that it will make people believe god with discovery. although non believers deny God's existence,they have conflict in their mind
  reply report
  60
  Trichakraposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Totally agree with you. God doesn't need to prove himself to people who don't believe.
  reply report
  65
  SOEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Kathleenkat
  1. You could take a picture or video of the tree falling. We all have cell phones now with cameras anyways.
  
  2. If you don't have one of these nifty, portable evidence gathering devices, return later with a camera. Sure the tree has already fallen, but you could take a picture of that tree, and the surrounding trees, to prove that it did indeed, at one time fall.
  
  3. Thanks to the benefits the scientific method has brought us, there is such a wonderful thing such as testing the same circumstance more than once and analyzing the results to produce a conclusion. We can cause other trees to fall in the same fashion to provide proof that the tree in question, also at one time did fall.
  3A. It's part of this idea, that we as a society are able to thoroughly conclude together that tree's do not grow sideways, parallel to the ground, or with the trunks already uprooted or broken, thus not even necessitating further research on the topic, since this is well documented by now.
  
  4. You could document the effects brought to the surrounding environment, shortly after the fall to determine the effects the tree had when upright, and some time after the fall to conversely document the change which the falling of the tree has brought. For example, Bird's Nests in the fallen tree is a good sign of evidence, since birds commonly build their nests in the upper reaches of a canopy, with further information garnered by the current season and what type of bird it was. Vines that grew into the tree bark prior to its fall and still exist shortly afterwards. Vines grow in specific ways that serve as secondary evidence as well. Then there's things like Moss, surrounding foliage, a hole in the canopy that other tree's branches haven't filled in yet, condition of the bark, leaves and tree in general, analyzed as it dies off, any small critters or plants potentially squashed by the falling of the tree, the indent the tree left in the ground, the debris thrown by the impact, i could go on and on and on.
  
  It's science like this that also brings us the answers to these questions:
  How do we quantify a substance we cant see? (Air)
  How do we know meteorites impacted the moon when we've never seen it happen?
  How do we know you exist when nobody heard you type up that paragraph?
  How do we know gravity exists when it is even more corporeal than air?
  How do we know a storm is developing before it happens?
  How do we know any crime was ever committed without there being a camera and multiple witnesses?
  And so on...
  And so forth...
  
  See problem?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is my take on what you have shared SOE...
  
  Essentially, the problem, does not lie with the evidence, because as you say,
  
  How do we quantify a substance we cant see? (Air)
  How do we know meteorites impacted the moon when we've never seen it happen?
  
  Howso? There are some things science can prove; other things science speculates upon, based on the available information. When information is lacking, then the structures in conclusion are based on those factors that are tangible/available/comprehendible; when the information is within reach; and all of the factors plausible and exhausted, have been tested, then the premise/hypothesis has the foundational proof(s) necessary to become factual evidence. However, if and when new evidence becomes available, or is discovered, the entire premise falls back into the state of a hypothesis.
  
  With GOD, those of us who have the evidence of HIS EXISTENCE do so, because we have opened our heart(s) and mind(s) to the possibility that HE IS; as a confirmation of this hope, HE ENTERS into the equation the evidence of things hoped for. You see, HE REQUIRES FAITH from us.
  
  The Bible tells us, "without faith you cannot please GOD...". (Hebrews 11:6)
  
  For this reason: pertaining to proof that GOD EXISTS...
  
  Some individuals think GOD MUST PROVE HIMSELF in order to be real to them. But GOD IS GOD; and by HIS STANDARD, HE WILL NOT REVEAL HIMSELF to those who require EVIDENCE of HIS EXISTENCE. The very thought that a person would consider him/herself deserving of such evidence is sheer derision of HIS SOVEREIGNTY.
  
  The problem lies with the individual(s) taking in the information, whether or not they choose to accept or reject that evidence. GOD IS. There is no need for HIM to prove HIMSELF.
  
  The entire platform of rebellion against GOD, in the Garden of Eden was such, that Adam disrespected HIM, HIS WORD and HIS FAITHFULNESS. Eve believed the lie about GOD, that GOD was withholding something from her, just as the serpent said... The doubt that GOD WAS GOOD and WORTHY of Adam and Eve's trust was the severing at the root of relationship between GOD and HIS Creation.
  
  Doubt, therefore, is the root of all separation from GOD. Do you see it? The trunk of this organism (because doubt/rebellion/separation from GOD are organisms that feed into spiritual death) is pride. The branches are carnal inclinations. The leaves are sin. The fruit is death.
  
  Relationship with GOD is manifest in faith, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen..." (Hebrews 11:1) There is no way to prove that relationship exists to anyone else, since GOD IS SPIRIT and as Superior to man as man is to an amoeba, if not moreso.... As a SPIRIT, tangibility as an essence becomes generally impossible. However, to that seeking heart, as A SPIRIT, HIS POWER to permeate the human soul, and reach into the spirit, generates, not only an awareness of HIM, but an understanding that transcends the need for proof.
  
  People involved in the occult understand this type of transcendental connection because the powers of darkness counterfeit GOD'S SPIRITUAL NATURE whenever they are invited into a circumstance. However, the difference between GOD'S SPIRIT and the powers of darkness is the difference between HOLINESS and ungodliness.
  
  There is so much more that could be said, but there has been enough said to bring awareness to anyone who desires RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, to be able to do so... in humility, not pride...", because GOD WILL RESPOND TO ANY/EVERY heart that seeks HIM in spirit and in truth; and, believe me HE KNOWS the difference.
  
  You may not agree, but this is the answer to the problem.
  
  GOD BLESS you, SOE.
  reply report
  65
  SOEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Woah there, I think you misunderstand my argument.
  
  This is all I was arguing: "If a tree falls in the woods, and makes a sound which only you hear, how can you prove to someone else that it happened?"
  
  I just find that implication that you cant prove a tree fell to be ridiculous on any level of conscious thought.
  
  Besides, I learned arguing about religion was a waste of my time when I was 5.
  
  <3, ☮ & chicken grease.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You said, " I learned arguing about religion was a waste of my time when I was 5."
  
  Of course. Forgive me.
  
  GOD BLESS you.
  reply report
  61
  yeshuaslionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  AMEN!
  reply report
  61
  yeshuaslionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm talking to you (EmVeet)
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  SOE,
  
  Do you not understand the concept of an analogy? It was my assumption that on a site made up of writers, that everyone would know. Fair enough; I'll explain:
  
  An analogy is a way assign meaning by comparing the attributes of one thing to another. I am sure you could find a much more concrete definition on Google.
  
  The point I am trying to convey with the "tree" analogy was that there are things in life that you simply cannot prove. Go and find a better example that isn't effected by the invention of cameras, if you'd like. Belief, specifically religious beliefs, are one of those things you simply cannot prove (or subsequently disprove).
  
  And no, I don't "see the problem" with people believing in whatever they wish to believe in, and not proving it.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think many people do have a problem with people believing what they wish... The problem is the enforcement of those illogical beliefs on others.
  
  If I wanted to pass a government policy I thought of I would have to prove it's better for people in general and demonstrate why. On the other hand religious policies pass based on nothing but faith, it's a big a double standard, that's the problem.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you speaking of a particular law that was passed?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are plenty of them but no id didn't have a particular one in mind.
  reply report
  65
  SOEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know what an analogy is, and just because it is an analogy, does not somehow preclude it from having to make sense, unless your point was to mock religion by comparing it to such a silly idea such as not being able to prove that a tree fell, which is also an outright lie, which I would have to say is mighty offensive of you comparing religion to the attributes of a lie in an analogy, and mighty backhanded considering you then try to fight on the side that religion is real.
  
  No, I'm not going to find a better example to fix your crappy and offensive analogy, that's your job. You don't get to piggy back on my intellect so you can go "Yeah! That's what I meant to say!!1one" after screwing up yourself, just because I pointed out the massive flaw of your reply.
  
  -_-
  
  Hmph.. Good day, madame...
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not trying to fight on any side.
  
  Religion is as real as anything to those who partake in it. If they felt it was fake, would they believe in it? Why should you try to point out how 'fake' it is by bastardizing my analogy? How about this: Try to prove to someone else that you had a headache last week.
  
  I am sorry my definition of an analogy is so offensive to you. Perhaps you should grow a spine? (Also an analogy).
  
  Good day, sir.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The problem with analogies that make comparisons between fact and belief is that one cannot really be explained by invoking the other as support.
  
  When attempting to create an analogy for an extraordinary belief, one must invoke another extraordinary belief for comparison, just as one would invoke a fact to support a fact.
  
  So, in your example above, it might make more sense to ask to prove to someone else that they flapped their arms and flew like a bird last week.
  reply report
  65
  SOEposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @kathleenkat
  1. I didn't bastardize anything. Your "analogy" was chock full of fail. I just called you on it.
  2. "Grow a spine" is an Idiom, not an Analogy.
  3. You fail at english.
  4. @Headaches: CAT & MRI scans are useful tools for this, not to mention tumors, cancer and a wide variety of other diseases and conditions can be discovered as evidence of headaches. Also, headaches also have the ability to be both figuratively and literally, all in your head. Are you sure you're trying to conflate these two concepts after your last debacle?
  5. It's your fallacies with the basic principles of logic, language, science and empirical evidence I find so offensive.
  6. Keep going. This has also become thoroughly entertaining.
  reply report
2. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What we'll see in response to that is a myriad of childish excuses from believers personal experiences to the violation of physical laws to an innate capacity to believe to "The Bible says..." and a host of other nonsensical and extraordinary explanations that would have us rolling in the aisles in laughter, until we realize they're actually serious.
  reply report
3. 59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, they don't have to, but if they want doubters to believe, then they'd better to be able to back up their claims.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exaclty! If you are asserting something then you must be able to prove it or why should anyone believe you? It doesn't make sense.
  reply report
  56
  C L Davisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are so right it doesn't make sense to our logical mind. It Takes faith to believe in God. It's like a little boy on the top of a ten story building and his dad is down below telling him to jump, and he does believing his dad will catch him, and he does. So the little boy runs to tell his best friend how he jumped and his dad caught him. And his friend says right: what a great imagination. but you will never convince that little boy that he didn't jump and that his dad didn't caught him and the only proof that he has is the fact that he is alive and unhurt. He can't prove it because it's his personal experience and he has no scientific evidence to prove it but he knows it happened because it happened to him. Same with believers. And I shouldn't dislike you because you don't believe me you have a right to accept or reject.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Ten story building? Alive and unhurt? Yes, that is quite the imagination.
  reply report
4. 60
  rmullinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, no. Neither atheists nor theists are compelled to prove that that their beliefs are true. This is because belief and knowledge are separate and distinct concepts. You are of course compelled to prove what you know, but you are not compelled to prove what you believe. You do not necessarily know what it is you believe but you must believe what you know. By the way I’m an atheist and I do believe that you’re beliefs should at least be consistent with what you know—not equivalent but consistent!
  reply report
  66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your beliefs drive your actions. To impose one's beliefs on others would require a high degree of knowing what one believes to be true, for you would not otherwise be motivated to do as such, and to know what one believes to be true would in turn behoove him or her to prove its truth.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can't know that we you believe is true, though you can believe that you know it. Even then, you don't necessarily possess the motivation to prove it.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Has someone been pressuring non-Christians to become Christians? I don't mean having a conversation like what is going on here. It does sound like someone(s) has been pressured.
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ever met Jehova's Witnesses? In my case, I did and so yes, there are Christians pressuring non-Christians (or people with different beliefs, even Christians) to become Christians.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't answer the door for these people. But they sometimes leave free literature. At this moment, a Book of Mormon is used to prop my monitor forward.
  
  Point is, if you don't listen to them, there isn't forcing. They go away after a while. They aren't ignorant when it is clear that a person doesn't want to listen to them. I understand that they are doing it with good intentions so it is a lot less annoying than those Student Painter programs, that are just bugging you for money.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and have never been considered so. They've learned to say that they are to encourage dialog. http://www.christianpost.com/news/cults … t-3-61788/
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey - maybe you can give us a list of who you judge to be "real" Christians? I know Catholics, Mormons and now JWs are not.
  
  Are there any real Christians?
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mark! Christians believe in the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; that Jesus is God and the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that. Catholocism is considered a Christian religion because of their belief in Jesus Christ. I don't know a lot about Mormonism. I just looked it up and saw "Jesus was once a man on another planet?????" http://carm.org/is-mormonism-cult There are baptists, methodists, catholics, pentecostals, etc., who attend church or do other things and consider themselves Christians. It is a social function for many people.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Catholics do not believe that Jesus is god. So - they are not real christians. Are "social Christians" real christians according to your judgment? Mormons and JWs believe in jesus - don't they?
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:C … _movements
  for new religious movements. Again this is just not accepting facts. You'd wonder what's called Christianity. For me it doesn't matter. But now because they distinct from mainstream they are not Christians, and because they knock at your door and pressuring you. There are so many Christian movements you wouldn't find the real path at all. It's just impossible. You'll accept what you get before even know much about it. As do many people around the world.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just because someone says it doesn't make it so. I could wear surgical greens and stand in the operating room. It does not make me a surgeon. Many people sitting in church are there because it is a family tradition to go or they wered invited or it's a way to me people or any number of reasons. Back during segregation it was a place that Black men could have status as a "deacon" or "elder", etc. Many knew nothing whatsoever about the Bible but they had status.
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That kind of logic would turn you and all the other Christians into non-Christians, too.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm?
  
  I''m confused as to how your question remotely relates to this:
  
  reply report
5. 85
  Paul K Francisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Believers do not have to prove anything. Non believers do not have to prove anything. And thats a fact. But I can't prove it.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you can Paul! It only becomes an issue when someone raises it. If no one raises the issue, no one has the need to respond. I think I know what I'm talking about ... do I?
  reply report
6. 0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Factual claims require evidence, no other sort.
  reply report
7. 61
  Iamsamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
  
  You need to first believe that the wind exists. Than only you can feel it and experience it. Even though you are experiencing it in your everyday life you are not willing to believe it.
  
  God is just like that. If you are not believing, then it is a waste of time to prove that there God exists. You need to first believe and step out to feel God. Experience God. You are hearing God within you. Your spirit is telling you that there is a God.
  
  Anyway, one day is coming when you realize that God exists. But it will be too late....
  
  It is better for you to experience God before it is too late...
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's a shortsighted thing to believe that it could ever be too late. There is no belief involved, if God exists. If God exists it is a simple fact. Is anyone guilty, if a fact has not been presented to them? If so, what are they guilty of? Is denying a belief a grievance of cosmic proportions?
  
  You compare it to the wind, but is that a fair comparison? Can you blame a deaf person for not enjoying music? They may accept the fact that music exists. But only because they might feel the vibrations from the music when played loudly. They see the musicians actively working with their instruments. There is no belief involved.
  
  Do we judge the blind guilty because they can't see? Their lack of sight is not a transgression against the cosmos. It is simply an unfortunate handicap they must learn to live with.
  
  As long as belief is belief, it is never too late. I don't even think knowledge would represent a line in the sand. Not in this existence. Simply because that isn't the way this reality works. And, if there is a God, this reality is simply an extension of a greater whole we already exist in. If an agoraphobic never leaves their house and never has contact with the outside world; does the world cease to exist?
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They said DON'T do the brown acid!
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's odd, every weather report I've ever seen will tell us the direction and speed of any wind blowing on any given day.
  
  Completely nonsensical. You can believe anything you want but that doesn't make it true. The wind is something that is not required to believe because it exists.
  
  Then, God is nonsensical.
  
  Spirits haven't been shown to exist, hence it can't say anything to anyone.
  
  LOL!
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They believe in the wind that it is the wind. But how can they prove it is the wind? Will they quote something they read? Does the wind tell them, "I am the wind." He who has ears let them hear."
  reply report
8. 69
  grinnin1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is impossible to prove the existence of God or the non existence of God. Science cannot prove it, man cannot prove it. Belief has to be a component. We only have access to a tiny piece of the knowledge and understanding of God and to think that we could begin to prove or disprove His existense only shows how truly small and ego driven we are. He leaves it is up to us and he gave us the free will to believe or to not believe based on our understanding. But He tells us that He will give us understanding if we ask Him for it..
  
  "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one"
  - Albert Einstein
  reply report
  73
  Zubair Ahmedposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like you take on this - as you can see from the many response there are many who do not believe and their are those who believe - no need to fight like kid's - I say if you believe good on you, and if you don't believe good on you too, but next time go on thread that is not discussing religion but something else that way we do not need to act childish. As you stated the father of many sciences has already stated we humans have not evolved to the level at which we can know everything that there is to know. God is one of those things that we can not know unless we are willing to believe. If he stands in front of those that do not believe they will still not believe it is in the nature of some humans to deny.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It would be all fine and well if people believed in private, Ahmed. However, that is not the case. When you have Islam slamming planes into buildings and stoning women to death for being in public without a man; Jews forcing settlements on Palestinians in the name of Judaism; the Catholic Church telling people AIDS is bad and condoms are worse - even lying to people that condoms spread AIDS - or influential Christian's like Jerry Falwell standing outside of a funeral of an American soldier saying that the soldier died because God is cursing America for homosexuality and holding signs that say "Thank God For IED'S" then it is no longer a private matter. Humans need to start standing up and fighting against religious ignorance and tyranny before it destroys the world, even if it is on an internet forum.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated." - Einstein
  reply report
9. 83
  oceansnsunsetsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are applying materialistic ideas, and a set of "rules" to prove something that is immaterial exists. That doesn't make sense.
  
  Its a physicalistic way of thinking. That also happens to rule things out in advance, and claims a "win."
  reply report
10. 72
  Trish303posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why? I believe that is all that matters. If you do not then that is your choice and I respect it but it is not my job to prove anything, because if you do not want to believe in god then nothing will make you.
  reply report
11. 79
  ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The very basic fact that there is so much that cannot be proved --is enough proof of the existence of God.
  reply report
12. 57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If everybody had to prove that which they believed .... we would ALL be found lacking!!!!!!!
  reply report
13. 61
  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @jainismus:
  
  You are right to say that if a "thing" exist, it should and could be proven that "it" does in fact exist. But God is not an "it",.... a word basically that refers to something with some kind of physical form.
  
  God as perceived by believers did not have a physical form until the Nazarene came into being, and claimed that indeed he was one with the 'father".
  
  Now folks can debate wether this claim (as a historical fact) by Jesus Christ, should be taken literraly, allegorically or metaphorically. It is an act of faith by all Christians that indeed, the Nazarene was"God" made flesh.
  reply report
14. 70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Prove Jesus Christ did not exist. Prove he was not God. Prove he was not crucified. Prove that He did not rise again. Prove without a shadow of a doubt and do it with physical evidence.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever met him in the Flesh...Talked to him face to face? Emailed him, FB'd him...anything other than hearing him speak to you in your mind? or "feeling" his presence?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is very little proof that Jesus actually existed but personally I do believe that a man named Jesus did exist. Of course he was not the son of a God, that is preposterous. What is more, Jesus is the most wicked man in the Bible. Really, a prophet of immorality.
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Brian:
  
  You must be reading the Bible according to St. Lucifer.
  reply report
15. 73
  Zubair Ahmedposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one said - science and religion don't go hand-in-hand. In fact the more science you do the more you realise that life just cannot come into existence. In my line of work (Science, IT and Engineering) nothing is ever done without first producing a design. How can I accept that all this complex life just appeared without a reason or cause.
  
  Since you think otherwise - how do you think you came into being?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Believers might not say that, but many others would.
  
  And yet, the more science accomplished, the more scientists understand life did in fact come into existence on it's own.
  
  Because, you actually don't know anything about science, despite your claims of it being your line of work.
  
  Not by design or magical, invisible, super being hand waving.
  reply report
  66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  By sheer chance, the toss of a die with every atom spewed out of the Big Bang.
  
  If all life as we know it now to be is based on a single design, then it's not a particularly remarkable one, is it? Considering the flaws that all life have suffered from, that is.
  
  It kinda contradicts with the idea of free will to assume that everything exists for a reason, doesn't it?
  reply report
16. 70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God." (I guess I am not one of the, "many" you speak of.) I am not only a, "Believer" I am a knower. And I expect nothing of an atheist such as yourself.) Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. (With all due respect, who are you to tell us, "Believers" what we should know. Who died and made you boss? And what makes you an expert on proof?)
  
  If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. (Can you prove that I love you? My love for you exist, so prove it if you can and do it scientifically.) So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it, they have to take shelter of science.............
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I love it unitify!
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one that has to prove this love as you are the one asserting that it exists. I for one don't believe you.
  
  Go! Prove your love!
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  People do love to throw around the word "love," ay? That usually only means, "hey I might say a prayer for you. Otherwise, I don't actually want to be bothered. But I get this warm feeling inside for people in general, so that includes you!! That's got to mean I love you, right? Even though I probably won't ever to be able to demonstrate it, you should take my word for it."
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty sure it's feelings for me are on the cool side.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I live my life for christ. I am not perfect and I am not stupid. I don't ask you to justify nor do I have to prove anything especially to someone that really doesn't want to know. As I said before. I would gladly talk to you of what I know but what would be the point if in your heart of hearts you don't really want to know. It appears that all you really want to do is argue a point in order to prove your convictions to yourself. I know all to well that life is so short. I choose to take one day at a time, appreciate and love the people in my life and stay open to what people have to say. Everyone has their own story. We are all in this boat together. Look at me. I am the one at the end of the boat. I wave to you with a smile in my face, know this my be the only time I will ever see you in my lifetime. Know that I love you and know you are special. We all are.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How funny - you are the one arguing - now prove you love me.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've missed my point all together. I justify myself to Christ only. You, I pray for. Much love.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - that was not your point at all. If it was - you expressed yourself really, really badly because this is what you actually said:
  
  As I said - I don't believe you. I hope the praying makes you feel better.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My intent is not to make me feel better. And again, you have a right to believe or not believe whatever makes your heart content.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Odd - that is the only possible outcome. Hope it makes ya feel better.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi, Mark! Love ya!
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You I believe. A random sock puppet hiding behind a user name and making pronouncements to defend it's irrational belief? Not so much.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Understood. I have no trouble revealing myself as a real human being with a name around these parts. I like to think I practice a little integrity in regard to my beliefs. Shoot, I like to think I practice integrity in every area of my life. Pity that hasn't made me rich yet...lol
  
  Hope you're still healing well, my friend.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Getting there. Broken ribs are taking a tad longer than I would have hoped. Oh well.....
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're breathing okay, yes? They didn't do any damage to your lungs?
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Thank Baby Jesus for small mercies.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He said you're welcome.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ask him why he didn't stop that cat from committing suicide in the first place?
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He says that's what the cat was trying to do when it ran in front of you.
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Motown/Knowles:
  
  I didn't realize how deep the inanities are of atheists on HubPages until I read your conversation.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is because you don't understand just how inane everything you say is. Forgot your religion banned jokes. Is that the 11th nonsense? "Thou shalt not have any fun."?
  report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently, that piece of the scroll got torn off when they did the translation. See what happens when we start being friendly, Mark? Good grief.
  
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well - the only thing different is that you got called an atheist. I am used to personal insults from that one. He is very, very angry that there are people who do not believe.
  report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I suppose he could have called me much worse...lol I've never interacted with him before. He obviously takes a great deal of time learning about who he's speaking to.
  
  report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  FYI, I'm not an atheist. I find it interesting that you infer that I am from the fact that I'm friendly to Mark.
  report
17. 57
  Khalednusseibehposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa There is only One God (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter. And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursî extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursî.]
  reply report
18. 61
  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God does not have to prove that he exists so why would I want to prove that he exists....just to be blasted by echolalic talking points by atheists that they have heard or read from the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I wish atheists on HubPages would and could be a lot more original in their debating points, but the reality is , they are just mouthing off the none too lucid, luminous and levitating arguments from these two rabid polemicists for atheism.
  reply report
19. 67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I think, therefore I am." - René Descartes.
  
  "And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." - Exodus chapter 3, verse 14.
  
  God thinks, therefore God is...
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Exodus and Moses are a myth.
  
  Therefore god isn't.
  reply report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well - to be fair - I am just going along with accepted current theological and archeological thinking. Glad you accepted it so readily.
  reply report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Gulf of Aqaba is the Red Sea crossing site.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense. Please don't bother sending me the fake chariot wheel.
  reply report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." - Acts 13:41
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - threats. Good for you. Got no ability to reason? Quote some biblical drivel - then you can call people names and claim it was god wot seddit.
  
  I would be more impressed with some reasonable argument and dscussion that the Moses myth is real instead of this nonsense. Please don't quote the majik book at me again. Thanks.
  reply report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Threats? Who is threatening you? A God you don't believe in?
  
  The fact that the gently sloping land bridge between the Sinai Peninsula and the Arabian mainland exists, the fact that pillars on either side of this spot, isn't enough for you. So when people find the remains of humans and horses, along with coral encrusted chariot wheels, is easy for you to dismiss.
  
  It isn't that there isn't any evidence for it, it's just that you don't want to believe it is true, because of what it implies. Your denial of physical evidence is proof enough for me to confirm the truth in a single biblical verse.
  
  Believing that God exists isn't an issue of lack of evidence, it is an issue with the heart of a person.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I am just not scared enough. Sorry. And no - your nonsensical proof is not enough for me. How silly.
  
  The fact that your mythical god did not actually exist is a matter of common sense. It has nothing to do with the heart of a person. My heart is in exactly the same place your is. It is more a matter of "brains," than heart. I choose to use mine.
  reply report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scared enough of what? Who's scared?
  
  As for "brains", care to tell me what you think of the implications of Intelligent Design theory? DNA can't replicate without DNA, and only DNA contains the information for replication. So where did it come from? Did DNA just spontaneously assemble by chance? Amino acids can't perform functions without the instructions of DNA.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You seem scared. I thought Jesus punished those who reject him? Not so?
  
  Intelligent Design theory? What does that have to do with DNA? Where did DNA come from? It arose spontaneously as far as I am aware. You have proof otherwise?
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scared of what? The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
  
  Yes I have proof otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Z44Hp0Eec
  
  It's only one hour long. What do you have to lose? Are you open-minded enough to consider the alternative? I bet you won't watch it. In fact, even if you do, you'll be trying to prove how wrong it is the whole way through the video.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome that your god does not punish those who do not accept him.
  
  Already watched it. Nonsense - sorry. Open minded? I don't have to prove how wrong it is. That has already been done many times. Are you open minded enough to accept reality?
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome that your god does not punish those who do not accept him.
  
  He doesn't have to. We die without God sustaining our very essence. In turning away from God, we choose our own fate.
  
  Already watched it. Nonsense - sorry.
  
  You've watched "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and have rejected its premise, not because the evidence isn't compelling enough, but because you don't want it to be true. You don't like God's rules, or the fact that your sin of denial blinds you to God.
  
  ID theory hasn't been proven wrong. Making up new theories to explain it away, that are founded on nothing but speculation, is not fact. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of chemical evolution, and natural selection only proves that selection is only possible with things that already exist! Life only comes from life.
  
  Are you open minded enough to accept reality?
  
  According to information theory and the binary structure of the universe, God does exist. The universe is structured and intelligible because it is the product of a mind.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have rejected the premise - yes. Not because I don't want it to be true, but because it is nonsense. There is no compelling evidence.
  
  My sin of denial? Guess I am in trouble with the big guy after all huh?
  
  ID theory is no such thing. It is Creationist nonsense and has been debunked thoroughly.
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have rejected the premise - yes. Not because I don't want it to be true, but because it is nonsense. There is no compelling evidence.
  
  You mean, no compelling evidence that you're willing to believe. There is plenty of evidence, it is a belief issue not an evidence issue.
  
  Amino acids do not function without instructions contained in DNA, and DNA did not just randomly self-assemble. Why are humans able to see design in things that we know to be designed by other humans, and yet reject the DESIGN and structure of DNA and how it interacts with protein strains and amino acids?
  
  ID theory is no such thing. It is Creationist nonsense and has been debunked thoroughly.
  
  No, ID has not. It is where the evidence leads, and is not based on a theological world-view, though it certainly leads to that inference.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - there is no evidence. It is not a case of me not being willing to believe. Please stop implying that. Thank you.
  
  ID certainly has. LOL that it is not based on a religious worldview.
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - there is no evidence. It is not a case of me not being willing to believe. Please stop implying that. Thank you.
  
  And evolution is based on a world-view without God. Do you not see the automatic bias contained therein? It doesn't go where the evidence leads. Irreducibly complex systems exist, and proves Darwin wrong.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - evolution is based on scientific evidence. Nothing to do with a god at all. Sorry you don't understand - it must be very frustrating for you - what with all the evidence.
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - evolution is based on scientific evidence. Nothing to do with a god at all. Sorry you don't understand - it must be very frustrating for you - what with all the evidence.
  
  What evidence? You mean pictures of dead moths on a tree? Skeletal parts of different animals used to make up "missing links", like in the case of "Lucy" or "Java-man" and many, many others? There is no evidence for macro-evolution at all!
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Crikey. Where have you been living? There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
  
  Not sure I understand what this has to do with your inability to prove your invisible super being though. No evidence of the majikal super being? No problem - attack science? I guess this is why your religion causes so many fights huh?
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Crikey. Where have you been living? There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
  
  Okay, where? Show me one proof of macro evolution. Just one.
  
  attack science?
  
  Pseudo-science? Yes, I condemn it. Faith in Darwinism is just as much a religion as any other.
  
  I guess this is why your religion causes so many fights huh?
  
  Non sequitur, really.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - not really. You condemn science - how weird. Macro evolution is well proven. What science do you accept exactly? Geology? Plate tectonics? You reject all biology, so I guess all this goes as well.
  
  No evidence for your religion? No sweat - attack science.
  
  This really is why your religion causes so many fights.
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Macro evolution is well proven.
  
  No it isn't. There is not a single shred of evidence for macro evolution, let alone chemical evolution. Evidence means that it is observable, testable, and demonstrable. Show me one, just one!
  
  You reject all biology, so I guess all this goes as well.
  
  Biology says that life only comes from life... Not inorganic matter.
  
  This really is why your religion causes so many fights.
  
  It causes fights, because it has an opposing viewpoint of the origins of life? Maybe you should take that up with your conscious, not me.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - it causes fights because it is so irrational. How funny to see a religious zealot demanding evidence when a YouTube video is all they need to believe in majik.
  
  All we know of biology is based on our understanding of evolution. Proven evolution. lol
  report
  67
  Ceegenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - it causes fights because it is so irrational.
  
  Right, I forgot, only religious people are irrational...
  
  How funny to see a religious zealot demanding evidence when a YouTube video is all they need to believe in majik.
  
  Irreducible complexity is a proof, not based in "majik".
  
  All we know of biology is based on our understanding of evolution. Proven evolution. lol
  
  Biology is based on the observable cycles of living entities, their structure, function, growth, distribution, how they interact with the environment and other living entities.
  
  And ya know what? No one has observed macro evolution in progress! Therefore, evolution can't be a part of biology if it isn't observed.
  report
20. 57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If God apeared to me... I couldn't prove it.
  Even If I took a picture ... everyone would say that I faked it.
  If God apeared before 100,ooo people. It would be said to have been a mass halusination.
  
  The only proof of his existance that you would accept is for YOU to have the experience.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amen Jerami!
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is a lot of "IF"s Jerami. There is no proof because he does not exist. Weird you don't understand that.
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well ... Lets try this one step at a time, What kind of proof would it take to prove to you that there is some kind of higher power. Forget for the time being, any and all descriptions that you have heard concerning what this entity is.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Anything, Jerami - anything real. If this "higher power" is real - surely it knows what would satisfy me.
  
  I have no reason to believe in majikal "higher planes of existence" no. Odd - you think that the existence of this is the same as the non-existence of it? Just as likely? Sounds like the typical, "You can't prove it is not true," arguments you guys use to support your imaginary friend.
  
  I have every reason to doubt your claim - yes. Because that s all it is - your claim. You have no reason to believe in the existence of beings in an invisible, un-testable, irrational, impossible plane of existence - none.
  
  This argument is completely without logic. By the same token - I can claim an infinite number of possibilities that are invisible, untestable, impossible - they are just as worth as your assertion - i.e. - not at all. Therefore the Arcurian Megaturd Theory is just as likely as your "higher plane of existence."
  
  After all - you have no reason to doubt the existence of The Arcurian Megaturd - do you?
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absence of historical documents, absence of thousands of years of followers, absence of the moral compass religion provides, absence of logical theology, absence of experiential proofs among people, the fact that it is being described by one person (like a few religions actually) rather than by many people over a series of years in multiple places all saying the same (or similar) thing, following similar theology. I could go on. I just think your example is hilarious and not very well thought out. Should have went with the fsg or something along those lines. Or at least Zeus or Mithra.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So - let me get this straight - a lot of people have murdered and killed for Jesus demonstrating this, "moral compass," and that makes it more likely than the AM?
  
  Is this why you believe then? Because a lot of other people said they saw a majik and a lot of witches were murdered? These "thousands of years of followers," who either followed or were put to death - how is that moral exactly?
  
  Hilarious reasons to believe!
  
  Go on - tell me how your "logical theology," works, because that sounds like a oxymoron to me. Funny stuff - I like it - can I use that? Logical Theology? Love it!
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or Mark you and your word twisting. You know what I believe, and you know many of the reasons why. Please do not try to twist my words to make me seem less credible. I have enough respect for you not to it with your comments. Do not do it with mine.
  
  You maintain that it is the religion of Christianity that causes so many wars, in a way I agree at least that the brand of Christianity you describe causes many wars. Christianity isn't supposed to be religious.
  
  I will hold that more than the religion, that the attitude of arrogance starts many wars. The attitude that I see you displaying many traits of throughout your comments. I think that it is arrogance and the feeling of having superior beliefs, intellect, race, technology, resources etc that causes war, and that causes evil.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Odd - you feel perfectly comfortable telling my my statement was "hilarious," yet when I point out the hilarious nature of your own beliefs - you get all defensive.
  
  I have not twisted your words. You claimed "moral compass." I pointed out 2,000 years of murdering the opposition. So - go on - justify your claim of a moral compass.
  
  You claimed "thousands of years of followers," I pointed out that it was "follow or be put to death." This is true - unless you can honestly show me that many of these followers were not coerced.
  
  You claimed "historical documents," when that is "a majik book."
  
  I find these reasons to believe to be hysterical.
  
  No twisting here. Show me that Christians have a better moral compass than anyone else. Should be easy - what with all the thousands of years of followers to choose from.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The twisting occurred when you stated these as my reasons for belief. Most of the things you described come from the twisted Christianity that was not taught by Christ. It is not the Christianity I hold.
  
  I was giving you reasons why your megaturd is less believable, in comparison with real religions. In doing so I did not state anything about my reasons for belief. These assumptions are what make discussions with you so difficult.
  
  Yes I think the megaturd is ridiculous, and I was not getting defensive about you thinking my beliefs are ridiculous. I already knew your thoughts on my beliefs, you have them abundantly clear. As I have said many times before, I do not care if you think it is ridiculous, just do not twist my words. We had this same conversation on my hub.
  
  I choose my words carefully. When you twist them you are not furthering your argument you are just making me repeat myself and wasting both our time.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - see now this is where we have a communication issue. You claimed that your Imaginary Friend is less ridiculous than the AM yet - now these are not the reasons you choose to believe - OK. Gotcha.
  
  Sorry my mistake - I thought these were reasons to dismiss the AM yet not dismiss your Imaginary Friend. OK - fair enough - these are not reasons you believe.
  
  Lets stick to that and not your beliefs. So -let's deal with some of your reasons for claiming the AM as more ridiculous than "real" religions.
  
  1. Moral compass. Show me that Christians have a moral compass that is superior to non Christians. OR are you saying that the 2,000 years of Christianity was not "real" Christianity?
  
  2. Thousands of years of followers. Show me that these followers were not coerced.
  
  Although _ I see you are now rejecting the Christians that you claimed as a reason for holding the Christian Imaginary Friend as less ridiculous - is that correct? How many of the "thousands of years of followers" do you lay claim to now?
  
  The Arcurian Megaturd rejects religion. It allows us free will to make our own choices and morals. In fact - it might as well not be there.
  
  3. Logical Theology. Love this one - please explain.
  
  4. Historical documents. Odd - I already proved to you that there is very little historical basis for your beliefs. Even down to there being absolutely no contemporary references to Jesus.
  reply report
21. 70
  unitifyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How can a mere human being prove to YOU that GOD exist when it is GOD himself who chooses whom He will show himself to.? I don't believe GOD chooses to hold back from anyone. I just think that (for lack of better words) the conditions have to be right at the time. Until that day, know matter what anyone says, The world WILL not and can not see him. I am not trying to prove to you that God exist. I am simply sharing with you what has been my experience. I can only point toward what I BELIEVE to be the TRUTH. And I didn't always believe.
  
  Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
  (Joel 2:28-32; John 16:5-16; Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7)
  
  15If ye love me, keep my commandments. (LOVE)
  
  16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom THE WORLD CAN NOT RECEIVE, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
  
  18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, AND WILL MANIFEST myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and NOT UNTO THE WORLD? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, IF A MAN LOVE ME, he will keep MY WORDS: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24HE THAT LOVETH ME NOT KEEPETH NOT MY SAYINGS: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
  
  25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26But the Comforter, which is the HOLY SPIRIT, whom the Father will send in my name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  
  I believe the key to loving Jesus is to know Jesus. Because to know him is to love him.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, your beliefs are based on blind faith, but your own words, "The world WILL not and can not see him" so you would be blatantly lying if you were tell us your God exists.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, AND WILL MANIFEST MYSELF TO HIM.
  
  Again, I am not trying to prove that GOD exist, for to do so would be futile. Let me just say, I also had doubts. I have always love and admired Jesus. I read about this man and wanted to know more but the thing was that I had issues with believing in God the father. Then something happened. It is complicated. But I will try and explain it on my next hub page if you are interested in reading it.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Quotes from a selfish, egotistical god do not help your argument.
  
  Fair enough. But, I have heard many stories of such epiphanies and they all usually boil down to ones' emotional state, and very little more. Often, it is due to indoctrination during the persons lifetime.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Did you ever consider that maybe God was not demanding love but was just simply stating the facts, the truth if you will? As you look around our world, you will find that there are laws that govern the universe. For example, here on earth, it you throw something up (because of the law of gravity), it will come down. If God states, "love me and I will reveal myself to you" and this is a spiritual law, then would it not then be impossible to have God manifest himself to those that did not love him no matter how much proof they asked for? The condition for the manifestation would thus require Love. Would it not?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that has been considered but so far no facts or truths have ever been revealed by any gods.
  
  No, it would not. That only shows the behavior of despots and dictators, not loving gods.
  reply report
22. 82
  Doc Snowposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Why do you think so?
  
  Seems to me that if you can prove something exists, then it exists. But that says nothing about the existence (or otherwise) of things for which 'proofs' (to use a not very scientific word) were (or still are) lacking.
  
  Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the moons of Jupiter didn't exist before Galileo observed them. (Just one example of a great many--the same would be true of most everything science--or exploration--ever discovered.)
  
  In fact, it seems to me that your postulate--"If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence"--runs directly counter to the scientific idea that some sort of reality exists independently of our knowledge about it. Of course, it must be noted that idea is a scientific postulate or assumption--and thus is itself unproven.
  reply report
23. 68
  amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  1- believers don't ask anyone to disprove the existence of God, at least not in my experience.
  2- how can I prove the existence of God or souls....etc??? they aren't physical things, so it's not like you're asking me to prove the existence of a man or an animal in my backyard, it's not the same thing.
  3- if God created all the universe and all the physical material in it, including the earth and humans, then there is a good chance that God isn't of the same physical material, in the end God created the physical material.
  In fact a believer might talk about evidences, but to my understanding and knowledge surly not about proof. And finally faith isn't about proof, in fact the definition of the word 'faith' indicates it clearly "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof", yeah hope that answer's your question.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If "God" depends for his/her/its existence upon a belief in a human's mind, then it is all in the mind, surely?
  All and only in the human mind.
  Remove the human mind from the equation and "God" ceases to exist.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No. What about how Spirit / Life exists in all of nature?
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your question and of course it's not an unreasonable one.
  My guess is that we will never, ever know the answer for sure.
  Any answer anyone likes to give will be based upon supposition and/or belief, whether from the theist or the scientist.
  reply report
  68
  amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If his equation of leaving the human mind out then there would be no souls, humans would be just a peace of flesh.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Does a horse have a soul? Or is it just a piece of flesh?
  Does a horse have a mind to think with? Or is it just a life form which acts and reacts to the world in an automatic fashion?
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  where did his energy come from?
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Chemical reaction and interaction.
  
  Difference is what drives energy transfer.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What is "difference?"
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In physical terms, it's Dark/Light, Big/Small, Up/Down. In between it's darker/lighter. bigger/smaller, more up/more down.
  
  Contrast. Difference allows consciousness, awareness. Without difference, there is no awareness, no consciousness.
  
  Any measurement of electromagnetism involves a difference in distance, intensity, frequency, location, etc. Difference on a thermometer indicates a different level of hot or cold (not the actual amount of heat present). The temperature is an analogy, which helps two or more people to understand the difference of awareness. Metaphor is analogous.
  
  Our world that we are born into has shaped our ancestors from the beginning. You and I are products of this environment of physicality; we are born of it. It's all inherently "finite." In other words, we need the physical in order to be aware as biological entities.
  
  Anything outside of the physical, in other words "infinite," nothing is detectable by our physical senses. Since it is infinite, un-measureable, by our common faculties, then any discussion of it must be via the metaphor. Each person will understand the metaphor and it's implications according to individual experience and learning. No two persons have exactly the same set of experience and learning, so each understanding of the metaphor will be different.
  
  Your understanding, Kathryn, will be different from mine because of our different lives. Is either view "right" or "wrong?"
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. For instance, if you think you invented your stomach, you're wrong…
  
  or are you???
  
  Conclusion: You are right, how are we to know?
  reply report
  77
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  E = mc2
  reply report
  68
  amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hem...does a horse have a soul? you know I don't have an answer to that, I surly don't have an answer for every question. Yet unlike animals a human can act in an non-automatic fashion by using his mind, and starts acting according to rational logic. But the real thing is that if a human was just a peace of flesh then why is he the only known peace of flesh that actually can act in a non automatic fashion? it's his mind that makes the difference right? but what is the mind is it the same as the brain? of course not because all animals have a physical brain but only humans have a mind, so I'm pretty sure you can figure out the rest of the story,can't you? small hint-question 'why are the human so different from the animals?'
  As for the energy question and your chemical reaction & interaction, okay if a human dies then theoretically your chemical reaction and interaction can revive him, right? like lets say my friend dead a week ago but we still didn't bury him can your chemical reaction and interaction get him back?
  I will tell you something once the soul isn't there then the human becomes a peace of flesh
  @jonnycomelately_ Do you believe that you don't have a soul?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know a horse (or dog or cat or any other animal) does not have a mind? Cannot act in any non-automatic fashion? Very few people act according to rational logic: their actions are always based on emotion and wants just as animals are.
  
  Humans are NOT "so different" from animals; they carry the same chemicals, basic make-up and even nearly all of the same genes.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My opinion: "soul" is one more concoction of the human mind. Therefore if you say I have a soul then I have. If I say I have not a soul then I have not. Quantum choice!
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Are you 100% sure that we humans react in a "non-automatic" fashion? I suggest that you are placing human above animal. For me, that is another false human assumption. Conjured up by the egotistical mind.
  Are you 100% sure that a dog, a cat, a horse, etc., acts in an automatic fashion? All the time?
  Sir, we humans are simply one species of the animal kingdom. Our brains/minds are products and faculties of an evolutionary process which has benefitted our growth and our survival as a species.
  Ego is what tries to convince us otherwise. And as a concequence the continued existence of our species threatens to make this planet uninhabitable by our own and many other species.
  I propose that it's blind, egotistical religion that will bring about our demise.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  For humans, at least. And, considering what a tiny portion of reality we represent.....how earth shattering is your statement?
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Are we such a "tiny portion?"
  
  Sure, there are other species of other classes of life on earth that are more numerous than we. Yet, we influence the world is an enormous way.
  We have become very adept at survival. We are multiplying our species at a rapid rate. We use/abuse all manner of resources in this world, to our own, selfish needs. We presume that some God/creator made us to "have dominion over" all other animals.
  Do you not think these factors make us so much more than a "tiny portion" of reality?
  Is our responsibility not equally enormous? To honestly see our selves as we really are and not as a religious view would see us?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All life on earth is still a drop in the bucket when put in the perspective of the entire universe.
  
  Of course we have the ability to adversely affect the environment on a more global scale than any other species and as a species with the ability to understand the ramifications of our actions we have an enormous responsibility to our environment. I think we are shirking our responsibilities but it would be foolish to think religion is the cause. Religion could be a driving force in helping people understand that it is our responsibility to be good stewards of this earth, but religion really doesn't have much sway in the West and it is the West who is responsible for most of the problems we are now encountering. Sure, we can point to the East for the most pollution at the moment, but would they be there had we not led the way?
  
  I think your view that we are somehow more important than I see us to be may come from a religious background so it is funny that I, as a Christian, see us as no more valuable and no more important to the grand scheme of things in the universe than any other part of it; we may be less important. Think about our place in the universe. It's very small. Our planet is not much more than a speck and we, in turn, are only specks on that speck. We are here now. But, the universe existed a very long time before our arrival on the scene and it will exist for a very long time once we disappear from it.
  
  For that matter, so did the earth. I also believe the earth will shake off the negative effects of our presence once we are gone. We aren't as powerful as we like to believe ourselves to be.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All good and valid points you make.... thank you!
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Given that the atmosphere of our planet was once a reducing one, and changed to the current oxidizing type primarily from the effects of cyanobacteria, I wouldn't even say we are more capable than other species of changing the planet. We haven't accomplished anything like that simple bacteria did - to "terraform" an entire planet. All we've done is add it minute amount of CO2!
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good point. So, we are even less important than cyanobacteria. That's lower than pond scum. It's sobering to think about.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's ok, folks....I know my place....
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, far, far less. There are about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria alive; just a few more than there are people. Estimates are that well over half the biomass of the planet is bacteria, measured in tons, and man is but a tiny percentage of that total. We aren't even a blip on the radar.
  reply report
  68
  amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't agree with you at all sir. 'Faith in God' is not something that needs to be proven neither can I prove it, but its more about whether you want to believe in God or not that's 'faith in God' yet it's not the same as the 'existence of God'. Does it result into your conclusion " then it is all in the mind" ? no surly not, I could at best accept it as a different approach but surly not as a decisive conclusion. for an example there is people who believe in the existence of alien life although there is no serious evidence or proof, so if those people stop believing in alien life does that mean there is no alien life? no because their existence is not related to the believe in them. you might argue that as long as the best thing that speaks for the existence of God is the faith in God -although there is more arguments that speaks for the idea of God, you might wanna see some parts from this hub http://hub.me/ajupS - then there is no concrete proof for His existence, but does this cease His existence completely? No not at all. so.....
  reply report
24. 60
  Kiss andTalesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I have heard these words many times. But to answer this . I would say do diamonds have to unearth themselfs to prove to you they are diamonds. No ! you dig for your treasure.
  If you doubt it you will not find, because you have convinced yourself there is nothing there.
  But for those who experience different they can
  will recieve the reward. People just do not believe things for no apperant reason.
  reply report
  61
  f_hruzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  A very poor analogy if there ever was one.
  
  Mineral resource deposits are not dependent on wishful thinking. They are based on a firm geological understanding of earth science ... religion, mysticism, gods, angels & all the other irrational figments of the human mind are just that, creations of the human mind outside the realm of reality.
  
  When you understand how to apply reason correctly, you will no longer use such faulty analogies in future, because you will grasp reality much better and see a clear difference between your wishful imagination and what can be substantiated as reasonably possible.
  
  Gods are not part of our natural world and don't exist in reality outside your own head!
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That "poor analogy" registered with me also, but I could not get my head around a rational response....so thank you for yours, f_hruz ... veery apt
  reply report
  60
  Kiss andTalesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I never expect humans who doubt Their own creator to all the sudden say there is a God , just because I use certain examples. But at least I care enough to make some attempt to you my fellow hubers.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I am a self-made man, and I worship my Creator!
  reply report
  61
  f_hruzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You are the offspring of your parents & a product of nature.
  
  You can worship what you like ... but will it help you to develop a better understanding of reality & the natural world you were born into?
  
  You have to develop enough intellect on your own to grasp that no gods exist to help you with that!
  reply report
  61
  f_hruzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, but please make the attempt to put enough logic into your argument so we can follow your reasoning. If you like to learn a few things, start by understanding:
  
  1- nature has no use for any gods,
  2- humans, like all forms of life on this planet, are a product of nature,
  3- humans invented gods & religion,
  
  These mythological explanations tried to answer many questions we can now deal with much better by having refined our understanding of the natural sciences.
  
  I hope this may help you get a better outlook on reality & the natural world!
  reply report
  72
  lovetherainposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  As if all science were reasonable or logical. A Universe out of nothing? Quantum mechanics? Think about it.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  All scientific enquiry must always be open to new information.
  It sounds like the religious point of view is closed off. Only your godly mind can tell you what is true.
  The expansion of our minds to other possibilities can even allow for a finite world arising out of nothing.
  The Quantum theory can even support the hypothesis of a creative mind, making choices, like you suppose your God might do. But such a God will only take on the limited attributes of your "believer" mind.
  IMHO
  reply report
25. 58
  Viviendaturisticaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wow it is very difficult to know if god exits. I think there is something special around us
  reply report
  61
  f_hruzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That special thing is called NATURE & we can learn more about it using our intelligence the best we can as a species ... I think, this movement it's quite well organized now among scientists ... we even make scientific discoveries on a regular basis examining things intelligently using concepts of critical objectivity which works best with out any gods ...
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The problem with the concept of Nature-dunnit (pantheism) as opposed to God dunnit (Monotheism) has always been that naturalistic explanations rely on what the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle called "the efficient cause", that is, past phenomena producing effects.
  
  But, the world(cosmos) appears to be DOMINATED by phenomena that can only be understood in terms of "final causes", that is, an "aim" or a "purpose". Aims and purpose are all to evident in the conglomeration that we call "life".
  
  Certainly in my mind and of the others who reject that idea of Nature as "god", it still is the principal source of psychological resistance to a naturalistic interpretation of the world.
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I would add to the above the distinctly simple idea that "naturalistic interpretation of the world" could never lead to the establishment and progression of what we now call civilization. Some theorists and thinkers ( both philosophical and empirical) have proposed that humans had not evolved through natural selection alone; to quote one of them ( Alfred Russel Wallace): " evidence clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors--- something we may best refer to as being of a spiritual essence... beyond all explanations by matter, its laws and forces."
  In other words, the emergence of civilization, happened because of humankind's strongest social bonds and actions, including the capacity for cooperation, forgiveness, and ultimately martyrdom i.e. allowing oneself to be killed because of commitment to causes and courses of action that are "ineffable"-- that is fundamentally and essentially immune to logical and empirical assessment.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that these "final causes" are always "determined" by man, and nearly always based around ego-centrism. The false concept that man is somehow special. A typical example might be that the earth, sun, moon, etc. are all just perfect for man to exist here, "proving" that there was an intelligence producing such a perfect environment just for us.
  
  In reality, of course, man evolved to fit what was already here - of course it is a good fit! That "final cause" - the aim of creation - isn't a cause at all, and in fact is a result instead. A result of natural forces rather than intelligent intent.
  
  But it gets worse; when "thinkers" like Wallace say that "evidence clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors--- something we may best refer to as being of a spiritual essence... beyond all explanations by matter, its laws and forces." what they are actually saying is that nothing is clear, and that they don't know or understand the laws and forces that were used to derive us from animal progenitors. "I'm ignorant of natural laws, so will make up a "spiritual essence" (undefined of course) as an explanation". The "goddunnit" answer that satisfies every question that we don't have true answers for, but one which answers nothing at all. Just placates the curiosity if we decline to actually investigate and learn.
  reply report
  60
  Kiss andTalesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wildeness nothing has evolved, nothing has evolved in over 2000 years, no monkies , no fish,
  No birds, no man. Can we go to the gorilla and say who your parent and family tree in over 2000 years ?No ! Can a monky tell the zoo keeper we are related let me out of here I have rights lets go to court. No
  If they existed as our Ancestors then why are there comprehension less then a child.
  You can not go and ask them about humans past
  But only humans have recorded there own past in history.
  Nothing evolved.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  K&T, you desperately need to study and understand how animals evolve before you begin making claims that nothing is doing so. You need to understand the time it takes, and why some individuals differ from others. None of your statements or claims have anything at all to do with reality...a direct result of not understanding how evolution or species change happens.
  reply report
  60
  Kiss andTalesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You see thats the problem you believe in things you never saw in evolving .
  your life span could not witness this as a fact. No one who just lives under 100 years . no one is not evolving into anything at present as life continues.
  But you believe this and never seen it in action.
  But you can not believe in God when you believe in what he created.
  Does not make any sense to me.
  reply report
  77
  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  
  It takes a lot of faith to believe in Atheism and evolution without any proof. (wink, wink)
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  K&T, that looks like something a very ignorant and self-serving pastor would say to some very ignorant and obedient people of his audience.
  
  I don't know if you, K&T, will have the ability to understand my explanation, but here goes:
  
  1. You have stated many times here in HP that your God, i.e., in the guise of the Holy Spirit, is spirit, not in the flesh, cannot be touched, smelled, heard, tasted or seen. This means your God is infinite. Your God exists in a state of nothingness. Therefore, if you believe your God made everything, then "He" created it out of nothingness.
  
  2. The theory of the "Big Bang," is an evolving theory which some scientists have found fits into explaining some of the evidence they have observed. It's a theory which is always being considered, reconsidered, questioned, tested. Intelligent people, with brains far more capable than mine (or yours, it seems) continually work on this theory to see if it is true.
  
  3. "....then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
  This last sentence was probably spoken by a comedian to make his/her audience laugh. I would not take too much notice of it if I were you, K&T. Go read Harry Potter if you want to know more of that sort of "truth."
  
  I have yet to hear from Christians how they think "God" managed to make us all out of thin air, in the space of 7 days. Did he use organic ingredients, without any artificial rubbish that was genetically manipulated?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I believe Abraham Lincoln lived, too. And Columbus sailed the oceans. And dinosaurs walked the earth. There are lots of things I believe happened in the past. Every one of which has multiple sources of verifiable supporting evidence.
  
  But a god that made the earth and lives among us, guiding our lives? No evidence = no belief, either. But that's just me - those that are willing to accept without evidence are quite happy with their belief and that's just fine...right up to the point that they attempt to spread the belief by force or by law. Or even lie about their "evidence" to convince gullible minds that there is actual truth in it.
  reply report
  77
  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Most people believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States because they are gullible victims of the propaganda that has been written and taught...omitting history (changing history).
  
  But, if we know the truth about the Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation, I have to ask ... what else were / are we willing to believe that is false information? We are all fed a bunch of lies, wilderness. Shovels full of BS.
  
  List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (Wikipedia)
  John Hanson (1782) ... The first Black President.
  Elias Boudinot (1783)
  Thomas Mifflin (1784)
  Richard Henry Lee (1785)
  John Hancock (1786)
  Nathan Gorman (1787)
  Arthur St. Clair (1788)
  Cyrus Griffin (1789)
  
  Its a pity that public schools are controlled by the governments and the writers of the text books are paid to tell tales. There's a lot a people writing garbage, because they believe the lies they learned in the home, school and college.
  
  Obama is not the first black president of the USA (lie), John Hanson is.
  God is not like people that He should lie.
  But, some people would rather believe lies then believe the Truth. shrugs
  
  There is one thing that secular evolutionist scientists can always prove, that life by design is a result of intelligence, but they cannot explain it. Creationist scientists can explain it. There is a reason for everything...
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I have yet to see an intelligent explanation from creationists.
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  @ Wilderness: Wallace, together with Charles Darwin, if you must know, elucidated the concept of evolution via natural selection. So to infer that Wallace is just another "thinker" who knows nothing about nature and its laws, is to say the least the worst misinformation that I have read on HubPages.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well, when Wallace states that he doesn't understand the details of nature, and therefore there is a god that made the universe he has destroyed any credibility he may have had. The conclusion (there is a god) simply does not follow from the premise (I am ignorant).
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  When it comes to credibility, I'd put my dime-sized coin into the Wallace jar, instead of yours.
  
  Darwin was a big fan of Wallace, and vice versa, so I must assume Darwin will also put his dime-sized coin in Wallace's jar.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest you read from this link: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 … el-wallace
  
  Conspiracy theories only benefit those who have ulterior motives.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Frankly, I'd never heard of him - that article rather points out why.
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wallace always gave credit where credit is due, and when it came to the evolutionary theory, he defintely gave the full credit to Charles Darwin.
  
  He obviously believed full force, the scientific underpinning of evolution,because he was working on its elucidation even as Charles Darwin was still unsure as to whether to publish his findings.
  
  The issue that Wallace had problems with was the purely material interpretation of reality and existence, He believed that Home Sapiens as a specie was unique in that he had a brain that in its integrative complexity, is capable of interpreting the reality of existence also in terms of spiritual connotations.
  reply report
26. 61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The factuality of God as a supernatural entity (as conceptualized by theists) could never be proven by scientific empiricism for the simple reason that it could and never have claimed that its interests goes beyond the merely physical or material.
  
  So showing scientific "proofs" of God's existence is an exercise in futility to say the least. Now, on the other hand, arguments for His existence have been proposed by both philosophers and scientists, over the millennia, some more consequential than others. If one is not swayed by those arguments, then I suppose your demand for proof would come to a dead end, notwithstanding that the existence of life in all its permutations is the best proof or argument for the existence of a purposive and aim-full sentience.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Arguments" are not equivalent to observation. And when the argument comes to "It's obvious!" or "It can't be any other way!" or based on ignorance of either individual or mankind in general they aren't worth much of anything. Things like "...the existence of life in all its permutations is the best proof or argument for the existence of a purposive and aim-full sentience." are virtually meaningless as they are nothing more than ignorance of details coupled with opinions based on a desire for the supernatural.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And when any of their arguments come up against evidence of observation, it's very easy and convenient to invoke the unseen and unproveable entity of the Holy Spirit. Very scientific -I'm sure!
  reply report
  61
  A.Villarasaposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Kindly tell us what might be those "evidence of observation" that has totally debunked those arguments, which IMO were based on ontological considerations.
  reply report
27. 62
  Giyos Raimjonovposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  My kind suggestion: ask your heart why it never stops beating.
  Silly isn't it? Your heart can't reply to you because it wasn't designed that way.
  But it performs plenty of functions and if one of them were to be failed, the body could be in trouble.
  
  If you open yoir eyes wide and see the perfect harmony within everything in your body, you can change your mind because you can't ignore the simple truth: this all couldn't have come to existence out of blue. There is a master Creator behind all this. You'd better find reasons not to get arrogant and ignore simple truths
  reply report
0
Motown2Chitownposted 12 years ago
'Believers' only have to prove the existence of God if they present it to others as fact. The whole issue with your theory is that they are indeed 'believers.' That means they 'believe' in the existence of God, through faith and without solid proof.

If they present to you that they are certain that God does, in FACT, exist, you are correct. The burden of proof lies with them.

If, however, they tell you that their faith leads them to believe in the existence of God, they owe no one anything in terms of proof.

Belief in something and knowledge of a proven fact are two different things.
reply report
1. 56
  C L Davisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree How can I prove that God exist when I have no tangible evidence that God exist. I have found the belief of God through faith. The Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. So my faith is my evidence. I don't believe I have the burden of proving God exist, but a responsibility to share what has happen to me. And then it's up to you to believe it or not the choice is your, with the consequences that goes along with that choice. I think it's God's responsibility to prove that He exist since belief is about Him. And I believe that He has done that by the things He has made. Have you ever tried to pick up a glass with just four fingers, and not use your thumb, If you haven't then try it, that tells me that there is an intelligent thinking being out there that i can't prove exist, but was thinking about me here on this earth. Eyes to see with just what i need. ears to hear with just what i need teeth to chew with just what i need. and to top of that he has revealed a way that you can know him personally and have a relationship with Him. and that is confess your Sins and ask Him to come into your life and he says he will prove to up close that he exist
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I Believe Christ. Christ said God Is. Jesus was real. Or can you prove Jesus was not real or a lier. Prove it.
  reply report
2. 69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  THANK YOU. I wish that people down here in the Bible belt were aware of such an important distinction between belief and factual knowledge... There'd be more peace and things would be done more... pragmatically...
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, ATW, I love pragmatism!
  reply report
3. 59
  Hmtrio2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good reply!
  reply report
72
jacharlessposted 12 years ago
"Many Atheists like to say that Believers should prove that there is a God. Atheists should know that nonexistence has to be disproved, not the existence.

If a thing does not exist, it is possible to disprove its existence. So atheists should prove the nonexistence of God if he does not exist. But if they want to do it, they have to take shelter of science.............."

There now, that levels the playing field. We [as I speak on behalf of my brethren] intellectuals and proponents of practical faith wish both sides well. You kids have fun now, y`hear ?!

James
reply report
1. 74
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Outrageous, James!
  reply report
  72
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was having a bit of fun...
  reply report
2. 0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Peeping back at the very first posting by Jainismus, I read the above from jacharles.
  
  These "kids" have sure been having fun! Over a year now! I don't have time or inclination to read through all of those posts and arguments, but I would bet each one still has their beliefs set in rock, same as they did 12 months ago.
  
  Only the individual who has gone into his/her central core of "being-ness" will have reached heights (and depths) of understanding and consciousness that transcend the religious.
  
  Such consciousness will open up on a very personal, unique level yet, at the same time, be a uniting force in the One-ness of us all.
  
  IMHO
  reply report
74
lone77starposted 12 years ago
No, I disagree. Believers don't have to prove squat.

The object of this rescue mission is to get us to awaken.

Demanding proof before you will awaken is silly and counterproductive.

In fact, "proof" actually gets in the way of spiritual awakening. Here's why:

Science studies the products of God's creation. Those products are what we call physical reality. They are based upon continuity and action-reaction dichotomies.

Spiritual awakening is a discontinuous act, as is creation, inspiration and forgiveness.

Science and spirituality are as different as continuity and discontinuity (oil and water).

Creation can bend, break or even re-write the laws of physical reality.

Try walking on water like Peter and Jesus. That takes the discontinuous act known as perfect confidence (faith). That state is a spiritual state where there is no room for dichotomy (and thus, no room for the opposite of confidence -- doubt).

Those who achieve the ability to create miracles do not need proof. And they get there not by seeking the tool of continuity, but by the "leap" to discontinuity. Proof is the wrong tool -- like trying to spread butter on your toast with a blowtorch or an atomic bomb. They don't work.
reply report
1. 0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously not.
  
  This is only true if there is a rescue mission, and if you are asleep. Speaking personally, there isn't, and I'm not. However, in your case, I suggest that you avoid driving while sleeping.
  
  Demanding proof while asleep is impossible.
  
  Science seeks to understand the universe, without deciding beforehand whether or not it is the creation of God or gods.
  
  "Spiritual awakening" is something that some people apparently need in order to face reality.
  
  Science and spirituality and different, yes, but only in the sense that spirituality is an older paradigm with less explanatory power.
  
  Walking on water happens as often as people release unicorns in their flatulence.
  
  Those who achieve the ability to create miracles have conveniently redefined "miracle" to remove any trace of the truly miraculous, while simultaneously finessing away the absence of any true miracles.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're being a little harsh, I think. I myself am not Christian, though I don't think it's my job to go around telling people they are delusional about their beliefs. I recognize that what I think and feel is not 'fact' and until I have looked into the eyes of God Himself I have no business telling people what to believe. Being a non-believer doesn't mean you have to be harsh and cruel to those who do believe. We are not better than anybody else; not by what we believe, at least.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Revised to remove a little of the "harshness." However, in my own defense, the only thing that lone77star's ego understands is dogmatism met with dogmatism.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In lone77star's defence, you are the one who chose to post those things.
  
  Just sayin'. You can't demand respect of one group by disrespecting that group yourself.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And Chasuk, you're being a bit dogmatic with your judgment?
  
  You frequently use generalities like "only" and that by itself makes your claim suspect.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Was I being a bit dogmatic with my judgment? Obviously. That's what meeting dogmatism with dogmatism explicitly entails.
  
  As for your misunderstanding of the word frequently...
  
  Frequently:
  
  1. Regularly or habitually
  
  2. many times at short intervals
  
  If I frequently generalize, then you should be able to trivially produce several examples.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your body is awake, Chasuk. Big deal.
  
  Your spirit is so asleep, you refuse to acknowledge that it even exists.
  
  So, you miss the entire point! Seems typical of your batting averages -- zero out of a thousand.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That my body is awake is a "big deal." I wouldn't be having this dialogue -- as ultimately pointless as it may be -- if it weren't.
  
  A thing needs to exist in order to be asleep, which is why my body can be asleep, and why the concept of a sleeping spirit is oxymoronic.
  
  if you had made a point, I concede that I might have missed it. Missing the point, unfortunately, is part of the human condition. However, your egotistical waffling and making a point are not synonymous.
  reply report
2. 73
  Zubair Ahmedposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  well done for this response lone77star - as you said @believers don't need to prove squat'.
  
  Time the geniuses in the non-believing camp proved that GOD does not exist and they can make life using simple chemical reactions. Besides if God did not create humans then how else did they come into being - and if they just appeared through evolution then surely we should be seeing many more new species of animals and humans appearing
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  An argument from incredulity. Try reading about evolution before making silly comments.
  reply report
85
sparksterposted 12 years ago
You cannot prove a negative. If somebody claims something exists, then it's down to them to back that claim up with evidence - They are the person who made the claim, it's down to them to prove it. If somebody claims Santa Claus exists it's down to them to prove it, not the rest of the world who didn't even make the claim.
reply report
0
Emile Rposted 12 years ago
If you make believers prove their beliefs, where will it end? Everyone believes an infinite number of things. We don't ask proof of most beliefs. Which is why we call them beliefs.
reply report
1. 69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which is where logic and reason comes in. There are few things we can know, but what we know, we know for sure, and those are the only things that be weighed as fact. Everything else, whether spiritual or not, is conjecture or in the process of being proven "true," or often true... etc. But I think it's important for every person to question why they believe anything. That would cause this world to be a much more honest place, but certainly less of a deliriously happy one because ignorance literally is bliss.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How much do we really know for sure? I'm not attempting to be difficult, but I find that the most important questions will remain questions. Never answered with enough facts to make them written in stone.
  
  I agree that we must always question, but I also think accepting one's ignorance on a cosmic scale is the wisest thing one can do.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We all have our personal views about many things. I don't claim to know all, but I do not take into consideration that which is unnecessary.
  
  There may be some kind of transcendent being in existence, but it doesn't seem to care much about us over here, so why should I even consider it's existence as a possibility at all? There's literally no reason to believe it exists. Why not live in the obvious reality in front of me, seeking physical "truth" as much as possible, enjoying this life as if it's the only one, and leave the transcendent out there to do what it pleases and have little concern with the metaphysical? Is my reality a false one? Life certainly isn't all that black and white. But there are things that exist no matter what our perception of it is. That is all that is "real," that is all that can be "known" objectively.
  
  What you're saying is like me living my life as a default atheist, and then someone telling me that Giant space monsters that I can't see and that are only close to the humans who choose to believe in them and don't exist or make themselves known in a tangible/physical sense, created the Universe and that I should keep my mind open to the idea that this is true, because I just don't "know?" We could've been sneezed into existence by a fearful Alien/god-like force (have you ever seen/read "the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy?") How do you know we weren't, Emile?
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What many people fail to understand is that a nonbeliever is generally _not_ questioning the factuality of a claimed experience, but the utility of presenting the claim alone as evidence of that experience.
  
  As Richard Carrier writes, "The basic principle of rational-empirical. . . [ inquiry] is that all conclusions must logically follow from the evidence available to all observers. . . This means (a) private intuition, personal emotions and feelings, inspiration, revelation, or spirit communications cannot be a primary source of evidence and (b) all conclusions argued from the agreed evidence must be logically valid and free of all fallacies."
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know that we weren't sneezed into existence. But, I wouldn't be disappointed to find that we were, or weren't. I'd be extremely grateful to know.
  
  I agree that we should keep our feet firmly planted in reality, but the reality is that we don't know much of anything and adamantly stating anything as if it were a truth from a cosmic viewpoint makes no sense to me. We are sitting on a tiny planet in the middle of a giant universe that we can only imagine. What makes one person's imagination more real than another's?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Emile, much of what you said is correct and some even refreshing. Science can tell you many things but in truth it does not answer all the questions man has. We have learned much and still have much to learn. Any scientist worth his or her weight will admit that.
  reply report
85
sparksterposted 12 years ago
If I have genuine faith and belief in the flying spaghetti monster, does that mean it really exists even if I have no evidence? Should other people believe me on the basis of my claims/faith? Would you believe me? Or would you require solid physical proof that the flying spaghetti monster really does exist?
reply report
1. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you missed my point.
  
  I do not present to anyone the existence of God as a fact. It is my belief. I cannot prove it. I admit that I cannot prove it. It is my faith. My belief. You don't have to - nor am I trying to make you - believe it.
  
  Think I'm crazy. Think I'm delusional. That's fine. I simply think you have no faith. I don't think you're an idiot for NOT believing the way I do.
  
  Of the two of us, which is demanding proof? You are. Why? Because I 'believe' there is a God. You don't. I also believe the color purple is more attractive than the color green. Want me to prove that to you also?
  reply report
  85
  sparksterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um... whether the color purple is more attractive than green or not is because of preference or personal taste, not belief or faith (??).
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I often will agree with your posts and do agree with this one other than the fact it is not logical to compare faith in God to real world examples, such as your color examples. You could only compare that faith to similar examples, like the purple invisible dragon living in my garage.
  reply report
  85
  sparksterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or the flying spaghetti monster (which I mentioned in another thread on this subject).
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hiya, ATM.
  
  I see what you're saying. What's being missed I think is that not ALL believers present God's existence as fact. If we did, then the onus to prove it would most certainly belong to us. As it is, no one has the responsibility to prove anything. We believe through faith, without proof. You choose not to believe because there is no proof. All in all, it's just like a color preference. It's what it is because that's what I think...not because that's what IS.
  
  In all honesty, I think some feel the way you and sparkster do because so many believers HAVE tried to shove it down your throat (or up your ...) as FACT. And have then been unable to prove it logically.
  
  I admit with no shame that my faith is irrational and illogical according to the laws of nature. But I don't present it as anything but.
  
  Make sense?
  reply report
  85
  sparksterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent answer! You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs whether they're irrational and illogical or not - I believe in the paranormal but I have absolutely no proof whatsoever - I believe because of what I have seen personally with my own eyes. However, most of what I have seen would be instantly debunked by psychologists, debunkers and atheists.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks.
  
  I think that's the real rub of the discussion! If we accepted that there is no true, rational proof for what we believe, we wouldn't feel so offended that others do not believe it. Our subjective experiences cannot be shared as proof, unfortunately. That doesn't make those experiences any less valid to us.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, those of us who expect evidence before we believe something irrational are trusted less than rapists, according to some polls, and are prevented from holding public office in certain US states.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  People are often as irrational in their behavior as they are in their beliefs. Individual believers, unfortunately, cannot be held responsible for the attitudes of the masses. AND, an atheist - according to the LAW is not prohibited in any way from holding public office on a federal level. Whether people choose to vote for one is entirely up to them. States make their own laws regarding this issue, and have been given permission by the Federal government to do so.
  
  That doesn't mean that either side is responsible to prove/disprove the existence of God.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think any state has been given permission to violate Article 6 and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. It's just not enforced.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps not. In all honesty, I don't know what the laws are in each state. BUT, if you know that the Constitution does not permit a religious test for holding public office, then you also know it's not correct to say that we 'don't allow' an atheist to hold office. Whether people choose to vote for an atheist is their business. Might not be right that they don't, but it's outside of your/our control.
  
  reply report
2. 81
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not all beliefs are formed on the basis of evidence. You have many day to day believes that are not. You don't reason that you have pain in your head, therefore you must have a headache. Your belief that you have a headache is grounded in the experience of feeling pain in your head. Such beliefs are basic beliefs. They result from the fact that you place high epistemic value on what you experience, i.e. you trust your senses. You have evolved that way. It helps you survive (if you see a car coming at you, spending time considering evidence will get you dead, quick). So your belief that a car is coming at you is grounded in your experience, i.e. seeing it. You assume your senses and faculties are reliable as you have evolved to. That assumption is the foundation of your belief.
  
  People who believe in god also assume that their faculties and senses are reliable. Those people who feel forgiven or loved, or chastised and attribute that to god are 'experiencing' god. Their god-belief is grounded in that apparent experience. In the same way your headache-belief is grounded in your experience. You don't need evidence to prove to yourself you have a headache, and you don't care if no one believes that you do. You 'know' you do. Someone who believes in god doesn't need evidence to prove to themselves god exists. They 'know' god does. So if you genuinely believed you had experienced an FSM, then your belief in the FSM would be grounded in that experience. Presenting evidence to support that belief may be impossible, but for you it would be unnecessary.
  reply report
65
awareposted 12 years ago
ahhhhh . sighs..... and smiles. thats funny stuff
reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
Exaclty, the onus is on the wish-thinkers to prove the existence of their God. Not the unbelievers. Fact is wish-thinkers cannot prove the existence of their God just like unbelievers cannot disprove it.
reply report
54
Robertr04posted 12 years ago
So now what? Wish-thinkers?
reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
So now what? Well, since religion is the scurge of the world and, more specifically, the Christian religion promotes ignorance, servitude, genocide, murder and child abuse, its the duty of nonbelievers to try and reduce the influence of religion in our daily lives as much as possible.
reply report
1. 87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, one could argue that anyone who takes it upon themselves to do their 'duty' and take action against anyone else they deem the 'scurge of the world' has historically proven to be pretty big problems.
  reply report
61
SpanStarposted 12 years ago
I'm not buying it is "Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God."

Number one it is not a believer who is seeking God but rather the nonbeliever so just like a person looking to invest their money into a company they are unfamiliar with they take steps to establish whether or not this company is viable in short they had to prove to themselves that this is worth the time and money.

People always talking about needing evidence and if evidence doesn't exist God doesn't exist. OK, where is the evidence for human souls? Believers believe the soul is a spirit those who are of a scientific nature "What Say You?" Prove It!
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am a nonbeliever and I am not seeking God. Why would I want to be a servant to an insecure, tyrannical God who advocates genocide, murder, intolerance, child abuse and hate? In fact, I would love to erase the superstitions of the world and be rid of religion before it destroys the world.Wait, you are refering to the Christian God, right? I mean, there are 10,000 religions in the history of the world and they are all as plausible as the next. Which superstiton are you refering to?
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian,
  
  Based on what you've written clearly I have no idea on the distorted view of life you have regarding religious belief and trust me it is distorted.
  
  The evil you profess which is the corruption of the world please present the images, video what ever that shows that it is God and not man who was/is stealing, lying, cheating, killing, raping.
  
  I suspect you have a mug shot of the perpetrator you refer to as God correct?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I present to you the King James version of the Bible. Arguably the most immoral book I have ever read. The Old Testament advocates genocide, intolerance, murder, child abuse and servitude to a tyrannical and insecure toltalitarian dicator called God. However, in the Old Testament, at least one can escape this tyranny through death. It is not until the wickedest man in the Bible, Jesus Christ comes along that Hell is first mentioned. So, not only does the misery take you in life but it follows you unto the grave. A horrible and immoral doctrine.
  
  My view of your superstition comes from the black and white pages of the Bible and it means nothing to me to hear you say 'trust me it is distorted'. Who are you to be trusted?
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your perspective is most certainly distorted. If tyrants are out of control murdering and killing innocent men women and children then people who think like you believe that everyone should stand back and hold their hands and do nothing-how pathetic and ridiculous.
  
  Hell is a bad place so here is a thought just off the top of my head don't continue doing the evils which can get you into hell-like I said it's just the thought.
  reply report
71
EmVeeTposted 12 years ago
The fact is, GOD DOES EXIST. Whether some choose to acknowledge HIS Existence or not, does not change HIM. Moreover, GOD's Existence does not need to be proven. This earth is only one dimension of existence, a very limited one. GOD EXISTS outside the parameters of this earth, as well as in the heart's, minds and lives of those who choose to trust, love, worship and obey HIM.

Those who do not, will discover HIS EXISTENCE, but to their detriment, the discovery may come too late. You see, HIS OFFER of friendship is based on faith. Anyone who must "see" in order to believe, may be brought to consequence.

One thing that I consider truly fascinating is the concept that humankind considers itself so utterly important as to reject the idea of GOD, and then demand proof HE IS. In the Book The Bible calls Isaiah, there is a statement that says, "every knee shall bow to HIM, every tongue shall confess that HE IS LORD". This is no small claim. Yet, these words are written in invitation, not as a scare tactic.

GOD WILL PROVE HIS EXISTENCE, but HE WILL do so, in HIS OWN TIME. Meanwhile, the invitation to humankind is a limited time offer.

May GOD BLESS you.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In North America there is an inuit group who once believed that a raven rolled a gleaming ball on its wings and tossed it into the sky This is how the sun was created, they claim. Its acutally an interesting story and worth reading. However, there is as much evidence to support that claim as there is to support the existence of your God.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We shall both see...
  
  GOD BLESS you, Brian in Canada!
  
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. All the best to you.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Raven Steals the Sun! I actually own a copy of this, from a folklore and mythology course I took in college.
  
  EmVeeT does not need evidence or proof of God to believe. She doesn't need to prove it to you. Neither do athiests need to disprove God to others. That is the point of this topic, I believe (but not going to try and prove my belief about this topic is correct).
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kathleen, I have to disagree. When you have a text like the King James version of the Bible, for instance, which advocates genocide, murder, intolerance, child abuse and has Christians heading to the destitute parts of the world to tell people if the do not follow the word of God they will exist in everlasting torment - when they mutulate little boys and girls genitals for the rest of their lives (and who have no say in the matter) then the anti is raised and they must be able to provide proof for their horrific actions. It is not enough to just believe without proof. If they just minded their own business and kept their beliefs at home then all would be fine.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a rather harsh blanket statement. I don't think EmVeeT has mutilated children's parts, advocates murder, or advocates rape. I think there are very few Christians that actually do that stuff. The belief in a God, gods, or goddesses does not require any proving to anyone else. If it is real enough to you, then that is between you and your God. Of course, if you rape someone in God's name, you had better be able to prove God told you to do it...which, is not possible. People like that usually end up shot anyway.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  'People like that usually end up shot anyway' is based on what? Rape happens everyday, all over the world in the name of religion. I am not suggesting EmVee T does it personally, but what I described is actually happening all over the world in the name of Christianity and where would they learn it? In the Bible where it is writtien clearly in black and white. It is not a blanket statement, these are facts.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, considering we shot Bin Laden because he committed an act of terrorism in the name of his religion...
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and in my opinion the Americans were justified in shooting him. Good on the USA!
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian in Canada,
  
  You said, " When you have a text like the King James version of the Bible, for instance, which advocates genocide, murder, intolerance, child abuse and has Christians heading to the destitute parts of the world to tell people if the do not follow the word of God they will exist in everlasting torment - when they mutulate little boys and girls genitals for the rest of their lives (and who have no say in the matter) then the anti is raised..."
  
  Then to, "we shot Bin Laden because he committed an act of terrorism in the name of his religion..." You replied, "Yes, and in my opinion the Americans were justified in shooting him. Good on the USA!"
  
  Are you telling the members of Hub Pages that you have a right to applaud the killing of a terrorist... and that your judgment is just? Are you also saying, you have a right to judge the workings of GOD?
  
  You see, Brian in Canada, we are living in a day when the world has been witness to Bin Laden's terrorism; but, none of us are witness to the terroristic actions or atrocities of the people against whom GOD Pronounced Judgment.
  
  Furthermore, be careful what you write. GOD DOES NOT ADVOCATE " genocide, murder, intolerance, child abuse...". I caution you in love: you need to be careful what you write.
  
  The King James Version of The Bible is only one Book by which historical record has been documented; there are other historical books that document the atrocities committed by the various nations; as well as the atrocities against the people of GOD throughout the ages. The Israelites, just as the Israelis today have been brought to endure horrific atrocities at the hand of the nations that sought to annihilate them. The insidious actions continue against the nation and against the people of GOD.
  
  You write as though you are perfect and have the right to point your finger at GOD. I am unsure: are you a professed atheist? (I have not read all the posts on this Thread.) If so, I will better understand how a mere human has the heart to consider GOD as miniscule as man, and why you consider yourself capable of judging HIM on any level, without any real understanding of the historical facts, or the reasons behind any of what HE ADVOCATES, if in fact, HE ADVOCATES... If you are an atheist, you certainly have a strange way of proving that profession... you attribute all of humankind's (or at least those of any who call themselves Christian) faults to THE GOD you don't believe in...
  
  You also write as though man, in general, has not engaged in atrocities of the type you attribute to GOD, only Christians... and I admit, so very much damage has been done to the NAME of THE MOST HIGH GOD, in the name of religion; but that is due to the frailty of humankind.
  
  GOD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the inept manifestations of any man in HIS Name, in the name of religion or in any other name. Moreover, each individual will face HIM personally relating to the actions, words and even thoughts that have been entertained and exacted during a lifetime.
  
  I know that whatever point I make will be shot down by you or by others who think like you. This is your right and privilege in a "free speech" platform. However, I would like to request that those who think as you do, think deeply about the words attributed to, for or against GOD.
  
  Man/woman makes many mistakes... oh so many. GOD MAKES NO MISTAKES. Therefore, whatever is written about HIM... well... whether you say you believe in HIM or not, HE IS; therefore, I request that those who want to say anything against HIM consider the words will be emblazoned upon the records pertaining to the season(s) of humankind, and will brought forward on Judgment Day.
  
  I pray GOD forgives those who have no clue the depths of disrespect to THE LIVING GOD. I pray a Revelation of HIS NATURE and POWER cause the many to temper each word wielded like a sword to slash HIM down. Because HE IS GOD, HE FORGIVES, but each of us is responsible for what we say, when we say, 'we mean it or we don't care...".
  
  GOD BLESS you, Brian in Canada.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
It's interesting that believers seem to drive atheists nuts because they believe. Isn't is fine for everybody to believe whatever they want?
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The believers do not drive me nuts - if they want to believe in something based on zero evidence, despite how illogical and irrational their belief is, then so be it. If they want to be servants to a master then it is their right and I would not take that away from them even if I had the power.
  reply report
2. 59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What drives us nuts is when believers turn their belief into policy.
  reply report
61
Jenna Popeposted 12 years ago
Look at a baby's tiny fingernails or a spider under a magnifying glass or at a beautiful sunset. . . Intelligent design is apparent.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right! Nature is wonderful.
  reply report
2. 59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Would you include the appendix, male nipples, and the sharing/close proximity of excretory and reproductive organs in your intelligent design?
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
Are you speaking to me? If so I am baffled at your reply. Where does it say that I believe people should stand aside and allow murder, rape or even genocide of men, women and children like the one's God commanded Moses to perpetrate in the Bible? Of course it should be stopped! Genocide is the most horrible, immoral act to commit on earth, like the examples God advocates in the Bible. You know 'The Good Book' where we supposedly inherit our morals from ...
reply report
1. 61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Talking to you Brian, absolutely
  
  It is implied says you're putting all the blame on God for the actions of men. The Egyptians enslaved thousands of people now since you said it should be stopped how are you going to stop them? The same can be said for the Romans-how are you going to stop them. Modern man has engaged in numerous wars-why haven't they been stopped?
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
By the way, where are the Amalekites and Canaanites now? Oh, they do not exist as they were vicitms of genocide ordered by God. Even the children were not spared the sword.
reply report
1. 61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian,
  
  Am I'm to take from what you said that you saw God use a sword against these people or perhaps you have some definitive proof that God was killing these people and not men?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am relating the word of the Bible. In the Bible God commands Moses to commit genocide against the Amaleks. This is in black and white print. As a Christian, are you not to believe the word of the Bible or do you pick and chose what to believe?
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't bother, man. They only see "God" in a good light.
  
  Don't try to point out to people the many places where God commands awful things. For instance, there was a man and he was told by a prophet to strike him (the prophet) for no apparent reason, and the man refuses, so God sends a lion to maul him to death for not obeying the violent command.
  
  That's in 1 Kings 20.
  
  Or about the "man of God" who God told not to eat and drink in a certain place. Then, however, an old prophet lied to him, knowing he would trust his words because he was a prophet and claimed that an angel changed the rules. The man ate and drank in the place he wasn't supposed to, and knowing he'd been deceived, God still sent a lion to kill Him, anyway.
  
  You'll find that in 1 Kings 13.
  
  God likes to send lions to maul people, me thinks.
  
  Anyway, there are endless scriptures pointing out his tyrannical nature, but most Christians find a way to blow it off or excuse it.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly! Well said! I recently sited a few scriptures from the King James Version of the Bible to a woman who wanted me to prove a point. She later said, as her only defense, that her King James Version does not have these scriptures in it .... I mean, how can you argue with such ignorance?
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can't, always. Sometimes you just have to walk away... especially from people who are so deluded that they can barely relate to other humans anymore... I believe some people on here actually live on a different planet...
  reply report
2. 61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian,
  
  When one reads passages in the Bible where God is telling man to eliminate others first of all because he alone understands what the results would be if they remained alive. Secondly God deals with man at our own ignorance level. If someone is a pugilist it is doubtful the approach to a solution is through hugs and kisses. The same can be said for tyrants who are not going to be swayed by passionate words. Someone once said in order to communicate you have to talk to a person in a language they understand. Do you really think one can go into a prison institution with flowers in their hair and changed the dynamics of that institution?
  
  God can cause death but most times you will find it is at the request of humans.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, but didn't Jesus say to 'love your enemies'? You have just contradicted that by saying: "The same can be said for tyrants who are not going to be swayed by passionate words. Someone once said in order to communicate you have to talk to a person in a language they understand. Do you really think one can go into a prison institution with flowers in their hair and changed the dynamics of that institution?"
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian,
  
  Jesus did in fact say "Love Your Enemies." Which is in fact what we should do meaning all of mankind. Jesus/God is however not forcing people to do so. The man God of peace was tortured and murdered by humans.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And that same God tortured and murdered way more humans...
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It seems to me that most atheists present a good arguement against organized religion and jump to the conclusion that this somehow proves the nonexistence of a higher power that we call God.
  
  We make the mistake when we attempt to define "GOD" We forget that we are playing his game. We make conclusions based upon those facts that he has given us.
  
  Nothing is as it apears to be. We make conclusions based only upon those facts that we choose to accept. We truly are prisoners of our own mind.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you assume that I am an Atheist? I simply strongly disagree witht he Christian/Western view of a possible "transcendent" entity of the Universe. My views on the world are very influenced by science, but also by Eastern thought, and my own experiences, and other people's experiences, and psychology. i think it's important not to only see the world from one point of view, especially when that point of view includes a supposedly loving God, who shows favoritism and is very similar in nature to humans, many times the worst of humanity, I might add, while supposedly having "higher thoughts and ways" than we do.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
Brian you are obviously seeking answers otherwise why would you take the time to write the hub. I continue to wonder why atheists (I'm sure not all) seem to be angry and want to insult Christians. Why not just believe what you believe and let others do the same?
reply report
1. 61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists are afraid of accepting existence of God, because they do not know what will happen to them after death. they insult all believers not only christians. their denial ability is too succesful.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What is scary is: Don't believe God. Believe me. That's how cults are started.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that is how Christianity gets its follwer, too, and it too is a cult.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know exactly what will happen to me after death, and there is ample evidence that what I believe is correct. Where is your evidence?
  
  BTW, which god should I accept the existence of?
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Allah is your god ,your creator even though you deny.. he is only god, he created you,you were born ,you will die and return him. you do not have to accept, it is your desicion,of course. there is no obligation. but god warns you
  about your not believing in Quran,bible and other books.once people wanted the proof like yours, god sent you holy books and prophets. many miracles and people destruction occured,however some people went on denying.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Followers of Vishnu in India tell people the same thing. Followers of Wotan told people the same thing in Scandanavia a thousand years ago. Marduk's followers in Babylonia said the same thing back in the day.
  
  How do you know the holy books are right? At some point, did you say "I know this sounds like nonsense, but I am going to believe it anyway?"
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  if you read,you can decide yourself, there is no even minor wrong information about past and future. quran is a quide to show how you can live in peace and the questions that you wonder about creation,etc.. ıt is not my duty to prove Allah and books, they already exist. ı pray for guidance.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But the Qur'an says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Christians call Jesus God, Muslims call him a messenger. Wouldn't this be an example of an error in the Qur'an?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Calynbana,
  
  You say, "the Qur'an says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God."
  
  I'm unsure regarding what is written in the Qur'an, but I can tell you from the view of Christianity, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same GOD.
  
  You see, to Christians, JESUS is not simply a prophet or a good man, HE IS GOD Incarnate. To believe anything less about HIM is error. Of course, there are many branches, that call themselves Christian also saying JESUS was only a prophet, but that is not what THE BIBLE says about HIM.
  
  I don't know if you have actually read the Qur'an. I have not. Still, I interact with a great many Muslims and I have never heard one tell me they are taught Christianity and Islam believe the same thing. Never.
  
  You should check the information out for yourself. That is the very best way to be sure you have the truth on this subject. I am almost certain, Islam thinks JESUS is merely a prophet. Not so for Christians. To me, HE IS GOD, Who came to the earth, specifically to die for my sins, so that I could resume in relationship with GOD, THE FATHER, or ADONAI, YEHWEH, THE LIVING GOD. JESUS' Death paid the debt of my sins. I am free from the debt as a result of HIS SHED BLOOD. HIS WILLING SUBSTITUTION on my behalf, makes me free and clear of my debt of sin. From the moment I accepted HIS DEATH on The Cross of Calvary on my behalf, I was liberated to interact with GOD, THE FATHER again.
  
  JESUS, is my SAVIOUR, my LORD and my SOVEREIGN GOD! not so for a Muslim.
  
  MAY GOD bring the truth to light, for HIS Name's Sake.
  
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Islam, Judaism and Christianity all follow the same god. That's why they're called the "Abrahamic" religions. Look it up if you doubt.
  
  "Still, I interact with a great many Muslims and I have never heard one tell me they are taught Christianity and Islam believe the same thing. Never."
  
  They don't believe the same thing, otherwise they'd be the same religions. Help me out here, ihayaydin, but Muslims refer to Christians and Jews as "people of the book." They respect Jesus and see him as a prophet, but not as the son of God. They see Mohammed as the final prophet.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Twosheds1,
  
  You say, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all follow the same god. That's why they're called the "Abrahamic" religions. Look it up if you doubt.
  
  I will do one better than look it up. I will ask my Muslim friends for their view. You see, I don't agree with this statement; because my Muslim friends follow "allah", and Islam may be called an "Abrahamic religion", but the final result has nothing to do with the Abrahamic Covenant.
  
  Have you looked that up? The Abrahamic Covenant promises to Abraham and his seed what has been promised... through ISAAC, the son of promise... What the writer of the Qur'an promoted is very different from what GOD's WORD inspires, offers and teaches.
  
  These two faiths do not worship the same god. Of this I am 100% certain.
  
  Blessings to you, Twosheds1!
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As a matter of fact, I did look that up:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
  
  "Allah" is Arabic for "god."
  
  "What the writer of the Qur'an promoted is very different from what GOD's WORD inspires, offers and teaches."
  
  Well, sure, they're different religions! But they worship the same god. Of this I am 100% certain.
  Check with ihayaydin if you doubt.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know that Islam teaches about Jesus being a prophet. I am referring to a passage in the Qur'an that says that Muslims worship the same God as Jews, and Christians.
  
  Christians believe that Jesus is God.
  
  If Muslims are worshiping the same God as Christians they would be worshiping Christ alongside us. They are not. They worship a different god.
  
  That would mean that the Qur'an is inaccurate in saying that these three large religions worship the same God.
  
  That was the only point I was trying to make because it was earlier said that the Qur'an has no errors and it seems that it does.
  reply report
  69
  grinnin1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that the Old Testament in the Bible teaches that Muslims ,Jews and Christians do worship the same God. The God of the old Testament. Abraham had Isaac with his wife, Sarah, and Ishmael with Hagaar, Sarah's Egyptian slave. God told Abraham that they would both become great nations, and both his sons, but that the descendents he promised (Jews) would be through the line of Isaac. The Trinity, and Christianity doesn't come into play until Jesus is born and fulfills the Old Testament, but to begin with, our God is one and the same.
  reply report
  61
  Highland Terrierposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evening,
  What sins did you commit?
  Where you alive back then?
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the quran came to earth after the bible,if one of them is wrong, it must be bible because the bible doesnt mention quran but Quran mentions, there are maryam(mary) surah and others. maybe you heard, but the bible has been changed over centuries. it is said that real bible is being protected. since first life, many prophet came to earth, people always needed guides. original bible doesnt exist ,therefore a new holy book is needed and god sent quran and hz. Muhammed. ı believe jesus is great prophet and messenger of god. real bible and quran arent different, they say same things in basis.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am questioning a phrase from the Qur'an that refers to Christians- the followers of Christ. The followers who believe that Jesus is God. The Qur'an says that they worship the same God as Muslims.
  
  So either you worship the same God as Christians- which would be Jesus, or you are telling me that the Qur'an has an error.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't want to speak for ihayaydin, but I don't think he's saying the quran has an error. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God/part of God/whatever (I don't get the whole Trinity thing), but Muslims (and Jews) don't. They think Christians are misguided, and not that the Bible is wrong, per se, but perhaps that it is a book of parables and metaphors, rather than a text to be taken literally.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A fine statement, that Allah is the one and only God, and it has exactly the same relation to truth that twosheds comment does: none. Either may be true, either may be false. Neither has evidence of truth, neither is accepted by a majority of people.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, there is a great nostril that sneezed us into existence. Devote your life to it, lest ye be damned. I have no proof, but you better believe!
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My point was that every other religion in history believed that it was the one true faith, and that any and all others were false (OK, maybe not Unitarians, but most religions). They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. How does one know if one is following the correct one?
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You mentioned the Qur'an and the Bible, does that mean you read and trust both scriptures?
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be silly; there is no reason for an atheist, KNOWING (just as you do, and with just as much evidence) what will happen at death - the self disappears forever from the cosmos. No punishment, no torture, just an ending with nothing more.
  
  The religious, on the other hand, have a very definite reason to fear death and do. They will go to heaven or hell, but never know which one. They thus have a great fear of death as they may enter the chambers of eternal torture and pain.
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the ones who love their god ,never have fear inside them, they want to meet with their god as soon as. the death is the beginning of real life, this world is fake, we have very short life span.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm..this sounds alot like the Philosophers of the 3rd and 4th century BCE...(Hint: Plato)
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can see from this fellows response how much religious people despise the earth, its beauty and the people in it. They say 'the world is fake'. They are afraid of life and wish for death. Believe me, it won't be global warming or a comet that will destroy the earth, it will be the hate of religious people for the earth. The axis of evil: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian in Canada,
  
  You say, You can see from this fellows response how much religious people despise the earth, its beauty and the people in it. They say 'the world is fake'. They are afraid of life and wish for death.
  
  Have you lost anyone you love?
  
  Death is a very permanent separation for those of us who dwell on the earth from those we love, and with whom we embrace relationship. To observe that "religious people despise the earth, its beauty and the people in it..." is truly shallow.
  
  How can you be expected to be taken seriously when your goal is to insult the sensitivities of those you appear to despise, based on the word selections you make.
  
  You say, "...religious people...say 'the world is fake'. They are afraid of life and wish for death."
  
  Those who "wish for death..." are more often than not, people who have lost faith, who have lost hope, who find themselves in circumstances that appear to swallow their options and cast them into a sea of veritable fears and infinite frustrations. I state this, since, in my life I have conversed with many individuals who have experienced such defeat that they could not find the clear path toward balance for their lives.
  
  The desperation and anger, bitterness and lack of power they felt was birthed in the lack of faith or the upset over not being able to understand because they counted on others to give them a solution, instead of investing themselves into position of strength, using the skills at their disposal.
  
  The fact that you target, "Christianity, Judaism and Islam" as "the axis of evil" proves you are a very prejudiced individual. I dare say, your generalization is narrow-minded, unwarranted and cruel. If this is one of the foundational thought-patterns undergirding atheism, I am SO VERY THANKFUL TO GOD in Heaven that I am not one.
  
  May GOD BLESS all your thoughts, actions and words, with HIS WISDOM, HIS COMPASSION, HIS TRUTH and HIS MERCY. I pray this in THE POWERFUL NAME of YESHUA, of Nazareth, GOD with us. Amen.
  
  Certainly
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Religion has passed so much evil, death and destruction on the world that I dare say it poisons everything. Yes, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have proven to be nothing but evil all over the world. I dont want your Gods blessing - it is clear in the Bible he is a violent, jealous God who is cruel and unforgiving.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian in Canada,
  
  GOD IS SO GOOD TO you, and you fail to see it. In fact, I already see how much HE HAS BLESSED you. You live in a country where you are free to believe what you will. You are free to express yourself, even if your expressions are sadly biased. You have a right to tell me you don't want my GOD's Blessing too. So, I will no longer write that on any communication with you; however, I will pray for you on my own.
  
  You are obviously very angry. Something has made you hate GOD. The problem with your hatred, is that it is misdirected. Whatever motivates your hatred may have attached itself to GOD, but I can assure you, GOD WAS NOT THERE. HE COULD HAVE BEEN if you had called upon HIM for help, or protection.
  
  I believe the god who has truly caused your pain is the same one blinding you to the fact that GOD, THE CREATOR GOD, that is, is very forgiving. HE IS not violent; however HE IS HOLY and HE WILL NOT TOLERATE EVIL forever.
  
  You call HIM jealous... you would be too, if everything good about you, that you did for anyone, was accredited to someone or something else. HIS Jealousy is HOLY. HE WANTS us to understand the value of relationship with HIM. In fact, HE DIED to secure that relationship.
  
  There's more to the story, but I can't write a book here. And you seem very familiar with, actually in hate with THE HOLY BIBLE, so I think you may have been forced to read it sometime.
  
  What I do know is you are mistaken about GOD. However, you are free to believe whatever you prefer.
  
  Emveet.
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? "Nothing but evil"?
  
  I stay at Marriotts all the time, and the people there are always very nice, and treat me with respect. I am thankful for Marriott. Marriott, did you know, operates under the name of God? Yes, there is a Bible in every bedside stand at every Marriott I have ever visited. How, then, is that "Nothing but evil"?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As soon as I check into a room I open my front door and throw that immoral book into the hallway. I was my hands immediately after touching it.
  reply report
  59
  paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Flip through it and be sure there isn't a $5 bill tucked in it first...
  reply report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then you are being disrespectful to those who have openly served you, regardless of your religion.
  
  There is a difference between being a non-believer, and being blatently disrespectful.
  
  edit: And that doesn't surprise me, you being Canadian, and all. I deal with Canadians all the time living this close to the border. They trash our stores, disrespect our employees, and clog our roads with their overstuffed SUVs and Minivans full of American merchandise.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So that was you? I used to work at a Marriott. The owner, J. Willard Marriott Jr., is a Mormon, and so the Book of Mormon is in every Marriott room as well. The Bibles, however, are placed by the Gideons, and they have Bibles in every hotel room in the US. (I've also found Gideon Bibles in cabins I've rented) I have no idea what their logic is in doing that.
  
  But also, I wouldn't say that Marriott operates "under the name of God." They operate casinos and you can get porno movies in your room. They're a business first and foremost.
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  as atheist,what have you proved so far? if believers and their god are evil,before this evil one infects you, go some far away, live in another world. as human, you are weak creature, even a minor virus is enough to kill you. you are powerless. God gives you everything to survive, you need light, god has given you Sun, you need water and food, god has given you the soil to plant and rains. you should thank god. God give you intelligence, he made you superior to other creature. if someone is evil, they are unthankful ones.even if you are 100 years old, if you believe god,your all past sins will be forgived, you will be naive like a baby.whatever you are,god is welcome to you.
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Death and destruction seems to be enevediable for all life forms in this physical reality . Some have longer life spans than others. And there are countless ways in which it is carried out.
  And I guess some ways are more enjoyable than others ????
  
  Some people might consider them all "EVIL" some more than others.
  Even a kernel of corn must die in order to sustain lifer. Go Figure?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness:
  
  You said:
  
  The religious, on the other hand, have a very definite reason to fear death and do. They will go to heaven or hell, but never know which one. They thus have a great fear of death as they may enter the chambers of eternal torture and pain.
  
  You assume much.
  
  I, for one, have no fear of death. Like every other normal person, I sometimes wonder when, where or how it will happen for me. However, I have no fear of death and the hereafter. I am confident that my body will cease to exist, but the deeper, more valuable essence of who I am, my eternal soul, will not cease to exist.
  
  Have you never watched the NDE's of those who testify to continuing to "be" after their body was dead? I have spoken to two people regarding their 'death' experiences; and the knowledge they contributed to my base, not only reflected what I know about death through THE BIBLE, but answered questions for me that were in complete accord with one another and with THE BIBLE contextual proofs.
  
  To assume is to think what you really don't know... (my own definition). Perhaps, many of us are guilty of this, but throwing out viewpoints that prove the lack of knowledge is silly. While I am not religious, I do have a deep set faith in GOD, HIS SON JESUS, Whom I call my SAVIOUR, and HIS HOLY SPIRIT, the part of HIM with whom I interact. These are factual evidences to me that HE IS GOD. However, the only reason I have such an interaction is because I sought it out many, many years ago.
  
  Throughout the course of my faith walk, or journey, thousands of circumstances might have proven to me, HIS lack of existence. But no!
  
  HIS EXISTENCE and VITAL INTERACTION with me, my circumstances and the people I love has consistently been AFFIRMED, CONFIRMED and REAFFIRMED. I have an affinity to this world because of the people I love and the activities that I participate in; however, when the day comes that I am no more, I am not afraid. I am ready.
  
  You might consider this an option.
  
  GOD BLESS you, Wilderness.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just out of curiousity, do you know of any non-Christians who had a NDE and then converted to Christianity? Not atheists or people weak in their faith, but people who were actual followers of other religions?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Twosheds1! How are you?
  
  You asked, "do you know of any non-Christians who had a NDE and then converted to Christianity?"
  
  Yes. A Dr. Maurice Rawlings. He wrote a book many years ago called, "Beyond Death's Door". I read it years ago. Recently, he did a documentary with many NDE cases integrated into the mix. On this documentary I learned Dr. Rawlings was actually an atheist before being involved with a NDE. This NDE was not his own, but one of his patients. In any case... the answer to your question is 'yes'. More than one. More than a few... in other words, 'many'.
  
  GOD BLESS you, Twosheds1!
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently you didn't read all of what I asked. I asked not for people who were atheists. I assume Dr. Rawlings was raised in a Christian setting, so his conversion makes sense. What I was looking for was, for example, a Hindu who converted to Christianity after an NDE. Someone who doesn't have any Christian background at all. I Googled it and didn't find anything.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
And is seems desperately that We want people we DON"T know to believe what's in our minds. It is easier for me to believe in Jesus.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, being a servant to a totalitarian master and allowing him to control your life is much easier than chosing freedom from oppression and individuality.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Brian. It gives me a peace that passes understanding.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It also passes logic, common sense and integrity.
  reply report
57
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
each and every individual posesses a small amount of creative abilities.
Each and every word that comes out of our mouths has an affect upon the enviroment which we live in.

Can you imagine how strong that ability would be if it were not divided?
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 12 years ago
It is also been prophesied in the Bible that he (the devil) would will deceive the whole world in as much as people have been conversing with nonbelievers from my point of view I think we are at the beginning of Satan's deception. For if we can get someone to believe that something isn't what it really is then we can control that someone or someones'.
reply report
1. 59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know the Bible is true?
  reply report
  61
  SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Twosheds1,
  
  Good question.
  
  Unfortunately God is not looking for us to prove his existence he is asking us to trust him.
  
  If you were injured, incapable of leaving the spot you were in when your good friend next to your side says he will go and get help you have two choices to trust that he will or trust that he won't.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True, but my friend has provided evidence, through (actual) friendship, that he's reliable. If it was some dude I never met, I might be a little suspicious.
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
In the Bible there are countless acts of violence perpetrated by the followers of God under his direct orders. Genocide, murder, rape, etc. How do you know that those Christians in recent times who have commited such acts in the name of their beliefs have not done so under the direct order of God? You don't know this - maybe such as in the Old Testament Gos is commanding them to murder women and children, such as God commanded Moses in the Old Testamtent to do.

Now, before you say "God is a loving, caring, forgiving God and would never do that" again, I once again refer you to the King James version of the Bible where God is anything but those things. A cold hearted, jealous, malicious God, yes, but not a loving one.
reply report
1. 71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian in Canada,
  
  You say, "How do you know that those Christians in recent times who have commited such acts in the name of their beliefs have not done so under the direct order of God? You don't know this ..."
  
  Yes. I know without a doubt GOD DID NOT give ANY INDIVIDUAL ORDERS to commit acts of violence and/or crime. How do I know?
  
  The New Testament is a Book that extends a NEW COVENANT to humankind. That Covenant is one that GUARANTEES GOD'S MERCY to those who FOLLOW HIM in SPIRIT and in TRUTH. To follow GOD/JESUS/THE HOLY SPIRIT in spirit and in truth a person must live a sinless life in as much as he/she is able to do. This means, that to the best of his/her ability, a TRUE FOLLOWER of GOD will NEVER COMMIT an act that would break one of The Ten Commandments.
  
  To break any of The Ten Commandments breaks the relationship with GOD. In other words, if an individual commits an act of violence or crime and then blames GOD for it, that person is delusional and/or mentally unstable, or in great deception. Anyone who says GOD Told them to commit an act of violence or crime is lying to themselves.
  
  The question that needs to be asked is [i]which god were they listening to, because it was NOT THE GOD of ALL CREATION and ETERNAL LIFE!
  
  You say, "...God is...A cold hearted, jealous, malicious God, yes, but not a loving one."
  
  Wow. I find your words sad and agonizingly painful. They make me think of a person who was brutalized by someone who claimed to love GOD. They make me wonder if torture, abuse and malicious tact was used in pounding the idea of God into the person writing them.
  
  GOD IS LOVING. GOD DOES CARE. GOD FORGIVES, even harsh words like the ones you've written here. How do I know?
  
  I forgive you and I could only do so because GOD GRANTS me the Grace to extend HIS LOVE TOWARD you. GOD's MERCY EXTENDS beyond whatever hatred, bitterness or anguish lies buried in the depths of your soul.
  
  HE IS not, the misrepresented object of your pain. Whoever caused you to be filled with such animosity toward GOD, that person will have to face THE CREATOR one day for whatever may have been done. If you can bring yourself to forgive whatever horrors you were made to endure at the hands of whomever misrepresented HIM, GOD WILL HEAL whatever pain motivates your harsh statements.
  
  I pray HIS HEALING HAND rests upon you, and HIS LOVING SPIRIT BREATHES new life into your heart, body, mind, soul and broken spirit. I pray all this through CHRIST JESUS, Amen.
  
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Amen.
  reply report
61
Highland Terrierposted 12 years ago
Given the state of the world at the moment where religion is concerned, where every single day someone is slaughter, injuried, maimed, imprisoned and unbelieveable atrocities are visited on individuals by believers in the name of their God, it would seem to me that those who believe must as a matter of urgency PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of this God.

What next atrocity is waiting for us in the name of God.

One thing is certain some one will be murder in his name this week, some where in the world.
Blind faith must not be the only answer. Prove of Gods existance must be provided if he is the reason that the atrocity was committed.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Finally, a breath of fresh air. Well said, Highland Terrier!
  reply report
2. 71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hello Highland Terrier!
  
  You said:
  
  Given the state of the world at the moment where religion is concerned, where every single day someone is slaughter, injuried, maimed, imprisoned and unbelieveable atrocities are visited on individuals by believers in the name of their God, it would seem to me that those who believe must as a matter of urgency PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of this God.
  
  If by "those who believe..." you are directing the comment to those who commit the "unbelievable atrocities... in the name of their God..." Then I would agree. Because those individuals are not actually following GOD, or doing HIS WILL; they are more than likely doing their own will and hiding behind the name of GOD. However, you can rest assured that unless they repent of their dealings, acts of violence, horror or crime, they will not only be brought to task as a result of those actions, but also for using THE NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME as their veil of deception.
  
  I wouldn't want to be that person. ...not even for a moment...
  
  You also said, "Prove of Gods existance must be provided if he is the reason that the atrocity was committed."
  
  You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding. GOD DOES NOT ADVOCATE EVIL. No exceptions. Whatever evil atrocities said to be done in HIS NAME, are not! Worse still, atrocities are NOT DONE IN ACCORDANCE TO HIS WILL. These acts are criminal, and the people who commit them are best to be brought to justice here on earth rather than in the PRESENCE of GOD. They will have no excuse and no whimsical accusations to protect them IN HIS FACE.
  
  GOD BLESS you, Highland Terrier.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied ot racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive towards children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You say, "... organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."
  
  Organized religion was never GOD'S plan. Organized religion is man's invention.
  
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Makes sense since man invented God. It is only natural he should invent organized religion, too.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here is your loving, forgiving God at work:
  
  (Number 15 32:36) A man is found by chldren to be collecting sticks on the sabbath. The man is confined until it can be decided what should be done with him. 'And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death'. The hapless man was stones to death at the order of God. What a wonderful, loving God this is - he had a man murdered for collecting sticks. Sticks! Its not like the man stole a loaf of bread or raped a woman. The man might have been collecting them to keep himself and his family warm at night. Why murder him for this? What a tale of morality and love! Why didn't God just appear before the man and scare him into not collecting sticks instead of having him murdered in such a barbaric manner? You know, its tales like this that make me wonder if Lucifer isn't the more sane one and wasn't in fact kicked out of heaven for possibly being moral and good. God surely is not!
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dearest Brian in Canada,
  
  You say,
  
  Why didn't God just appear before the man and scare him into not collecting sticks instead of having him murdered in such a barbaric manner?
  
  I will not offer you an explanation, because I was not there and I don't know the finer details. However, I can assure you that you are free to ask GOD when you see HIM. HE WILL have a plausible response for your question.
  
  What I can say is that you are quoting from The Old Testament. In that portion of GOD'S Covenant with those HE CHOSE to know HIM better grace did not yet exist on the basis that it was granted in The New Testament. In other words, The Old Testament is filled with the laws that GOD laid down, in order to make humankind understand that without HIS GRACE we are all dead. Something as simple as "collecting sticks" was considered a breaking of the law... and yes, was punishable by death.
  
  The New Testament is a whole different story. JESUS DIED so that each of us has the option of repenting of our mistakes and beginning fresh and new each and every day. However, many individuals take the Gracious Mercy of GOD to mean HE CAN BE judged, belittled, mocked and called evil.
  
  The way GOD WORKS, HE PROVIDES Examples for everything HE HAS ESTABLISHED, just as a KING would do.
  
  In ancient times, it was not unnatural or uncommon for a person to be killed simply for trying to speak to the reigning King out of order, or without permission, or being spoken to. This didn't even require the breaking of a law... and this (King) was only an ordinary man. Why shouldn't GOD ESTABLISH Laws that HE EXPECTS humankind to keep. Thing is, once it became abundantly clear that humankind could not possibly keep the laws HE SET, HE CAME to PAY THE DEBT of sin for all who realize the burden of keeping the law to be too heavy to carry on the shoulders of mere mortals. JESUS CAME TO DIE so we (you, I) don't have to die for breaking the law ~ provided we recognize that the law was broken and we repent for doing so.
  
  That is a forgiving GOD. For all that you say HE is not. Consider how BLESSED you are: you have THE SHED BLOOD of JESUS, WHO WAS GOD INCARNATE, OFFERED up for your sins... so you don't have to pay for your own mistakes. Yes. HE IS A FORGIVING GOD and A GENEROUS ONE as well.
  
  Emveet.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did he really have him murdered? Maybe God, being all knowing, was just saying what he already knew.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unitify, I just went to Numbers 15, to look up the circumstance. Here is what the Chapter says before the circumstance in which the man was stoned to death occurred:
  
  (These verses are taken from THE KING JAMES VERSION of THE HOLY BIBLE ~Brian in Canada's favorite version...) ~(these verses are Public domain... please note the italicized portions, I have italicized them for the sake of emphasis...)
  
  22 And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,
  
  23 Even all that the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;
  
  24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the Lord, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.
  
  25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance:
  
  26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.
  
  27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
  
  28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
  
  The answer is plain: GOD GRANTED a FORGIVENESS to anyone who sinned in ignorance. HE EVEN MADE PROVISION so that the entire population would know the error was made in ignorance (not on purpose) and HE REQUIRED the priesthood to ensure the offering for sin was properly secured, so the offending individual did NOT HAVE TO PAY for the mistake.
  
  If you don't mind, read on: (Still in Numbers Chapter 15: verses 30, 31) ~ All emphasis mine...
  
  30 [b]But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
  
  31 Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
  
  In other words, the person who committed the sin of rebellion [i]against GOD on purpose was ]b]responsible for that sin and the payment of consequence for it[/b]; because this was a direct affront to THE LIVING GOD.
  
  GOD didn't have him murdered... GOD ESTABLISHED THE LAW and that law was punishable by death for those who meant to mock GOD, in rebellion, saying, "I'm not going to listen to you...". Since GOD, in The Old Testament was establishing HIS LAWS with HIS People, and A SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH had not yet been provided for those who SINNED ON PURPOSE, the man was required to pay his debt of sin and rebellion.
  
  The NEW TESTAMENT differs in that JESUS HAS PAID THE DEBT of SIN for everyone...and every single person on the face of the planet has a choice to accept that OFFERING OF BLOOD that is required as a consequence to sin, up until he/she takes a very last breath. Once this life ends though, so does the offer... and the debt of sin is due from the individual, with no substitutions. Therefore, GOD, proving humankind is wicked... not to HIMSELF but to humankind... set aside The Old Covenant ~ giving humans an 'up-to-the-last-minute' opportunity to repent of all sin(s), even if they don't remember what those sins are (because they are recorded in heaven, but most people couldn't keep track if they tried...) yet, if that person repents, HE ACCEPTS THE BLOOD of JESUS as their DEBT CONSOLIDATION/REDEMPTION PRICE. If that person can't be bothered with THE OFFERING, neither will GOD be bothered with forgiveness.
  
  The choice is ours.
  
  Regarding the 'poor man who got stoned for collecting sticks...' GOD DEALS with the heart of man, not appearance. This individual was clearly breaking the laws of GOD in rebellion, and GOD KNEW he would repeatedly sin against HIM, (probably in increasingly antagonistic ways); rather than grant him an opportunity to hurt or drag others down with him, GOD made him an instrument of purpose, showing all those who knew him and surrounded him, sin has a dire consequence.
  
  The man was not a victim, he was an instigator, and GOD WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW him to lower the standard of the law.
  
  MAY GOD BLESS you...
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Very well put. I don't claim to know all of why God does what he does. But I believe God has good reason. By faith and be his word, I trust him to be a loving God. I believe planting the seed of his word is commanded of us. And if anyone wants to talk about God with me, I am glad to do it. I won't however, have a heated debate about it. All I can do then is pray for that person. Thanks for your response.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Firstly, regarding God not punishing those who act ignorantly, I have a scripture that shows Him doing otherwise. I'll just summarize it, but you can find it in 1 Kings 13.
  
  Basically there was a "man of God" who God commanded not to eat and drink in a certain place. Then, however, an old prophet lied to him, knowing he would trust his words because he was a prophet and claimed that an angel changed the rules, and it was ok for him to eat and drink in that place. The man, believing God changed His mind, ate and drank in the place he wasn't supposed to, and knowing he'd been deceived, God still sent a lion to kill Him, anyway. Hm... I find that to be a troublesome contradiction.
  
  Secondly, for a God who supposedly created us with "free will" who didn't want "robots" to worship HIm, why were the punishments so sever for people who wanted to live, well, freely? I don't know if the idea of God Christians have and the actions of the God of the OT match up from a more objective, less emotional/subjective point of view...
  
  There are a few problems with that idea.
  
  1) Why is it that the only way a debt for this God be forgiven through the shedding of blood? Why would a God, who can literally do anything, make the only way that you can be set free from the mistakes that you make by the suffering of someone else (be it human, animal, or what have you?). (Why is making a mistake, whether purposefully or by accident, so worthy of punishment to God, anyway?) If I had the ability to create a Universe with anything I want and all the rules that I want, why would I be so unforgiving without a sacrifice, and why would I make the sacrifice be so gruesome? It sounds simply like ancient thinking/superstition to me, concerning life being in the blood. That's just a superstition based on an easily observed fact that if one bleeds out they die.
  
  2)What does it mean to have free will? (I'm using "I" in general, not necessarily me personally) If I'm supposedly a naive creation come from an all knowing being, with some of his characteristics, including pride, why is it so shocking that I might think I know it all? All I see with my eyes is what I trust because "God" gave me a brain and I use it well. If I see His creation, but for me personally, it doesn't lead to an intelligent designer, and if I find it hard to imagine God being how Christians say He is when observing their actions, why should I be so severly punished? Much of what I do in my life is affected by other people. If I just can't find Jesus and this idea of God plausible, why does God punish me for such an honest stance to take? Even if I do believe He is real, but decide I'd like to live my life my own way... Why did an all powerful, confident, secure God make a rule that I NEED to worship/believe in/obey His every rule or else? Is that not the attitude of a tyrant? If God in this sense is real, is He really love?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Whoa! A Thousand Words,
  
  Your questions are valid and good ones. Unfortunately, the only way you can receive answers is to invest in a true search for GOD yourself. I could answer some of the questions for you... I could... but honestly, you are not ready for the answers. You've already developed a mindset that leaves little to no room for humility. You've decided you are above GOD. But, no one is....
  
  I say this because I believe that, if you were given an invitation to Buckingham Palace, I doubt very much you would approach the Queen with the same disrespectful attitude you extend toward THE LIVING GOD. Yet, she is a mortal with a Title. HE IS GOD.
  
  You look down your nose at GOD's actions; but GOD IS GOD. HE IS GOOD. When you are faced with HIS GLORY you will be utterly astonished; and you will wonder why or how you could have ever thought, spoken or acted as you did toward HIM.
  
  In the meantime, HE GIVES you free will.... You asked about free will in your first question, and... You are exercising it; and will probably have more to say about HIM once you read this (though your indignation ~if this post activates such ~ should be directed at me, not at HIM). You say things that are... well let's say unkind things about HIM, as though you are better than HE IS and would never do the things HE HAS DONE; yet there is a universal chance, you've probably done worse with less of a reason than any of HIS REASONS.
  
  You already exercise free will, if and when, you lead a life in which there are no rules or rules you choose to break, so do anarchists, so do rebels, so do delinquents, so do criminals. Of course, you can exercise free will without being violent or selfish; but that is harder than you would ever consider possible. Other than that, communities have rules, so do businesses, so do families, so does any agency that cares to keep a standard, so do institutions that plan on existing for extended periods of time.
  
  I'm sorry... I've said much more than I intended... I will not answer your all questions; in fact, I will not answer any of your questions... as you said, you have "... a brain and (you) use it well...".
  
  Therefore, go ahead... go for it... when you see HIM, you tell HIM......in the meantime, live as you like. This is your choice.. This is your inalienable right. You are free to make any choice you desire.
  
  GOD BLESS you...
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've formed a lot of conclusions based on little to no information... bad idea.
  
  I was a Christian for a long time, and a devoted one, at that. I had my issues and shortcomings, but I loved God. You may choose to say that I didn't because I don't believe in HIm in that same respect anymore, and while I know you're wrong, as I myself said the same to others, I wouldn't be surprised.
  
  Anyway, this is not a problem of "humility." I'm certainly not as "humble" as I used to be, because such an attitude allows people to take advantage of you, and I certainly won't let that happen anymore. I am very confident in myself, and while I know that I don't know everything, I am not afraid to question things and to be honest with myself and other people and to have some confidence in my own conclusions if they are logically coherent.
  
  First of all, if I saw the "queen," I would simply be respectful to her. I'm not big on treating other people as though they're overly special, although if I met Robert Downey, Jr. or Adam Levine in person, ya, I might get a little star-struck. X) If God was real, and I saw Him in person, I would be respectful, and I would also tell Him exactly what I thought.
  
  My irreverence for the God that you speak of is true. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm not afraid to ask the important questions. The simple ones, really. Because I have an imagination, and I'm no longer afraid that I'll be struck down for using it. I don't live in fear, anymore. And if nothing else, it's quite freeing.
  
  It seems you feel insulted by the brain comment. It wasn't meant as an insult. I don't mean that Christian's don't have a brain. But I know for a fact that they limit their thought processes often because they are taught that any thought against God is being influenced by the Devil, so they don't pursue it any further. But you see, I do not believe in nor do I fear the Devil any longer. I know that my thoughts are just thoughts. I have quieted my own mind for so long. It was trying to tell me to think and to stop just ignoring the sparks of true reason it was throwing my way. Once I stopped ignoring and fighting my mind, I found a oneness of myself that I had lost during my Christian days. There becomes a sort of duality in the personality in religions of that nature. I am one, now. Just one me.
  
  And I know that the scenarios and situations I brought to the table in my last post are quite plausible, and an all knowing God should and could've created the world, differently, period. That is not arrogance, that is truth.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey A Thousand Words...
  
  Don't think you insulted me, you didn't. Let's move forward.
  
  You said, " If God was real, and I saw Him in person, I would be respectful, and I would also tell Him exactly what I thought. "
  
  GOD IS REAL and HE HEARS every word you say and think. So on this count you're square (as in your audience has been established ... your thoughts have been shared).
  
  You also said, "but I'm not afraid to ask the important questions. The simple ones, really. Because I have an imagination, and I'm no longer afraid that I'll be struck down for using it. I don't live in fear, anymore. And if nothing else, it's quite freeing. "
  
  No one should be afraid to ask the important questions or the simple questions either for that matter. Questions propel us. They drive us forward, not only in our thought processes, but in our advances with understanding. However, in relation to GOD, our thought processes have the potential to be deceiving.
  
  For whatever reason you've lived with the fear that you would be struck down for using your imagination... I'm sorry you lived that type of insecurity. Where ever your foundational faith structures were taught, something was 'off'. That's why I always tell people, find out for yourself... don't trust another person's view, idea, concept or belief. We are each responsible for our own eternal soul.
  
  Sometimes, though people who think they know GOD mean well, HE IS misrepresented. Some individuals use fear as a tactic to cause people to revere THE LIVING GOD. i prefer to LOVE HIM, because HE DESERVES my love I prefer to draw closer to HIM, because the closer I get the more AMAZING I discover HE IS. I hope that my love for HIM shines through me to others, but I'm human; I don't always live what I believe or know.
  
  I understand both the power of hell and the power of heaven. I've studied spiritual warfare for the last three decades and I've still only scratched the surface. I know what's out there. I know what lies and elements of deception are being propounded.
  
  You said, you were living "a sort of duality". I'm sorry you fought with yourself to that extent. I know the pain of it. That struggle occurred for me when I first came to understand THE GRACE of GOD. I struggled for days, weeks, months and even years, before finally shaking off the chains with which the darkness worked hard to bind me.
  
  There are principles and spiritual laws that a person cannot rise against. I learned them by sheer perseverance and reading biographies, expositions and always, THE BIBLE. GOD HAS BEEN GOOD to me. Still, not until THE HOLY SPIRIT took hold of my heart and transformed my thinking, did I begin to be liberated; nor could I take authority over that which is dark and spiritually lethal.
  
  In those moments when I thought I might lose my grip, HE Opened my eyes to the hindrances in my path.
  
  You said, "I found a oneness of myself that I had lost during my Christian days..."
  
  I'm sure you believe you found your-true-self... GOD BLESS you in your every effort and endeavor; but if the day ever comes when you see things happening that HE Promised those who follow HIM would happen, remember HIM, and remember HE LOVES you. HE ALWAYS HAS, and ALWAYS WILL.
  
  GOD BLESS you, again.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi a thousand words, I believe I read that you said you were a faithful Christian at one time. If so, then you knew the answers to these questions I assume. Did something happen to change your thinking?
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Western organized religion tells you that the God you profess is actually a plausible one, which I can debate to an extent from multiple respects. I can elaborate if you wish.
  
  Anywho, personally, I think the Tao is the most accurate explanation of some sort of transcendent existence. It's so unlike "civilized" humanity, it's ridiculous. It's like the Universe itself is "god," beautiful, yet impersonal, and we can examine its ways and become one with it and master of our own selves. it's a path that anyone can follow, and its the path from which all things flow. It is as infinite as the Universe because it isn't separate fro the Universe. It doesn't seek credit for everything that flows from it, and doesn't demand worship, etc, etc. I don't like labels, so I won't really become a Taoist, but I would love to visit some Taoists and learn more from them personally.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone can say he/she is a Christian. When the behavior is contrary, there is question about the authenticity of that person's faith. Yes, Christians sin; however, the Holy Spirit convicts us and causes us to be ashamed before God and repent. Example - the mafia were Catholics. Being a member of a church does not make a person a Christian. Sitting in the garage doesn't make one a car.
  reply report
0
Jerry Hulseposted 12 years ago
YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE IS NOT REAL BUT HOW CAN YOU BUT KEEP ON CONVINCING YOURSELF BUT DON'T CEMENT YOURSELF IN WHEN YOU DIE TO KEEP JUDGEMENT DAY FROM DISTURBING YOUR GRAVE.

JUST LOOK AT YOUR OWN BODY AND THE HUNDREDS OF MILES OF BLOOD CAPILLARIES AND THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED WITH AN IMMUNE SYSTEM TO KEEP IT ALIVE AND WHAT ABOUT HEALING ITSELF FROM A WOUND?

You can believe what you will but you better not miss Gabriel blowing his trumpet and he is probably practicing right now!
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We know that's the result of evolution, not some magical sky daddy waving his magic hand.
  
  Religious fantasies are irrelevant, but it's typical of believers to threaten us with them.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We actually do not know that it is the result of evolution. What is currently known about evolution and the beginnings of life make that theory very questionable really.
  
  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro … ife-began/
  
  I like this article, there are a couple logical failings on the writers part but he does describe the situation in easy terms.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please speak for yourself when stating you do not know evolution.
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Umm I was using your original wording.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I somewhat believed in evolution that is until I studied it at UT. This is when I realized how foolish it was. Talk about reaching.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Somewhat believing" in evolution is not the same as understanding evolution. And, you're saying you studied at a university that showed how foolish evolution was? A Christian university, perhaps?
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact, like the fact the earth revolves around the sun. Fortunately for mankind, thanks to the rise of secularism, believing in evolution will not get you killed like it almost did Galileo when he asserted the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. However, it will take a few more hundred years, like the 250-years it took for a Pope to express regret on how the church handled Galileo, before the church catches up with science and fact.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I somewhat believed it before I studied it for a year. Lots of dead ends, speculations, theories and propaganda. No real proof.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The University of Texas at Austin.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also Studied astronomy for a 3 semester. More dead ends. Lots of space though. How could you know what is or is not out there? The Search for intelligent life. At least in this area of study. The "so call experts" admit that they are measuring intelligence bases on "Human Intelligence" Imagine that. To actually believe that what man can thing or prove according the this little bitty plant is all there is and we assume we must be the wisest in all the universe. How arrogant. don't you think.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The way you speak about science is the same way many atheists and non-religious people think about religion. Here's the difference. Science, while some act as though everything is 100% perfectly right and infallible, most true scientists will admit that science is a progressive entity. Scientists are often learning more and more about the world around us, but don't need to rush and fill in the gaps with something metaphysical because it can't be explained. They "fill in the gaps" with theories, and are constantly either proving or disproving them, often leaving them as gaps and doing years and years of research before claiming anything is concrete, and if it's disproven, studying the world around them until a more plausible answer surfaces.
  
  When you insert ideas that aren't physically provable, you're jumping to concrete conclusions, while they cannot actually be concretely proven. Scientists should typically avoid that, though dogma, jumping to conclusions, error, etc, can be found in the religious as well as the non-religious. Whether or not you can admit this is where the true nature of "humility" lies.
  
  Of course there are "gaps." We're only beginning to scratch the surface of how our own bodies work and are still discovering knew species of animals, we've recently found evidence that there was once water on Mars, etc. This world, this Universe is stored with so much beauty and information. Sometimes people come to strange conclusions, many are quite plausible. Some of us consider it possible for there to be something transcendent out there, but have found little proof to say so concretely. That's called honesty, and not being scared into forcing themselves to think something differently because a heavily religious society makes them seem like bad people for not being quick to fill in the unknown with some larger-than-life-super-Cosmic-Sheriff-like entity.
  
  When you put an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-surrounding being into the picture, of course the gaps are more easily filled. Then your questions are "answered," and you feel satisfied that you "know" something. I've heard Christians say things like "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist." That speaks volumes to me. What's harder to do? Christians talk about persecution in this country, but that's a joke. Try being non-religious and see how your family treats you and the rest of society, when the majority of your country has some kind of religious leaning. You lose job interviews, family members shun you, etc, etc. An Atheist person running for president and actually winning is about as likely as a black person winning just 60 years ago. (There's a good article about a woman who was a preacher for years that became an Atheist, and how her community completely shunned her, when I find it I'll post it.)
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do not speak of religion. I speak of what I know to be the truth. I know by many experiences in my life. Let me put it to you in a way that you may understand. Only a person who has lost a limb can ever truly know what it is like to lose a limb. This person can try to explain to you what it is like by way of words that you understand. Yes you understand the words. But you will never truly understand what it is like to not have a leg or an arm. It is the same way when It comes to knowing God exist. Anyone can read the bible and get the words or interpret the words to what fits or doesn't fit in there lives. But it is not about that. Or should I say, it is not about our lives on this material world. By experience, I know there is more. God and only God has revealed it to me. I can share my words but I can't share my experience any more than anyone can know my experience that resulted from my son's death. Other parents that have lost their children come pretty close though. There is an understanding that goes beyond words. But ever they can't truly know what I know about it. Nor can I know about theirs. But there is a respect that we have for the not knowing. I would hope that God will reveal it to all. And he may, I just don't know. What I do know is that according to the word, not all will choose to know God and that is there will. God Bless.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I believed in a Higher power most of my life, leaning towards Christianity because that is the major religion in the black community in most states. I believed very strongly in the Christian God for about 6 years of it. 6 years of praying, 6 years of acknowledging myself as a sinner, 6 years of believing that Jesus was the only way to God the Father. I spent 6 years of my life getting to "know God" better. I spent 5 of those years serving in two different ministries, both in which I was chosen to be a "leader" because of my obvious devotion at church, but also at home in my personal time, which radiated while I was in church, I guess. I loved to read my Bible. I loved going to the guest room, shutting the door, and having my personal "Jesus" time. My whole perspective of life was based around the Bible and God, for the most part.
  
  But slowly that all crumbled, when I took off my rose-colored glasses, or rather, when they were snatched off of me by logic and reason... experiences, and the true nature of people who claim to be "close to God." I realized the true nature of myself and the person I had become. It was a long and hard road, becoming non-Christian, you know. I laugh when people talk about how easy it is to live in a world with no God because you don't have to hold yourself accountable for anything. What a joke! It's worse to once have been at a point when you're almost completely dependent on a God, and then you find out later it's quite unlikely that any transcendent being exists in that respect. (I am not an Atheist, though I am non-religious, so we're usually grouped together)
  
  You think it's easier going from thinking there's a God in Heaven who has you and everyone else's best interests in mind, who hears your voice when no one seems to care to listen, and "loves" you, etc, to a world where that's probably fantasy? An enjoyable one, but highly unlikely if one simply examines the world aside from their own emotional attachments to a certain belief system?
  
  Objectivity and reason.
  
  There is a reason that the Age of Reason didn't last long, in my opinion. It's not necessarily because the Christian God in particular exists without a shadow of a doubt, or that anyone knows for sure the "truth" to most supernatural claims. One major reason is because it's much easier to live your life believing that's there more to life than this. Sure, it can become a little difficult when your an extreme fundamentalist, no matter the religion. However whether there is or is not "more," I can't truly say, even though, to me this life/world/Universe itself is beautiful, though treacherous, yet enough for me. I do know that the Bible does not add up. The book I saw once to be the treasure and center of important spiritual knowledge is now simply a book with a few good ideas, and a lot of fantasy and cruelty in it for it to be inspired by a Higher, all loving/knowing/present power/entity.
  
  I do not deny the mysteriousness and almost majestic nature of the Universe. I am also not likely to limit it to a God some people in the Middle East seem to have conjured up, no offense to any jews. I actually like Jews. They're often more pragmatic. I like many catholics, too. But the Universe is too complex and too unknown. Save this stuff for the realm of faith, impossible to prove, and certainly impossible for it to be claimed to be fact.
  reply report
  70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Atheist Pray. And by the way, if I study something and fine that it is proof, then a year later, oops, I guess I was off and now I know the real truth. Another year goes by. Oops wrong again. Well let me look at it from a different angle. Ah now there is the real truth. Bravo, oh no, another truth surfaces, Oh I see, I was standing a little to far to the right to see the real truth. Now this is better, I just needed to adjust my telescope or was is my microscope. Either way, this must be the truth. I know what, I'll just have a bunch of kids so they can have a bunch of kids and we all will work together to build a big tower. A tower that is so high into the sky, then we will be able to see everything from a better more higher perspective. Then we will be able to see it from just the right angel and we will know the truth. Wrong again. But it is not because we don't have the right idea. It is just that we were looking in the wrong place. We were looking to the stars and the atom. What we should have been looking at all along was the deep of the ocean. Then we can prove and show how foolish those God fearing christians are and enlighten them so they can have better productive lives. Then and only then will they learn to live for the moment and take what they can at all cost. Because after all, all we have is this life, so I better take what is mine before I die. Wait what's that, the truth is not in the sea, its in the cave or the crust of the earth. You are all wrong, It is in the mind. The mind is the truth. Well in that case, The truth is that in my mind people appear to come in different colors and we all know that the purple people are the the fastest, strongest, most intelligent and of course most beautiful. But I am not purple, I am bright orange and everyone knows that's a prettier color. To much information. Overload. Time is passing. I better fight for what is mine, because I will be dead soon. And that is the right thing to do because us atheist know there is know such thing as eternity.
  reply report
  66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not entirely related, it does however involve ostracization among religious people: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyreg … wanted=all
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, I read that article (only the important parts, it was too long, LoL). So sad. People only mention that happening in Catholicism, but it happens in Protestant churches, too. And now, we can see it happens in many orthodox jewish (mainly Hasidic) communities, as well. That's one reason why I have a problem when there is more importance given to a group than the individual. It should be balanced. The individual should be just as important as the group, and in situations where an individual is taken advantage of, they and their well-being should be more important because in the long run, it will be better for the community as a whole.
  reply report
  51
  boyatdelhiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is proven theories in Science.
  
  But Evaluation is not a proven theory. It is all assumptions and speculations.
  Nothing more than that.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not true at all evolution has met every requirement for validity several times over with DNA sequencing proof as well as fossil records. Proven, done, next!
  
  Until such a time as new evidence arises anyway.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  EXCELLENT ARTICLE. Thank you for this link, Calynbana!!
  
  GOD BLESS you!
  reply report
2. 59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  JUST LOOK AT YOUR OWN TEXT. ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING!!!
  
  The mechanisms of the immune system and healing process are well-understood, and there is no evidence to suggest they came about from any source other than evolution.
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
Trish, I agree, you can believe in whatever God you want as long as you don't force your beliefs on others, especially children. Science has proven evolution to be true just like they have proven the sun does not revolve around the earth. However, you have the right to not believe this ... as long as you do not force your religious beliefs on others.
reply report
1. 62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Brian, Christians should not be forcing their believes on anyone. God does not want us to do that. That is not part of the plan. If you know of people who are doing this, they are wrong. Script.ures repeatedly states that each person makes his/her own decision
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
I ask, in candor, want to know what was your turning point. If you were a Christian, something terrible must have happened to make you change.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When I was a boy I was active in a pentecostal church. After a few years my parents decided to switch to a baptist chruch. Even though I was deeply involved with both churches (my father hoped I would become a minister) there was something deep inside of me that possessed doubt. As I grew older and began to think for myself, coupled with exposing myself to literature, philosophy and art, I began to realize what a terrible book the bible was and how awful God and Jesus were. George Orwell's brilliant work '1984' really opened my eyes to totalitarianism in politics and religion. I made a promise to myself that I would fight totalitarianism as much as I can.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brian it sounds like you didn't like going to church when you were young. Neither did I. The impact of George Orwell's 1984, a fictional book, is really puzzling. I heard of the book when I was in junior high and my teachers referred to it as satire. 1984 came and left and, outside of coining a few terms, I don't see how it impacted the world. Incidentally, I know what goes on in some churches can work your nerves. I choose to "not" go to those churches.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I liked going to church when I was young and George Orwell's book is not only a masterpiece of english literature but one of the most refered to and influential books of the 20th Century. You should read it.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Brian in Canada....
  
  How are you?
  
  In reading your little bio I see we came from opposite sides of the spectrum. When I was a child, my parents, who were traditional Catholics, took me to Church, but never really tried to impress anything religious upon me. Their beliefs were simplistic, not complex. Essentially, they didn't understand it all, but they loved JESUS. They passed their love for JESUS onto me.
  
  As I grew older, and I began to have questions that no one could answer satisfactorily I decided it was my responsibility to find out what I needed and wanted to know. For several years I floundered and grappled with THE WORD of GOD. I had never owned a copy of the Whole Book until THE KING JAMES VERSION. Still, something inside me desired to know GOD. As I acquainted myself with THE BIBLE I began to see a cohesive theme. I began to understand things I had never had access to understanding.
  
  I'll never forget the first time my eyes were riveted to a verse that suddenly came alive to me, that spoke to me as if GOD HIMSELF were right beside me. In those first years, my family, (especially my husband) fought me on the factors I was beginning to see more clearly, but I was falling more and more in love with the BOOK the brought me to see GOD.
  
  I didn't bother very much with The Old Testament for the first decade (I guess) except in little bits and pieces, as I could handle them. I had more questions than answers, and no one I knew could help me out. That was when I decided my research needed to go deeper.
  
  Funny you should mention your hatred for 'totalitarianism'. It's coming to the earth, just as Orwell captured in his book, 1984, exactly as The Book of Revelation predicted it would. I find it interesting that you, who grew up in an atmosphere that recognized the concept of One World Government, One World Religion, One World Leader, would toss that aside to embrace instead a hatred for GOD, just because you were never able to resolve the questions floating in your mind, or the myriad of what would appear to be, inconsistencies.
  
  I didn't go to Church for the first 27 years of my walk with GOD. And I understand now the politics attached to 'Churches'; still, when I attend it's not for the sake of the Church, but for the sake of the BODY of CHRIST... there is a great difference.
  
  You said, "I made a promise to myself that I would fight totalitarianism as much as I can."
  
  Well... get ready then... the world is being prepared for totalitarianism. When things turn, remember what you knew at the first. Prayerfully, you'll get through it all... without too great a loss...
  
  I would say, "GOD BLESS you," but I know you don't prefer it.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is a contradiction.
  
  Please explain the difference considering the Church and Christ are one and the same?
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there, Troubled Man,
  
  It's not a contradiction; but if you want to know more about it, there are plenty of books that address the topic, or it would seem, there are others here who will have an answer for you...
  
  GOD BLESS you...
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why do so many Christians seem to believe this? People mature and learn and it changes their minds, simple as that. That's what happened to me.
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
Kathleenkat, what did you say about Canadians???!!! We are loved all over the world. I have traveled to nearly every continent and Canadians are beloved everywhere as a peace loving and kind nation. As soon as I tell someone I am from Canada they invariable answer 'Oh, that is a good country!' What country are you from? What you said was ignorant, uncalled for and pathetic.
reply report
1. 83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I live just South of the Canadian border, in the USA. We do not "love" Canadians. You saying that "Canadians are loved by everybody" is just as ridiculous in my eyes . In my experience, Canadians act with a sense of entitlement. They'll often shout "but I drove all the way from Canada!" if they want you to bend store policy, such as holding an item for them, or giving them a price cut. They will be completely and utterly "shocked" when an American doesn't go out of their way to be nice to them, or give them a deal. They will try to barter price. They will say "in my country, this is false advertising!" They will purchase shoes and clothing, and rip the tags off in the parking lot so they don't have to pay duty. They will buy 18791328 gallons of milk, and fill up an entire truck full of gasoline tanks with our "more affordable" gas (I once saw a Canadian putting gasoline into garbage bags!?!). They trash our border town.
  
  I am not saying all Canadians are jerks, but all jerks sure seem to be Canadian
  reply report
0
Gypsy Rose Leeposted 12 years ago
I believe and I look about and see proof everyday of what a world God has made. For me it is enough and I let the Lord guide me each day.
reply report
1. 59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You should be careful how you allow the Loerd to guide you, Gypsy, considering your jealous, insecure Lord asks his followers to commit murder, genocide and rape amongst other things. Really, if the Bible is the 'word of God' then he is one evil God.
  reply report
  71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You said, "...considering your jealous, insecure Lord asks his followers to commit murder, genocide and rape amongst other things. Really, if the Bible is the 'word of God' then he is one evil God..."
  
  Honestly, Brian, in Canada ... you should be careful what you say about GOD. HE IS MERCIFUL, do remember though, no matter what you say here, the day will come when you shall be held accountable for every word yo speak and write... and for every action you ever take.
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
God is too busy asking his follwers to commit murder, genocide and rape to hear what other people are asking of him. Being evil is a full-time job and considering how religion poisons everything, God is a very busy dicator. Was he listening to the poor children at Auschwitz when they were being tortured and murdered? No. Actually , the Catholic Church supported the Nazi's so God was busy listening to the Catholics, I guess.
reply report
1. 71
  EmVeeTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You said, "Actually , the Catholic Church supported the Nazi's so God was busy listening to the Catholics, I guess."
  
  So did the Governments of several Countries.
  
  No worries. Each and every individual will be held accountable for every act of murder, genocide and rape, just as the comments made against HIM, will haunt any who make them for all eternity, and the actions of those who committed vile acts will haunt them.
  
  GOD BLESS you, truly... I pray HE BLESS you, Amen.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's also actually a little more complicated. I had never heard about the Catholic Church and the Nazis. When I read Brian's post I Googled. I tried to skim the info but there is quite a bit there. It seemed to be the Catholic Church was involved in politics.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Catholic Church supported the Nazi's before, during and after they commited genocide. In fact, the Catholic Church in Rome use to positively acknowledge Hitlers birthday every year he was in power. In 'Mein Kampf' Hitler comments many times, in fact early in the book, about doing God's work. The Catholic Church, who would ban any book they did not like at the drop of a hat, were shown the book and refused to ban it. What is more, when a SS man or a soldier in the German army swore allegiance they did so to Hitler and 'Almighty God'. Around their waste they wore a belt with the words 'Gott mit uns' "God with us". There was a close relationship between the Nazi's and the Vatican. Maybe it was in the Old Testament where Hitler learned about genocide. Who knows, maybe God spoke to Hitler and told him to kill the Jews amongst others.
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And this in my eyes that supports everything that I have been saying about Organized religion via the RCC as being the beast that rose up out of the sea in Rev 13.
  The truth that was burried was that everything Jesus said concerning prophesy did in fact happen exactly as he said that it would. The church of Rome FIRST started misinterpreting everything that Jesus said concerning prophesy.
  
  This evidentally was also a part of Gods plan. For it is written that it would be thus.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, you're saying the extermination of the Jews was apart of the Christian Gods plan? By the way, Nietzsche predicted the rise of the Nazi's and a murderous rampage, too, and he was an athiest. Nietzsche is a more credible source as he was not threatening anyone with Hell for not believing him or asking them to believe in a silly myth, unlike your Jesus, who, by the way, is the wickedest man in the Bible.
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As you say ... that can be true for you.
  I see something else.
  reply report
60
BobbiRantposted 12 years ago
Prove the wind exists to me then. I Cannot see it! This is possibly one of the same old, same old, questions posed from about the 16th Century onward. LOL
reply report
1. 66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A weathervane should suffice to justify the wind's existence, mate.
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  actually you can see the wind just fine by staining it with whatever substance and watching it move. You can even make wind in a lab or even at home by having two spaces with different temperatures.
  reply report
3. 66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So it would be absurd to not believe in something that can result from your own doing, wouldn't it?
  reply report
4. 69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not the best example, however.
  
  Anyone can feel the wind. They don't have to believe in a special book. They don't have to say a special prayer. They can simply step outside, and wait a little while, and they might feel a little breeze. Or someone living in an area where tornados are rampant might see the destruction high speed winds possess. The wind doesn't need to be seen in order to be proven. Though, we do have instruments with which we can actually see it. But everyone can indiscriminately feel it. There's not a specific group of people that can lay claim to the wind. It is for all to appreciate or to fear, without question of its existence.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
It may seem convenient to blame God for the Catholic Church's participation, whatever level it was but their failures should not be blamed on God any more than the coverups of the child molestation. Today I'm hearing "Coptic Christians" for the first time. It seems they are responsible for what happened in Cairo.

There have been pretenders, dupers, leeches, and whatever you might call them who have done many things under the cover of being a Christian. The Jim Jones tragedy was horrible but could have been avoided if people had taken the responsibility to learn the characteristics of a fanatic or fake.

Murders and other crimes have been committed by "Christians" and non-Christians. Those crimes were/are committed by their own human free will. They will be judged accordingly.
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then, why don't you take responsibility to learn that Christianity is based on a fake?
  reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
Dianetrotter, you are supposing two things which you cannot know. First, you don't know if God did or did not command Christians to commit murder or other crimes against humans. The Bible is very clear about God willingness to ask his followers to commit genocide, murder and rape. He could still be asking his followers to do it today, how could you know he wasn't?

Secondly, how do you know Jim Jones was a fake? Maybe God told him directly to do the things he did. As I have explained, your God is a murderous one and is certainly not above asking people to commit atrocities. You cannot say with any certainty that old J.J. was a fake. Evil? Yes. A fake? No.
reply report
1. 62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In the Old Testament, peoples (groups) were punished for various reasons. I agree. In the New Testament, this is not the case. Jesus Christ came to be the propiation for sin so what took place in the OT no longer occurred.
  
  If God does not exist, as you say, he couldn't have told anyone anything. I do know how to match people's actions with the Word of God.
  Jim Jones cursed God in closed session, and had followers do the same. He was having sex with them.
  Provers 12: 6 A righteous man is cautious in friendship, but the way of the wicked leads them astray.
  Matthew 24:5 For many will come in my name, saying,'I am the Christ,' and will lead many astray
  
  2 Timothy 3:13 But wicked men and juggling impostors shall advance in evil, leading and being led astray
  
  BTW, I'm not arguing with you Brian just responding to your comments. I want to be careful because I don't want to argue. Pease!
  reply report
61
Rhonda D Johnsonposted 12 years ago
The Earth centered creation we read about in the Bible bears no resemblance to the physical universe. That is proof that the low level regional manager we read about in the Bible had no hand in the creation of the real universe. That is not to say that the universe may not have been created by a real deity, but the god of the Bible is NOT the Creator of the universe.

Still, you are right. Christians are charged with proselytizing the world. They like to point out that atheists promote their belief (or lack thereof) too. But atheists and agnostics don't have a written creed with a mandate from the god of nonbelief to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, the burden of proof is on them.
reply report
1. 87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The creation account in Genesis correctly describes 6 major eras and over a dozen specific creations in chronological order from the 'surface of the earth' perspective established in verse 2.
  reply report
  61
  Rhonda D Johnsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The creation story describes what things look like from an ignorant Earth-bound view, not an omniscient divine view. What six eras are you referring to?
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Day 1: Verses 1 through 5 - Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere became translucent
  
  Day 2: Verses 6 through 8 - Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established
  
  Day 3: Verses 9 through 13 - Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land
  
  Day 4: Verses 14 through 19 - Paleozoic Era - Age when continents moved from beneath planet to between poles
  
  Day 5: Verses 20 through 23 - Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds
  
  Day 6: Verses 24 through 31 - Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed
  reply report
  61
  Rhonda D Johnsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why the Genesis story does not conform to the five (not sic) geological eons.
  There were no oceans in the beginning (Hadaen eon) So the whole creation story crumbles when it says God created the land out of the water. During this first eon there were only rocks and the Earth was extremely hot. The name Hadaen comes from the Greek word we know as Hades to describe the hellish conditions at that time
  I could say more but this is worth an entire hub. Stay tunes, I will work on it.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First, technically, there are only four eons. I used the term 'major eras', which can be misleading since the geologic timescale also uses 'era'.
  
  Second, I specified the end of the Hadean/beginning of Archean. The 'rocks' you're referring to are not the continental land masses we know as land today. This is the crust of the earth. Because the earth's core consists of denser metals and the rockier material is towards the outside, it's believed that the entire planet early on was magma. When the planet was large enough to retain its own atmosphere it began to trap the gasses spewing from within the planet as it continued to accrete (if that's a word). Much of this was water vapor.
  
  All of the earth's oceans at one time was trapped in the atmosphere as water vapor because it couldn't escape, but also couldn't condense due to the surface still being way too hot. The water vapor in the atmosphere helped cool the surface. Eventually the surface cooled enough to harden, the vapor condensed, and the oceans formed.
  
  The first stable continents as we know them today didn't form until the beginning of the Proterozoic eon, about 2.5 billion years ago, over a billion years after the oceans.
  
  The state of the earth as described in Genesis1:2 describes the late Hadean/early Archean eon. We know the oceans came first and existed by the beginning of the Archean because the water cycle developed early and because the oxygenated atmosphere was created by some of the earliest forms of life, Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), which could only live in the oceans.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Bible is like the Nation Enquirer, there are some hints at actual events but they are muddled between nonesense, superstition and pure fiction. The Bible is not a reliable source for the historical or the moral and anyone who takes it as such is delusional at best.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, and the Bible doesn't have topless photos of Kate Middleton.
  
  Or does it?
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have never heard somebody refer to Jesus as a wicked man. Whether theist, atheist or agnostic. Could you explain your reasons for thinking he was so wicked?
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You believe Jesus is God - yes?
  reply report
  78
  calynbanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am asking about the man Jesus, the historical Jesus. Not even mentioning any beliefs.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What man Jesus is this? There is no historical reference to this person. There is a Myth Jesus - do you believe that Jesus is God?
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there's a historical reference to a person with this name. In fact, there are many references but those reference also exclude the Jesus we know from the bible. Means, both are different.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Can you list say - 20 contemporary historical references for me please?
  
  Thanks
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I could, but then I'd have to translate a complete book from German to English. And this would also mean copyright infringement. If you can understand German I'd give you a link.
  report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The name and author of said book -- in German or in English -- would be sufficient.
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Die dunkle Seite von Jesus" by Oliver Fehn
  report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're talking about ex-Satanist Oliver Fehn, and his book, "The Dark Side of Jesus," I think:
  
  http://www.amazon.de/Die-dunkle-Seite-v … amp;sr=8-1
  
  Who are your sources besides Fehn?
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh dear, if you'd do better research you'd know this and many other of his books were written before joining Church of Satan. And before that he studied religion and theology, so, his book's based on his knowledge from different studies and wasn't written because he's an ex-Satanist. And besides that, does Satanist mean someone isn't telling the truth and can't write books based on facts? There's no other source, there are different sources in his book. So, you'd better read before question something you don't know.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please do.
  
  Really - no English evidence?
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's the German book I already mentioned named "Die dunkle Seite von Jesus" by Oliver Fehn. Maybe used other sources (non-German) but why should I if there's a book in my native language? Sorry, didn't know that facts contain more truth if they are in English. ;-)
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Odd that you would come to an English language site and offer up German as evidence.
  
  I also assume that you are not familiar with the term, "contemporary evidence,"?
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, if this would be an issue in German forums I' be still typing 'excuses' for not delivering the right evidence source. ;-)
  
  Sure, I am. It's evidence from the time frame you're looking at. In this case I'd assume it's the time Jesus lived in.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't appear to be "evidence," at all - no. I must admit it looks an interesting read, but "evidence," it is not. If I can find it in English, I will certainly buy it as my German is a little rusty.
  
  Now - more please. Show me some contemporary historical evidence.
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately there's no English version and there won't be any as far as I know. And, yes, there's evidence in it but I am honest I am just lazy to read through just for a discussion about Jesus. And I personally don't care if there's any evidence or not. For me the historical Jesus and the Jesus known as God's son are two different persons. And it's way easier to assume there was at least one Jesus who have nothing to do with the Jesus in the bible as to assume there was neither of them. It's nothing problematic to assume this. What's your point assuming there was neither one of them? Do you have any facts - and for sure you can mention English sources, too. I'll understand ;-)
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - there are no facts to be had. About either of them. None. In any language, German or otherwise.
  report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where do you get that from? Where's the evidence that both didn't exist? Just for my personal interest.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - that is not what I said. There is no evidence that they did exist.
  report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that evil is a harsh word. I would just say he wasn't perfect and had some questionable traits.
  
  1)He basically taught that if someone wasn't doing something "useful," they were useless, and worthy of being thrown out, as such. That shouldn't be the attitude of an all-loving God in man form, especially when talking about a human with a living "soul." (The fig tree parable)
  
  2)He didn't understand the default nature of man is to question (and so a lack of knowledge there) and to expect all men to believe him simply on his word was erroneous then, and is the same now.
  
  3) He was completely rude to the Pharisees, and other men in positions of authority, who were simply by-products of the nature of the original covenant set up between them and "God." I think if he had approached them differently, there would've been more men who would've considered his words, but his complete lack of respect, which doesn't line up with the scripture in Romans about all authority being put there by God, caused his own downfall.
  
  4) He used a lot of mystical words and speech, opening the door to much confusion later in his followers.
  
  There's probably some other stuff, I just haven't thought about it in a while.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Only with some extremely creative misinterpretation. You could do the same with any other creation myth.
  
  Dâyuni'sï, the earth-diving water beetle in the Cherokee creation myth, is kinda sorta like the uplift of continents from the seafloor. Rangi and Papa, the embracing sky-father and earth-mother of the Maori creation myth, could be likened to the "Snowball Earth" glaciation periods of the Neoproterozoic Era. The torn Sun-placenta of the Mandé creation myth is a bit like the protoplanetary disk forming into planets.
  
  You can twist ancient myths to fit the facts if you like, but in doing so you are missing the point of both the myth and the science.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  True, you can twist vague passages around to try to make them seem to apply to this event or that, but it's another thing entirely to specifically list 13 creations and 6 major eras in the right order. You can only go so far with imaginative interpretation. But when you're talking about just 31 verses correctly describing in the right chronological order, not just actual events in earth's history, but the key events in terms of being relevant to life on earth and humans in particular, then dismissing it as nothing more than misinterpretation is simply inadequate.
  reply report
2. 62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Rhonda, I don't understand your first statement about the earth .... physical universe. Please explain what is troubling or discrepant. Thank you!
  reply report
  61
  Rhonda D Johnsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Diane,
  The physical universe is the planets,stars and galaxies. In the Bible the Earth is the center of creation and the sun and moon are hung as lights in the sky. The ancient writers believed the sky is a physical canopy or vault which they called the firmament in Genesis and the circle in Isaiah. I have to interpret what they meant by what they believed, not by what we now know is true.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Rhonda, I don't know who specifically the ancient writers were. I know earth is the planet that God chose to populate with people. Astronauts have not found life on other planets. Ancient writers, I'm sure, wrote based on the limited information that they had. What is in the Bible has not changed. Gotta go to work not but this does bring up an interesting point about people writing anything at any given time. They write based on what they know/believe to be true. Just because they believe it doesn't make it true.
  reply report
  69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  However, the Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God. This is the issue. Either what they wrote is correct, or it isn't in that light, and as such, can it really be considered to be inspired by a supposedly "perfect" God? Of course words written by men will be incorrect if they don't even have the proper tools to observe the Universe. But if one claims that words are inspired by God, should they not have important inside knowledge?
  
  If one can approach the Bible devoid of emotional attachments, and a bias towards it's validity, there would be way less people interested in it, and people would recognize it simply as a book of wisdom... like any other book of wisdom.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What they wrote is correct.
  
  Genesis 1 correctly describes creation all the way up to the discovery of horticulture around 8000 BC. Then events specified in the next 10 chapters (through Babel) line up chronologically with actual events in human history down to the number of centuries in between, and offer an explanation to abrupt advances in human technology and craftsmanship in that era.
  
  1656 years between Adam and Flood, Babel about 100 years later
  Cain banished by the time Adam was 130, so roughly 1500 years from banishment to flood
  
  Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia lasted roughly 1500 years beginning with the establishment of the first city, Eridu, around 5300 BC. According to Genesis 4, Cain built a city.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu
  
  Ubaid culture came to abrupt end around 4000 BC. In Ur, another Sumerian city, Ubaid period is sealed off with a 'sterile deposit' (flood).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#Prehistory
  
  About a century later came the 5.9 kiloyear event where the Sahara transformed into a desert. This triggered massive migrations much like what's described at Babel.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
  
  In the centuries to follow civilization dawned in Sumer (Mesopotamia), then Egypt to the west, then the Indus Valley to the east, then the Akkadians to the north, and so on. Each of these places showing sudden advances in technology and craftsmanship, and each having their own unique language.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Summer of my German Soldier references historical events, too, but that doesn't make it 100 percent true.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The point is the bible is being dismissed here based on the idea that what it describes is inaccurate. Don't be so quick to dismiss it. The likelihood of Bronze age humans correctly listing the events of creation in chronological order, and the key events that led to the dawning of human civilization over the course of many centuries, is remote at best without divine intervention or the capability of time travel.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I followed some of your links. Re: Eridu, are you familiar with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? It's where an alleged sharpshooter shoots a bunch of holes in the side of a barn. Where most shots are clustered, he draws a bullseye. David Rohl, the Egyptologist who alleges that the Tower of Babel was in Eridu, seems to be committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It is bad science to start with a conclusion, then find evidence that supports it, especially with something that is very obviously meant to be a parable.
  
  You also seem to be commiting it with your interpretation of Biblical accounts.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is also a common scientific practice to start with a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis against evidence and known facts to see whether or not it holds water. If I were doing this with just an event or two, then yes, I could see what you're saying. But when the first 11 chapters correctly list well over a dozen specific events or creations, even down to the number of centuries in between events where specified, then it's kind of hard to believe it's nothing more than a flawed approach on my part.
  reply report
  59
  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Help me out here, Head. Where does it mention oxygen in the following verses: "6And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." (NIV)
  
  I think you're really clutching at straws.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't call it 'oxygen', of course. What it does say is that... "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.."
  
  This comes between ...
  
  - the formation of the oceans (verse 2)
  - when light first penetrated the dense atmosphere and reached the surface (verse 3)
  (late Hadean/early Archean)
  
  .. and ...
  
  - the formation of land (verse 9).
  (early Proterozoic)
  
  In that age the most significant thing to happen is the establishment of the Earth's water cycle, which requires both oceans and light, as well as the formation of the Earth's oxygenated atmosphere, which also requires both oceans and light.
  reply report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But God didn't create the Sun, Moon and stars until the Fourth Day...so Where did the light come from?
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You should not have asked that question.
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The sun.
  
  God created the heavens 'in the beginning'. When people in that age spoke of the heavens, they were talking about the heavenly bodies; the sun, the moon, the stars and planets. However, for many ages the atmosphere was translucent, but not yet transparent. While there was plenty of light, you could not see the sun, the moon, and certainly not the stars.
  
  There are two events that happened between plant life on land (day 3) and vertebrates on land (day 5) that apply to what's described during day 4....
  
  1. Plant life on land brought the photosynthesis directly in contact with the atmosphere. This is the age when the atmosphere would have become transparent as it is today
  
  2. The entirety of the Earth's continental land mass had drifted to down beneath the planet in the age just before the Cambrian Explosion (542mya). In the age between the appearance of plant life on land and vertebrates on land, the continents drifted all the way back up to between the poles as they are today. From a surface perspective this would actually position the sun/moon/stars in the sky just as described.
  
  ** animated gif of continental movement from 542mya to present (assuming animated gifs work in here. I've never tried it before) ....
  
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, doesn't appear to work, but you can see it here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tecto … lobal2.gif
  report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok..well if the Sun, Moon and stars were created on day four...and that is where light came from...what was the light God created on day one? The Sun had to be created before the earth was created...The earth needed the sun's gravity to keep from floating off...
  report
  83
  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It came from God's shiny grills!
  
  But really...This whole argument of "how we were created" is a moot point. We will never know for sure. That is, unless we have a TARDIS.
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They weren't created on day 4. The 'heavens' were created at the very start. That's what the 'heavens' are. The sun, the moon, the stars and planets. These heavenly bodies are not specifically talked about until day 4 because up until then they weren't visible. Just light. When the atmosphere was translucent, but not yet transparent, the dome of the sky would light up during the day, and would be dark at night, but you could not see the sun, or the moon, and definitely not the stars.
  
  When they were specifically addressed during the day 4 portion, it simply states a fact, God made these too.
  report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not seen?? As in not close enough? And who was around to see it? Man didn't make it around until day 6...
  And it says in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth... nothing said here about sun, moon or stars...it was a blanket statement...and the it breaks it down from there...on day one this happened, day two this happen...and so on...
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's the whole point, nobody was around to see it, yet what it describes from a 'surface of the planet' perspective is right.
  
  So what would the heavens be if not the sun/moon/stars? Any ancient text that refers to the heavens is talking about the heavenly bodies. I understand you don't give the authors much credit, but I'd hope you could give them at least enough credit to know that the light of the day comes from the sun.
  
  The atmosphere was translucent. We can actually see the sun in the sky today, we can actually see the moon, and we can even see the stars, because the atmosphere is now transparent. This was not always the case. It has nothing to do with how far away they were.
  report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is not the authors..I understand why they wrote what they wrote...
  
  I am asking about your interpretation of what they wrote...
  
  The firmament seperated waters from below and above...where is the water above?
  
  and the Sun, moon and stars created on day four were set into this firmament by God after it had already been completed...
  
  The first chapter of Genesis is not even close to what Science says happens...And Chapter two doesn't match Chapter one....That would be because it was written by two different schools of thought...The Priestly School of thought for Chapter one...and the Elohist School of Thought for Chapter two..
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The water above/below is the water cycle. This is not a mystery. Think clouds.
  
  The sun/moon/stars were positioned in the firmament to serve a specifically stated purpose. The movement of the continents in this era did just that. When the continents were still below the planet days lasted 6 months and the night sky would just pivot.
  
  Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't match because they're not talking about the same event.
  report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know why it rains...The authors of the time didn't, they thought there were gates that opened in the heavens...
  
  The continents moving have nothing to do with the spinning of the earth..There would still be a night and day regardless of where the land was situated...Above, below or mixed with water...
  
  And Yes, Gen 1 and 2 are talking about the same event...just written by different persons... Look at the formatting and writing style...it is not the same...and the events aren't in the same order..
  report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I never said the continental drift had anything to do with the rotation of the earth. Again, verse 2 is the key here, to everything. It gives us both the state of the earth which gives us a starting point, and it establishes the point of view. The point of view is from the surface. Once land is created, the point of view is from the land. If you're standing on the land, and the continents drift from the south pole to the equator, your days will change from lasting 6 months to 24 hours. This is how it is today. If you travel to either the north or south pole, you will experience 6 months straight of daylight, and 6 months of night.
  
  The only thing that says that the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 are the same event are the dated interpretations formed centuries ago by people who didn't know any better. Now that we do know we find that Genesis had it right all along.
  
  In Gen1 the humans were given specific tasks to do that took generations to carry out, and those tasks match exactly what homo sapiens did over the course of tens of thousands of years.
  
  In Gen2 Adam was only told one thing not to do and did it anyway. So how could someone so able to disobey still carry out populating the earth? They were different. The description of the earth at the beginning of Gen2 matches Mesopotamia following the 8.2 kiloyear event (6200 BC). There were actually three of these events. This was the first, and after a while it recovered. The deserts again began to see rain and vegetation again sprang up, just as Gen2 says. After the 5.9 kiloyear event, however, it didn't recover, and the Sahara has been a desert ever since.
  report
  77
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so...I doubt you find many to agree with your point of view...But if it makes you happy...go for it.
  report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to honest, I don't think your "Bronze age humans correctly listing the events of creation in chronological order" is that impressive. If you remember our conversation of several months ago, your insight has impressed me before, but I think you are stretching things here.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How so? Are you referring to the events described in the creation account itself? Or are you referring to the capability of Bronze age humans accurately writing about events in human history that happened over a thousand years before the invention of writing (roughly 5300 to 3900 BC)?
  reply report
60
BobbiRantposted 12 years ago
Maybe people can 'feel' a presence of a higher being also. Feel is not the best of examples.
reply report
1. 69
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Physically feeling something, like a breeze, or a burn, or the warmth of our significant other, and "feeling" something emotionally, some kind of like a warm "feeling" on the inside, are two different things, love.
  
  One is physical, one's more of an emotional experience, however satisfying, and isn't considered evidence for anything outside of yourself.
  reply report
47
aruninaction01posted 12 years ago
Day 7: Verses 32 through infinity - Zombie Era - Age when people kill people in the name of God and Religion and turn to zombies and then fight again
reply report
1. 87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kind of. Day 7 God rested. But day 8 is when God created Adam, the first human capable of behaving outside of God's will unlike anything else in God's creation. From that point on, yes, people have killed in the name of God, religion, A Catcher in the Rye, the neighbor's dog, etc ....
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Adam more certainly never existed and the story of the Garden of Eden is a childish fairy tale. Evolution has been proven and nothing stunts human developement and progress like continuing to believe in these Bronze Age myths written for the poor, illiterate people in Persia. Not in China where people had science and could read. No, only where people could be taken advantage of and their stupidity expoited.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I take it you're referring to the assumption that Adam was the first human? He wasn't. Genesis makes that clear. Now that we know the history it's kind of hard to miss. Like the 'others' that Cain feared would kill him when he was banished. Humans were created during day 6 in Genesis 1, and the specifics given there match up exactly with what homo sapiens actually did; they were fruitful and multiplied, they populated and subdued the earth, and they established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom.
  
  Persia's a bit too far to the west, but I get what you're saying. They too have a similar account of the 'first man' and the garden. Also, technically, the civilizations of mesopotamia were the first to have scientific practices, long before China.
  
  Adam was created, I guestimate, around 5500 BC. Up until this point, humans already inhabited every inhabitable portion of the earth, and they all lived very similar lifestyles to the more primal indigenous cultures still found today; aborigines, African tribal cultures, island bound cultures, etc. They were not male-dominant, there was no class stratification, and they had no interest in owning possessions or land. The very idea of ownership was foreign to them, especially pieces of the earth.
  
  The introduction of Adam was the introduction of free will/sharpened sense of ego/individuality. We see the first signs of male-dominance there in Mesopotamia. We also see the first city-states with a centralized government and labor carried out by the poorer masses. And we see the first war-like behavior of defending and conquering land. This is what the creation of Adam was.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look, even if Adam did exist - which there is zero scientific proof that he did as is consistent with all of the myth book called 'Genesis' - it does not prove there is a God nor does it afford justification of the Biblical claims. Any scientific evidence you mention works just as well without God and is certainly not depleted or put into jeopardy when you subtract God from the evidence. By the way, there are some 3,000 Gods in the history of the world, and they all can provide the same claims and proof that the Christian one can; meaning, very poorly to insulting to science and human integrity.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I never claimed this proved the existence of God. This all started because the bible was being dismissed through the claim that it's already been proven inaccurate. I am simply illustrating that is not the case.
  
  Just about everything works without God, you're right. God's creation doesn't take any upkeep. Props to the designer. But there are a handful of things that do not have a causal explanation, namely the origin of the universe itself (where that singularity came from), the phenomena of life itself, and the human mind (as in, not the physical brain).
  
  Take evolution, for example. This only works if the default state of a living thing is to 'want' to live. Biological matter is defined as alive when it exhibits homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. We have yet to define life beyond these biological processes. We just know that when something is alive it exhibits behavior that keeps it alive. The phenomena of life itself originates from within the organism, yet is not the conscious choice of the organism.
  
  Most of the primary religion share commonalities for a reason. Those descendants of Adam were dispersed in all directions around the world at Babel. I equate this to the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC) that really did trigger massive human migrations, and that really did come just before the dawning of the first civilizations, Sumer, Egypt, Indus Valley, Akkad, Persia, Greece, Rome, and China. There's a reason why all the major cultures of the world share common flood myths and the like. It's all related.
  reply report
  59
  Brian in Canadaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You continue to refer to Adam as if his existence is a scientic fact, which it is not. You can replace 'Adam' with 'unicorns' and have as much proof to assert the claim. Adam never existed and it completely dicredits any valid points you make afterwards.
  
  There is no definite explanation to the origions of the universe and our understanding of the human brain is woefully limited. Sure. However, the universe and earth is a troubled one at best. The earth is but a slight nudge out of its orbit from entire destruction something a comet or large asteroid could certainly do. Some design. What is more, the Andromeda galaxy is currently approaching the Milky Way at 100 to 140 kilometers per second. So, in 4.5 billion years (only double the earths age) it will collide with our galaxy and certainly mean the end of life on earth. Once again, some design. Oh, that is if the sun does not burn out first and subsequently end life on earth. Again, brilliant design. If this was the creation of one of the Gods then surely he is inept at best and does not deserve praise. Clearly the universe was not the invention of 'intelligent design'.
  reply report
  87
  HeadlyvonNogginposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All I can say as far as your observations on the 'clunkiness' of the universe and the human mind is that if you're not impressed and aw-struck by it all, created or not, there's nothing I can do. I guess some people will just never be satisfied.
  
  How are you so certain Adam didn't exist? Let's have a look at the facts. According to Genesis he was a being that lived in Mesopotamia around 6-7000 years ago, he had a heightened self-awareness as a result of eating the forbidden fruit, and he lived a life that spanned centuries. The same goes for all of his family. 1656 years passed between his creation and the flood, so, according to that, there was a 'tribe' of self-aware humans with extended lifespans that existed in that general region and timeframe for many centuries, then vanished (flood).
  
  So, if this really happened, there should be evidence of some sort, right? Archaeologically, we can actually see evidence that suggests the heightened sense of self-awareness/ego/individuality that differentiates those of us of 'civilized' descent from those of tribal/primal descent began in this same region and time frame. This is when we first stopped living in harmony with nature and instead began to behave more as selfish individuals. In fact, non-christian/non-religious researchers are beginning to see and suggest much the same thing (see the book titled 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era' by Steve Taylor).
  
  So, what about the immortal lifespan thing? Kind of hard to believe, I know. Well, we know this region was well populated in the time frame given, so what would you expect to see if beings such as this did in fact exist? We know that the Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans all spoke of a 'golden age' when humans weren't hung up on possessions and lived in harmony in their ancient past. And we know they all also spoke of immortal beings in their ancient past, human in form, male and female, who were moody and unpredictable, and who were said to have bred with mortal humans, creating titans or demi-gods. Genesis says the same thing (Gen6:1-3). And they all, at least predominately, viewed these mythological tales as if they were fact.
  
  Too crazy? Sure seems to me much more likely that Adam could have actually existed. More likely than unicorns, at least evidence-wise. This is the same region and time frame that humanity became much more technologically proficient, invented writing and centralized government and organized warfare, civilization, and forever changed how humans live on this planet.
  reply report
61
The Invincibleposted 12 years ago
I fail to infer one thing Jainismus. What makes you create this forum when you are yourself a Jain? I'm trying hard to contain myself not to be rude in anyway. And why do you anyway choose such controversial topics? Is this genuine or just a way to get attention from all over?

Is anybody a super power here, how could somebody just go ahead and prove God's existence or for that matter non-existence?
reply report
61
The Invincibleposted 12 years ago
I fail to infer one thing Jainismus. What makes you create this forum when you are yourself a Jain? I'm trying hard to contain myself not to be rude in anyway. And why do you anyway choose such controversial topics? Is this genuine or just a way to get attention from all over?

Is anybody a super power here, how could somebody just go ahead and prove God's existence or for that matter non-existence?
reply report
60
TheLoanConsultantposted 12 years ago
Agreed. For a man knows not by being told. He may believe what others say, but thus he never knows, he only guesses. If a man would know a thing he must himself be what he knows. Now if a man has no other means of proving what he says other than that someone told him, then he does not know he simply guesses.
reply report
74
lone77starposted 12 years ago
The Universe exists, therefore He IS.
reply report
59
Brian in Canadaposted 12 years ago
That it where you are wrong. Evolution is now a proven theory.
reply report
1. 51
  boyatdelhiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Creation by God will be proved to you once you die, but it will be too late...
  So it is better to know it now and believe in Jesus.
  
  That is why Paul who once persecuted the church said "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied"
  
  This life is a stepping stone to an another life.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you prove it now? Allah is going to hurt you real bad.
  reply report
  66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, when we die, our souls go back in time to witness how an invisible deity came/ comes to mold this world into being from nothing?
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  souls go "back in time???" I don't understand your comment.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Funny how you can't see the blatant contradiction there.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Here's a bust for ya ! No one has to prove anything to anyone , especially to the antagonistic attitude of posts in the forums like this , get over yourself , you're not the bible police ! And your anger with religion is no one elses fault !
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How brave you are behind your avatar and fake name.
  reply report
59
love my yorkiesposted 12 years ago
Why does anyone have to prove anything? Can we not just respect each other's beliefs, whatever they may be, whether we agree or not? It should not matter whether someone is christian, atheist, muslim, hindu or whatever belief, you should respect the person they are and not focus on their religous beliefs or lack of.
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why should I respect people's irrational beliefs exactly? If believers kept their beliefs to themselves - it would not be an issue.
  
  But - I am open to hearing why I should respect these beliefs.
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would absolutely agree if religion was simply something people kept in their own lives, but it's not, religion affects my life and my society constantly from societal attitudes towards sex to whether we allow certain people to marry, until that ceases to be the case religion should be challenged, tested and if found wanting abandoned as would any other belief that affects the lives of everyone.
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, this is so true. But as long as there have been people on the earth, they have been arguing and fighting over religious beliefs. And within all the different variations of all the different religions, they can't agree on the same doctrines and beliefs and history and everything else. It's very sad. But, society and it's attitudes towards everything are constantly being changed (always have been) by other factors besides religion. In the long run, I basically believe you have to find what works for you and you can't worry about what anyone else thinks.
  reply report
3. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If those religions don't respect me and in fact go out of their way to disrespect me, why should I respect them?
  reply report
59
love my yorkiesposted 12 years ago
Well, ok, how about respecting other's beliefs just as a common courtesy to others. Whatever your beliefs, I would respect them and not critizize or belittle you for them. I have my beliefts and if I don't agree with someone else's, well, that's my own personal opinion and I keep it to myself. If someone wants to have a discussion on differences of beliefs, that's cool. I don't have all the answers, in fact, I don't have hardly any answers, believe me I wish I did. I know what I believe and it works for me and in the long run isnt' that the only thing that matters. That doesn't mean it should work for anyone else and I don't force my beliefs on anyone. I guess my question to you would be . why does it bother you so much? If you see christianaity as irrational, that's cool, that's your opinion, but why is it an issue?
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So - you respect the beliefs of Nazis? Odd .
  
  I take it you are religious? As it only seems to be people that hold irrational beliefs think irrational beliefs should be respected.
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do i respect the beliefs of the Nazis? No i do not respect the beliefs of the Nazis, but I do respect someone's right to believe in that if they want to. I guess that's what I really meant, to just respect someone's right to their own beliefs even if I do not personally respect that specific belief. Am I religious? I believe in God and Christ and I try to live my life and be the best person I can be. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes, I do and say and think things I shouldn't, hey, I'm human. But if it makes me happy to believe that there is something more to this life after we die or that there is a supreme being who created everything, what does it matter to you?
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you want. I do not respect your specific belief.
  
  Would you speak out against a Nazi if they shared their beliefs?
  
  If only that is where Christian beliefs stopped - I would not have an issue with them - no. But - you feel the need to share them - don't you? You demand respect for believing nonsense. Why? You felt the need to be very clear that you are a Christian - divided from the unbelievers. Saved when they are lost - yes?
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, are you not sharing your beliefs every time you comment.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What are my beliefs?
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not demanding anything, I was simply asking why can't people in general just respect someone else's right to their own beliefs. And you are the one who asked me if I was religious so I answered your question. Do you feel the same way towards other religions or is it just Christians? And your answer is exactly what I'm talking about, why could you have not just said I respect your right to have your beliefs instead of belittling me and calling it nonsense.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The answer is simple, religions don't respect the rights of anyone who is not a follower of that religion and go out of their way to disrespect those others. Do you understand, now?
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes that seems to be a human trait. How much respect do you have for those that believe diffrently than you do?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It has nothing to do with human traits.
  
  Still don't understand we don't hold beliefs, I see.
  reply report
  57
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not a human trait?
  And you have no beliefs. Is that avoidance or denial
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Jerami, I know believers can only think in terms of beliefs, that's why they have little understanding.
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, sadly, I guess I do. I guess it just upsets me that we cannot be respectful of each other as a person without religion being in the mash. There are a lot of people I have great respect for, because of who they are as a human being, and they do not all have the same beliefs as me.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why put religion in the mash then?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We can, easily. If religion is kept behind closed doors where it belongs, no problems, then.
  
  You may have respect for another as a human being, but your religion does not, and most likely their religions don't either.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I said I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you believe. I believe your beliefs are nonsense because they are. I mean - look critically at them and you will see. Virgin birth? Original sin?
  
  I feel the same way about all proselytizing, political religions - yes.
  
  "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
  
  "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
  
  This is the code you follow - yes? I went to your profile and the first thing it says is, "But first and foremost, I am a follower of Jesus Christ and not ashamed to say so."
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, this is what my profile says and no I am not ashamed to admit that I follow Jesus and yes this scripture is in the Bible. I can quote scripture all day too and there are verses in the Bible that will contradict this one. As I said before, I don't have any answers. The Bible also says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Judge not or you will be judged" and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I guess what it boils down to for me is I just don't understand why someone can't have a discussion on religion, any religion, with making all the demeaning and degrading remarks and name calling.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
HI Mark - with regard to Jehovah's Witness, a lot of research and comparison has been documented. They don't believe Jesus is God. LET US INVESTIGATE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.

JW’s believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, and that He is a person distinct from God the Father. However, they also teach that before His earthly life, Jesus was a spirit creature, Michael the archangel, who was created by God and became the Messiah at His baptism. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus is a mighty one, although not almighty as Jehovah God is. According to John 1:1 in their Bible, The New World Translation, Christ is “a god,” but not “the God.” They teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that “Christ and God are not coequal”.

Does the Bible confirm their beliefs, or does it teach the orthodox Christian concept that Christ is God? This is an extremely important question. Consider the following points:
1.The Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
Isaiah wrote about seeing Jehovah in Isaiah 6:1-10.
In John 12:31-42, we are told that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Him
In Exodus 34:14 we are to worship no one but Jehovah.
In Hebrews 1:6 the angels worship Christ.
In Isaiah 44:6 Jehovah is called the first and the last (confirmed in Revelation 1:8),
but in Revelation 22:13 Christ is the first and the last.

These verses demonstrate that the name “Jehovah” is used for both God the Father and of God the Son. Although they are distinct persons they are each called “Jehovah” because they each possess deity.
2.The deity of Christ is taught in Scripture.

In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.”
When Thomas touched Jesus' wounds, after the resurrection, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). There is no basis whatsoever for saying, as some JW’s say, that Thomas was referring to Christ when he said “my Lord,” but was referring to God (Jehovah) when he said “my God.” Instead, Thomas called Christ both his Lord and his God. And Christ did not correct him! Colossians 2:9 clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily” (New World Translation). Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59,60), and we are to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3). “Lord” in these verses is Kurios, which is the Greek word for Jehovah in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It is evident from this that Christ the Lord (kurios) is Jehovah God.

3.Attributes of Christ show that He is God

Jesus Christ knows all things (John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 14:30; 21:17). He is all-powerful (Matt. 28:18; Heb. 1:3), sinless (John 8:46), eternal (Mic. 5:2), and unchanging (Heb. 13:8). Since only God possesses these attributes, Christ must be God.

4.Certain works of Christ show that He is God.

Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Since only God can do these things, Christ must be God.

5.Christ received worship as God.

Jesus is worshipped by the angels (Heb. 1:6) and by man (Matt. 14:33), and yet only God is to be worshipped (Ex. 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone (Matt. 4:10), and yet He accepted worship. If Jesus in His pre-existent state were the archangel Michael, how could He have received worship, since angels are not allowed to receive worship (Rev. 19:10)? If Christ were not God, then worshipping Him would be idolatrous.

6.
Jesus Christ is called “the mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6.
JW’s have a ready answer for this verse. They explain that Christ is “the mighty god.” but not “the almighty.” They say that Christ is the mighty, never the almighty and that Jehovah is the almighty God, never the mighty. However, Jeremiah 32:18 shows that Jehovah is the mighty One. Therefore, since Christ is the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and Jehovah is the mighty God (Jer. 32:18), they are both God. They both possess full deity.

7.
Christ is God, the Creator of all things according to Colossians 1:15-17.
JW’s refer to this passage to support their teaching that Christ was created by Jehovah (for example, Let God Be True, p.35). This is based primarily on the words, “the firstborn of all creation,” in verse 15. However, if this verse was teaching that Jesus Christ is the first created being made by God, the word “first-created” would have been used of Christ, not the word “firstborn.” These are two different words in the Greek, with two different meanings. “First-created” is protoktistos, and “firstborn” is prototokos. Colossians 1:15 does not use the protoktistos, “first-created.” Instead it uses prototokos, which means an heir, a begotten one, the first in rank. The teaching of Colossians 1:15 is that Christ is first in rank above all creation; He is the Heir of all things. He is prior to all creation and superior over it.

The JW’s New World Translation adds the word “other” four times in Colossians 1:15-17, so that the passage states that Christ created “all other things,” everything except Himself. However, there is no basis for adding “other.” It certainly does not occur in the Greek manuscripts. The translators of the New World Translation admit this by putting “other” in brackets. This “translation” attempts to comply with the assumption that firstborn means first-created. But, as shown, this is not the meaning of firstborn, and therefore it is also wrong to add the word “other.” There is no verse in the entire Bible that states that Christ was created by Jehovah!

8.
Christ claimed to be equal with God in John 10:30.
JW’s believe that this verse, “I and the Father are one,” means that Christ was one with God the Father in purpose and not in nature and essence. However, if that was all Christ was saying, why did the Jews want to stone Him? They themselves thought His purpose was the same as God’s. Verse 33 of John 10 explains that they wanted to stone Him because of blasphemy, because He claimed to be God!

The deity of Christ is the central point of the Scriptures. It clearly teaches that Christ is God. The teachings of the Jehovah’s Witness' concerning Jesus Christ clearly contradict the teachings of the Bible. Passages such as Philippians 2:5-11 tell us that Jesus Christ, who existed as God, took the bodily form of a humble servant so that He could die on the cross in our place. “Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios), to the glory of God the Father.”
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No - your personal interpretation makes you believe this. Most other so-called Christians interpret these things differently. This is why there are so many different denominations.
  
  So - your judgment is that none of these are not real Christians because they don't believe exactly what you believe - yes?
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mark I didn't express my beliefs. I copies this from a Christian site that explains what cults are and believe. Which Christians interpret things differently. I have met many Christians over the last 40 years. Acceptance as JW is a no brainer to the Christian community. My father was a Methodist minister. I attended Catholic school., I have been a member of 3 Baptist churches and am not non-denominational. All subscribed to the same beliefs about JW. If you Google, you will see how this is widely accepted.
  reply report
59
love my yorkiesposted 12 years ago
There have been a lot of horrible crimes committed throughout history in the name of this religion or that religion and Christianity has been just as guilty as any other. I take it you are an atheist? I respect your RIGHT to believe that way. Do I think your beliefs are irrational? No. Do i think your beliefs are wacko or stupid? No. If your beliefs make you happy, that's awesome! Does it really matter to you what I think or believe? My beliefs make me happy, so why can't you RESPECT that?
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because your beliefs are damaging to us as a society and I am part of that society. Since when is willful ignorance and superstition something that should be respected?
  
  Why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself?
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If I choose to be willfully ignorant and superstitious, it's my life, not yours. And other than the fact that I told you that yes I believe in God and Christ and an afterlife, I have not mentioned any thing else about my beliefs. So, i pretty much have kept my beliefs to myself, I'm just asking questions and answering others.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Woohoo! Are you some new type of Christian in that case? Have you rejected what the bible says about all the things it has an opinion on? That is awesome! Wonderful that you do not follow the bible.
  
  You must have missed all the other Christians spreading the love.
  
  Why can't you just respect my belief that your religion is dangerous nonsense and you adversely affect our society?
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I have not and do not reject what the bible says, I simply stated other than telling you I believe in God and Christ, you don't know the realm of my beliefs and what they are.
  Ok, I respect your right to your beliefs!
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But, what if you didn't actually choose to be willfully ignorant and superstitious? Maybe that choice was already made for you long ago and you have simply grown to accept it.
  
  And, if so many of us choose to be willfully ignorant and superstitious, why are we bothering to send our children to schools and universities? Why are not just living in caves batting each other over the head with clubs, instead?
  
  That's wonderful. Would it be possible for you to talk with the millions of others who seem fit to cram their beliefs down our throats? They won't listen to us. Thanks, kindly.
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, you keep your unbelief to yourself too. true beliefs and actions never damage to anyone. the real believing people are useful for society. non believers are aimless and alone people. respect is the necessity of human being. people who feel themselves as human,not other creature ,must respect others.
  reply report
  59
  love my yorkiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Never heard about crusades (even today they are 'hurting' moments...)? Now, tell me beliefs never ever hurt anyone.
  Non believers are as useful as believers if both keep their mouth' shut about beliefs.
  If, as you say "respect is the necessity of human being" this is contradicting strong with "not other creature must respect others".
  reply report
  61
  ihayaydinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  only human has intelligence, we are aware of respect. an animal or a plant has the ability of respect? ı mean those creatures.
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you really mean this, you aren't able to appreciate the value of respect, which is a part of love. Do you have a pet at home? If you treat it well, you respect it and vice versa. Get a bite from a dog that's disrespect meaning you weren't allowed to do something specific (come to close, you want to caress but the dog doesn't like it because he may not know you too well etc.). Some 'creatures' have a greater sense of respect as some of the human beings. And when it comes to intelligence, ever seen dogs believing something they can't see or sense in any way or saying something like "Only dogs have intelligence". I guess you haven't, so, that's intelligence. And what you wrote is disrespect to 100%. Let alone naming animals 'creatures' some of the human beings aren't in prison because they are so lovely and like to cuddle or do respect every other human being or animals.
  reply report
  72
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Since when is affection, by or toward a creation {animal, plant, fish}, considered intelligent or a form of respect?
  Instinct is not intellect. It is a very limited programming of reaction. A animal 'sizing up another' or avoiding contact is not respect, it is instinct or a show of force, aggression, spawned by the instinct to survive.
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is ridiculous. Instinct is part of intelligence as well as love, hate, or whatever feeling you want. We are all limited, which means in your sense every being isn't intelligent.
  reply report
  72
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Information does not automatically translate as intelligence.
  A week in HRH naval training will teach you that, else a week of safari.
  
  Animals have no intelligence, they have instinct.
  An information -a genetic bootstrap program- that enables them to hunt, procreate, colonize, etc.
  They have no understanding of that information. They are purely reaction objects {creations}.
  So a mutt attacking or a cat butting up your leg is not intellect, it is instinctive respond to its environment.
  
  As for what is limited, speak for yourself. "We" are not limited.
  
  Enjoy your safari holiday!
  reply report
  56
  knowledgeismightposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Any genetic information comes from - right - intelligence; where else should it been saved in your opinion? Or vice versa: intelligence is part of the genetic information. Humans do have instinct, too. Do some Wing Chun, which I did, you'll learn that by yourself and is far more useful than a safari. Which, in my case, I don't need. I did one and still doing Wing Chun. Which taught me much more than you could ever imagine. So, telling me about intellect have nothing to do with instinctive reactions leads me to: you've such experience yourself or you deny them.
  
  And I am not limited either. :-) Neither would I have been able to do the things I already did - because they are so diversified, that limitation is something I can really exclude - nor would I have been to listen to different music styles, read different books... etc.
  reply report
62
dianetrotterposted 12 years ago
Mark - Mormonism - I admit I don't know much about Mormonism. I looked at their beliefs page and see that they seem to have the Christian beliefs about God,. I didn't read it all. I did notice that "after baptist people receive the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands by someone in authority?" This is not Biblical. The Holy Sprit enters the heart at the moment a person receives Christ. Has nothing to do with baptism?
There was so much there I didn't have time to read it all but here is the statement: "Following baptism by immersion comes the laying on of hands by one in authority who bestows the gift of the Holy Ghost."
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mormons believe all sorts of nonsense about Jesus. That he was in America before he went to live with his Other Daddy for example.
  reply report
  62
  dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well Mark, sounds like you know more than I do about Mormons.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
There are only three things Christians have to Prove to anyone ....
One - nothing!

Two - nothing!

Thre - nothing !

The idiousy of the of trying to please a non- believing antagonist is somewhat less than challenging . They don't want your proof , they want your anger to feed thier selfish guilt at thier own lack of faith.
reply report
1. 60
  TheLoanConsultantposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also, why is proof necessary? If they choose to not believe in a supreme being, I say WHO CARES! HAHAHAH let them not believe, it makes no difference to me! If the truth that there is a creator is not self-evident to them that's not our problem. They have a mind of their own I say let em use it. If they choose to ignore that which is evident, from which they could infer other truths, they are just being lazy. In every human is the principle of knowledge whereby they may obtain more knowledge. Truth is but one, the doubts are of their own rising. The problem is not with truth, for truth is attainable. The problem is with men who beareth not it's splendor.
  reply report
2. 61
  f_hruzposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The words of the a god deluded, mindless religionoid who has not learned to think for himself yet: "... they want your anger to feed thier selfish guilt at thier own lack of faith." ... as if religious faith will fix your spelling and provide you with a better grip on reality?
  
  Your intellectual development has reached a dead end with your
  self evident inability to see NATURE as the objective basis to our common reality and not some man made religious dogmas involving some guy called Smith, Jesus, Moses or what ever!
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Period!
reply report
1. 70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree 100%
  reply report
67
thephilosopher899posted 12 years ago
This is exactly what I've been saying for years. It is the duty of the asserting party to prove what they claim, not for the other party to disprove. By that sense I like to use Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot example: If I claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, but we do not have the technology or the ability to see it, no one will be able to claim that it does not exist. This is using the same reasoning of the religious. Sadly, if only they could see their faulty reasoning!
reply report
1. 70
  unitifyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe there is a teapot orbiting the sun. Maybe you saying it made it so. A man can fly. Why, because the wright brothers said so. Thought are things . All you have to do is but look all around you. and you will believe and you will know.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Undeniable is the fact that every post by Non-believers is simply an attempt to anger YOU or I, did you ever notice they don't ever insult islam or budda ....only christians ! The O.P. and all ike it........ come from cowards !
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - how brave of you from behind a fake user name and avatar.
  reply report
  59
  Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My sister's name is Maita. Well, she was naughty from the beginning. She used to wear masks of big-fat old males to frighten her friends. She is still like that. You see Mark, deception lies deep within the human character.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dude, are you actually still here? You must be a frickin' IT genius to keep coming back. And back. And back. And back yet again.
  
  reply report
2. 66
  heatblast92posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, firstly, I'm not one for being stoned to death by offended Muslims, as I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying I'm not alone in thinking as such.
  
  Secondly, Buddhism, while being a non-theistic set of beliefs, is the closest a religion can be to coherence with scientific progress, so to speak, disqualifying itself for the bout of mockery supposedly displayed here so rampantly toward Christianity by the heathen lot here.
  
  Thirdly, you shouldn't be angered so easily, given your firm faith in the alleged validity and infallibility of your beliefs, wouldn't you say so?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 3 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies