Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God
- Thread starter Mr Average
- Start date
Mr Average said:
That's right, I'm an internet hardman.
Why don't you upload a punch in the face and pm it to me.
Mr Average said:
Yes this page gives three entries found, Perhaps you didnt notice but all for the word "atheism" none for "a-theism" .....
What about the other part of my post?????
....can you provide a coherent reasoning for why a belief in absolute morality somehow indicates the notion of a higher power. Unless I am mistaken this is what you argue? I'm interested in hearing your reasoning.......
seanoc said:Yes this page gives three entries found, Perhaps you didnt notice but all for the word "atheism" none for "a-theism" .....
What about the other part of my post?????
....can you provide a coherent reasoning for why a belief in absolute morality somehow indicates the notion of a higher power. Unless I am mistaken this is what you argue? I'm interested in hearing your reasoning.......
When you click the link, you get this...
3 entries found for a-theism.
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.
Mr Average said:
The entry you include is a syllable breakdown, even the entries with a-theism, describe the word atheism.....
Which side of the big pond you on, color or colour, if tis color then I'll drop the argument, otherwise you're not spelling it the way dear auld lizzie might
Still waiting on your reasoning................
Mr Average said:
As for the immorality bit, thats anachronistic bull, the boys at dictionary.com pretty much nail their colours to the mast whe they quote.....
" Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall."
seanoc said:
Of course, R. Hall was talking out of his arse.
spinoza said:
E=mc2 is a theory. As is gravity and the electron. 2+2=4 is not really a theory in the scientific sense. Once something is proved in mathematics, that's it - argument over (unless you are a *********** of mathematics and deny the validity of the method of proof).
As to whether a circle always adds up to 360 degrees - don't know but you can make the angles of a triangle add up to more 180 degrees if you paint it onto the surface of a sphere. (Euclid was right but he was only talking about two dimensions.) And pi changes its value if you measure it around a black hole, for example (due to the distortion of space buggering up circumference, diameter and the ruler).
The entry you include is a syllable breakdown, even the entries with a-theism, describe the word atheism.....
I went to dictionary.com and typed a-theism
I got 3 entries found for a-theism.
This part is the syllable breakdown... a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
OK? =p
I went to dictionary.com and typed a-theism
I got 3 entries found for a-theism.
This part is the syllable breakdown... a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
OK? =p
nickm said:
I believe that in nuclear fission if you add up the mass of particles after the reaction, and compare it to the mass of particles before the reaction, the energy released follows the relationship e=mc2, m being the different in mass. So yes, it's a theory - unlike gravity, which depends on finding some sub-atomic particle which is extremely elusive.
[/QUOTE]nickm said:
Fair enough.
I don't think Euclid postulated black holes
I seem to recall that the circle is the absolute across all the geometric paradigms - Riemannian geometry allows 2 parallel lines to meet, for example. I could be wrong though
Mr Average said:
Fair enough if you're American, hyphens rule the US. I understand.
If you're English then you are using the hyphen in some bullshit political sense, cause believe me there isn't a single English published newspaper ( or dictionary I think) that spell it the way you do.....
spinoza said:
Sorry, I meant there's the theory of gravity (relativity) to explain the facts of gravity (apples and orbits and stuff). Ditto for e=mc2. I wasn't being clear.
spinoza said:I don't think Euclid postulated black holes
True! Interestingly though, I read somewhere the earliest thoughts about black hole-like objects go back to the late 1700s (deductions from Newtonian gravity).
spinoza said:
I can't pretend I know anything at all about Riemann's work outside the usual pop-sci stuff about general relativity, though. Only that it is about multi-dimensional geometry. I think you might be right though.
YOU SAID I would answer some things u have raised against me on personal account: Well yeah maybe mine posts have some grammatical and spelling errors, the reason being I don type mine posts on Word or something, and I don really read it once I have written. If what I have written is understandable to u, then its ok, its not a school paper or something.
Look, the spelling thing and grammar, does not make that much difference. It's up to you. Remember, you are the one who was unsubtly trying to suggest I was ignorant first. You wondered aloud whether I was choosing to be ignorant, whilst not even taking the time to spell-check the post in which you suggested it.
YOU SAID U said I have only the basic scientific knowledge.
That is what I believe yes. Until I see or read something that challenges that belief, that is my position.
YOU SAID Well whether u wanna believe or not is up to u, but the fact is I have studied these theories in detail. While studying them (around 3 years ago) I didn’t learn them by heart.
I dont understand? You studied them in detail, but did not learn them?
YOU SAID So if expect me to remember all of it in original form in the scientific terms used, u are being unreasonable.
That is not what I expect. I just want some kind of explanation from you in response to the questions I have raised, based on your scientific understanding. This you have not done.
YOU SAID I could have like other posters here like YOU ,done a cut n paste job using some article in other website, but I chose to write only what I remembered when I studied them.
Remember, that I never used what I pasted as a challenge in the debate, I merely posted it and asked for your thoughts. I was interested in what you had to say about it. You have thus far declined to comment.
YOU SAID I accept I haven’t fully explain mine position, part of the reason I had to encounter mine exams in between and other that u keep raising so many questions again and again.
You asked for a 12-day leave from the debate, and had one no problem. Its quite simple really, in one post answer the questions and in another, state your own position. Nothing complex about that. You are going round in circles by coming up with countless reasons for why you will not/cannot answer the questions.
YOU SAID Also since it seems that this debate has opened up to other posters, please tell whether they would also be involved constantly and I/U would have to address them too.
I think we should continue to debate one another, with optional replies to other posters if we wish. As you can see, the resident A-Theists are on my case, and I am struggling to debate them all as their arguments are strong and require a lot of thought on my part. I am hoping to answer every question asked in the fullness of time.
YOU SAID Now again before moving on:
Please for once answer this :
Your words: You argue for science which is based on evidence, I argue for God which is based on faith, revelation and direct experience. Now I don know whether u really don’t get it, or pretending not to. Topic (as I understand): which is more logical atheism or belief in god?
Topic was based on which is more rational or reasonable, not necessarily logical.
YOU SAID To argue on the behest of something based on evidence and reasoning and which is vying to find more to prove it self is more logical than to argue on the behest of faith, revelation etc. ( explain direct experience – surely u didn’t see god or something). DO YOU AGREE?
I disagree here and must say no. Faith is always based on trust and revelation, it must be or it would not be faith, no would it. I cannot argue with direct evidence, as you will only discount what I present to you.
YOU SAID Then only we could proceed and list questions and stuff.
The questions to you are listed, and I expect you to answer them in your next post. Feel free to list your own.
In Peace, Mr Average.
Look, the spelling thing and grammar, does not make that much difference. It's up to you. Remember, you are the one who was unsubtly trying to suggest I was ignorant first. You wondered aloud whether I was choosing to be ignorant, whilst not even taking the time to spell-check the post in which you suggested it.
YOU SAID U said I have only the basic scientific knowledge.
That is what I believe yes. Until I see or read something that challenges that belief, that is my position.
YOU SAID Well whether u wanna believe or not is up to u, but the fact is I have studied these theories in detail. While studying them (around 3 years ago) I didn’t learn them by heart.
I dont understand? You studied them in detail, but did not learn them?
YOU SAID So if expect me to remember all of it in original form in the scientific terms used, u are being unreasonable.
That is not what I expect. I just want some kind of explanation from you in response to the questions I have raised, based on your scientific understanding. This you have not done.
YOU SAID I could have like other posters here like YOU ,done a cut n paste job using some article in other website, but I chose to write only what I remembered when I studied them.
Remember, that I never used what I pasted as a challenge in the debate, I merely posted it and asked for your thoughts. I was interested in what you had to say about it. You have thus far declined to comment.
YOU SAID I accept I haven’t fully explain mine position, part of the reason I had to encounter mine exams in between and other that u keep raising so many questions again and again.
You asked for a 12-day leave from the debate, and had one no problem. Its quite simple really, in one post answer the questions and in another, state your own position. Nothing complex about that. You are going round in circles by coming up with countless reasons for why you will not/cannot answer the questions.
YOU SAID Also since it seems that this debate has opened up to other posters, please tell whether they would also be involved constantly and I/U would have to address them too.
I think we should continue to debate one another, with optional replies to other posters if we wish. As you can see, the resident A-Theists are on my case, and I am struggling to debate them all as their arguments are strong and require a lot of thought on my part. I am hoping to answer every question asked in the fullness of time.
YOU SAID Now again before moving on:
Please for once answer this :
Your words: You argue for science which is based on evidence, I argue for God which is based on faith, revelation and direct experience. Now I don know whether u really don’t get it, or pretending not to. Topic (as I understand): which is more logical atheism or belief in god?
Topic was based on which is more rational or reasonable, not necessarily logical.
YOU SAID To argue on the behest of something based on evidence and reasoning and which is vying to find more to prove it self is more logical than to argue on the behest of faith, revelation etc. ( explain direct experience – surely u didn’t see god or something). DO YOU AGREE?
I disagree here and must say no. Faith is always based on trust and revelation, it must be or it would not be faith, no would it. I cannot argue with direct evidence, as you will only discount what I present to you.
YOU SAID Then only we could proceed and list questions and stuff.
The questions to you are listed, and I expect you to answer them in your next post. Feel free to list your own.
In Peace, Mr Average.
Furious George...
OK, handbags are put away! =)
YOU SAID Right, we've done this one. I know you were just aching to say 'God did it', but you couldn't because science has a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't involve supernatural beings.
Okay then, despite you claiming constantly that we are done with this, I have just reviewed your previous posts and I must beg to differ. Please give me a step by step breakdown *as best you can*, at how elements of the periodic table have developed consciousness?
YOU SAID How can you ask a question on morality, yet insist that the questioned party leave thier own moral objections to one side? It's like asking someone who's been blind from birth to describe purple!
Its nothing like that actually. I am asking whether the act is wrong, independent of *anyone's* view on it? Lets change the context slightly then....do you think it is *always* wrong for a grown man to rape a two week old newborn baby? Can you please answer yes or no?
YOU SAID I also know where you're going with this question. If you'd like to play your morality card rather than keeping it up your sleeve, I'll gladly jump all over that argument too.
Please elaborate...Thank you.
YOU SAID You fail to take into account string theory, or m-theory, or whatever the hell it's called these days which points towards the existence of the multiverse; a collection of universes(Collective noun?) that simultaneously co-exist and disperse thier collective energy through the births and deaths of universes.
Scientists have postulated the above. You have decided it is more likely than what I suggest. That is your *belief*. Fair enough. Even if there are countless universes, there must only be three options which apply to them.
a They have always existed
b They spontaneously come into existence from nothing.
c They were created
Which one?
YOU SAID I know it seems outlandish but it's still a lot more plausable than the third option you've offered.
More plausible? Says who? That’s your *belief* and you are entitled to it.
YOU SAID Given your options, I'd plump for B, even though it's a loaded statment. To explain my answer clearly, i'll first have to wait for your inevitable rebuttal using the tired theists cliche of invoking the laws of thermodynamics.
Forget the rebuttal, go straight to your counter-counter argument...
YOU SAID We are a social chimp, Mr Average. We need interaction to breed and primitive people soon discovered the value of strength in numbers. It works better for everyone if we all just get along. What was the purpose of this question?
You know the purpose of the question...I am trying to establish if you believe that a gang of men forcible smashing an old woman to death is wrong in and of ityself, or only wrong because it is not good for society?
YOU SAID The only social examples of cannibalism recorded were done during religious ceremonies. So, you've sort of shot yourself in the foot there.
Not so. Cannibalism has been recorded since history itself was. Making war on your enemies and eating them has been deeply ingrained in some cultures since time began.
YOU SAID No, that was the nazi's and they had the rest of the civilized world busting their bollocks to stop them.
Nazis or not, they were human just like you and me. Oh, and was Italy and Japan trying to stop them?
In Peace, Mr Average
OK, handbags are put away! =)
YOU SAID Right, we've done this one. I know you were just aching to say 'God did it', but you couldn't because science has a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't involve supernatural beings.
Okay then, despite you claiming constantly that we are done with this, I have just reviewed your previous posts and I must beg to differ. Please give me a step by step breakdown *as best you can*, at how elements of the periodic table have developed consciousness?
YOU SAID How can you ask a question on morality, yet insist that the questioned party leave thier own moral objections to one side? It's like asking someone who's been blind from birth to describe purple!
Its nothing like that actually. I am asking whether the act is wrong, independent of *anyone's* view on it? Lets change the context slightly then....do you think it is *always* wrong for a grown man to rape a two week old newborn baby? Can you please answer yes or no?
YOU SAID I also know where you're going with this question. If you'd like to play your morality card rather than keeping it up your sleeve, I'll gladly jump all over that argument too.
Please elaborate...Thank you.
YOU SAID You fail to take into account string theory, or m-theory, or whatever the hell it's called these days which points towards the existence of the multiverse; a collection of universes(Collective noun?) that simultaneously co-exist and disperse thier collective energy through the births and deaths of universes.
Scientists have postulated the above. You have decided it is more likely than what I suggest. That is your *belief*. Fair enough. Even if there are countless universes, there must only be three options which apply to them.
a They have always existed
b They spontaneously come into existence from nothing.
c They were created
Which one?
YOU SAID I know it seems outlandish but it's still a lot more plausable than the third option you've offered.
More plausible? Says who? That’s your *belief* and you are entitled to it.
YOU SAID Given your options, I'd plump for B, even though it's a loaded statment. To explain my answer clearly, i'll first have to wait for your inevitable rebuttal using the tired theists cliche of invoking the laws of thermodynamics.
Forget the rebuttal, go straight to your counter-counter argument...
YOU SAID We are a social chimp, Mr Average. We need interaction to breed and primitive people soon discovered the value of strength in numbers. It works better for everyone if we all just get along. What was the purpose of this question?
You know the purpose of the question...I am trying to establish if you believe that a gang of men forcible smashing an old woman to death is wrong in and of ityself, or only wrong because it is not good for society?
YOU SAID The only social examples of cannibalism recorded were done during religious ceremonies. So, you've sort of shot yourself in the foot there.
Not so. Cannibalism has been recorded since history itself was. Making war on your enemies and eating them has been deeply ingrained in some cultures since time began.
YOU SAID No, that was the nazi's and they had the rest of the civilized world busting their bollocks to stop them.
Nazis or not, they were human just like you and me. Oh, and was Italy and Japan trying to stop them?
In Peace, Mr Average
Mr Average said:
before begining to answer ur questions :
ur response to question raised :
-------------------------------------------------------------
i SAID: To argue on the behest of something based on evidence and reasoning and which is vying to find more to prove it self is more logical than to argue on the behest of faith, revelation etc. ( explain direct experience – surely u didn’t see god or something). DO YOU AGREE?
UR RESPONSE:I disagree here and must say no. Faith is always based on trust and revelation, it must be or it would not be faith, no would it. I cannot argue with direct evidence, as you will only discount what I present to you.
i don ask for any evidence , but please explain what u mean by trust or revelation. also explain direct experience ( i asked u earlier )
-----------------------------------------------------------
now i will answer ur questions 2,5 and 6 - since they are related
u will find answer to all of them here: (i hope)
i am gonna start from the basics .
we all are born in our respective societies, according to me we have no sense of anything when we are born. we learn what our parents tell us , what is taught to us in schools. but as we grow up, if brought up in a dynamic society , we devolop our own view of things taught to us . we start to question these things , come to our own interprettaion.
these interprettaions may be wrong or not in sync with the society we live in , but in most case u will find majority devolops view similar to that of a society. now i cant do a study to prove this , but surely u accept this.
now comin to QUESTION that if a society preaches a wrong act as a right one ,do all of us accept it ?
well , i don know whether u wanna hear this but , the answer is yes.
as i said majority's view is shaped by society norms
and there are facts proving this :
*i have already mentioed this - but here we go again: in the past society discriminated against blacks, majority failed to recognise this as a wrong act.
* today we were born in society, where blacks were given equal status.
and what a coincidence we devoloped to have the same opinion.
almost all except few had the same opinion
*in the past women were nt given equal status, majority failed to recgnise this as wrong
*in certain islamic societies today- women are still discriminated against, majority still doesnt realise this as wrong.
* as u said in certain societies eatin human flesh is acceptable , that means majority doesnt recognise it as wrong
* as u said, in past burning jews and stuff was acceptable, majority followed this .
* today, majority believe in so called god or something, which has been societies opinion for so long.majority doesnt realise it as wrong and illogical
now there were some person or there are some person born in these societies who didnt follow the masses opnion, but majority even though being granted morality thing by god followed wrong act as right.
those who didnt, *according to me *, did so, not because this morality thing was clearly explained to them by god, but because they were able to devolop in a certain way that allowed them to think outside from the societies discrimination. the surroundings they grew up in , the knowledge they gathered played a part in this . they just didnt wake up one day and said this is wrong!
now to answer the question whether i recognise raping as a wrong act because it is society opinion.
i think YES, the reason ,i have stated so far in earlier posts are basically what i have learnt from living in mine society.
i don know what whether if i have been born in a society
which said rape is ok, burning jew is ok , discriminating blacks is ok
i would have recognised them as wrong or not
i would like to think that -- ohhhhhhh, no i know this is wrong now, if i have been born in a different time or a diff society , i would have raised above the society and recognise it as a wrong.
but the cold TRUTH is i could have easily and probably followed the masses then and probably committ these wrong ful acts .
as a matter of fact, no matter how much u argue even u cant say for 100% surity that if u were born in a society following wrong acts , u would nt have followed the masses.
so in conclusion, i don know whether i recognise raping as an absolute wrong act, because i don know how would i have reacted if i would have born when it was considered right.
i hope this answers questions 2,5,6
answers to 1, 3,4 later.
seanoc said:
Mr Average, are you going to respond???? Third time of asking.......
seanoc said:
Chasing me eh? lol =)
in my previous post I said...
I think we should continue to debate one another, with optional replies to other posters if we wish. As you can see, the resident A-Theists are on my case, and I am struggling to debate them all as their arguments are strong and require a lot of thought on my part. I am hoping to answer every question asked in the fullness of time.
OK?
Mr Average said:
Good! It was my fault, anyway
I've got a heavy workload today, due to the bankholiday break, but I'll get back to your questions as soon as possible...
seanoc said:
Absolute morality is a tricky subject to discuss, and also to reflect on the implications if it does or does not exist.
If there is an absolute morality implanted within us, then we should consider where such a thing comes from. If there is no absolute morality, perhaps we need to investigate where our future decisions on right and wrong come from, and how they are finally reached and determined.
I contend that in all nations and at all times the *majority* of men have felt the following to be inherently wrong. Although these actions are carried out daily by people all over the world, I suggest that most people know they are doing wrong and that this is not just because whichever society has deemed this to be the case.
killing someone without a just reason,
taking something which is not given,
speaking badly of others, lying or gossiping,
sexual misconduct [cheating on partner etc]
The question is, do the above carry the weight of being wrong in of themselves, or are they simply actions which have reactions, which we have decided are not suitable and for the greater benefit of all?
Walk with me on an imaginary morning as I head into work....
As I leave my house, I notice one of my neighbours is arguing with a stranger. I deliberately delay my normal routine and mess about in the boot of the car to make sure nothing is seriously amiss. The row seems to be getting worse, and as I look up, I see the stranger strike my neighbour. Instantly, and without thought I run across and do my best to intervene and make peace where I can. I am prepared to defend my neighbour and myself if necessary. I will also defend the stranger if my neighbour gets up and seeks revenge. My action in intervening is instantaneous, nervous-system quick and I am there in a flash. No decision required.
As I arrive at work, I notice that a car in the cleaners bay is left unlocked and a wallet is visible. Not for a second, do I consider taking it, and instead I let reception know so they can immediately notify the correct person. Once this is done, I carry on with my day, feeling good that I have helped and done the *right* things today.
These actions I have performed lead me to peace of mind that I have done the *right* thing. I am reassured I have done my best, and walked away from the option of theft, and the consequence that come with it. I have also helped defend my neighbour, whilst using the minimum force possible.
The alternatives to the above would at least lead to one of three things....
If I had done *wrong*, and we all know what the wrong would have been here, I would have either
a) felt sick to my stomach about stealing and the fight, and my own picture inside of who I am, would lessen and darken. I would most definitely not consider myself as good and my peace of mind would decrease.
b) be taken into the system by the authorities who also generally claim to operate by moral standards. Given moral standards, which are based on certain moral teachings.
c) felt big because of what I had done, and my rep as a hard-man or petty criminal would increase. Never-the-less, my peace of mind would decrease and the chances of my life getting worse would increase.
One set of actions lead to a greater peace of mind, and the other set of actions do not.
In society, there has to be rules to follow to prevent chaos. The system and the government run things and make sure rules are enforced. They also change the rules when they like, for example allowing soldiers to illegally invade a sovereign nation and kill, and then say it is in self-defence. The government alleges that is follows moral behaviour, but the rules are regularly bent. the government displays an A-Theistic morality, by allowing subjective decision on what is right and wrong.
I kill my next door neighbour in a fight and am locked up. He has been threatening me and my family for two years, and one day I can take no more and snap.
Strangely enough, I end up sharing a cell with a guy that was called up to go and fight in Iraq, but refused on moral grounds. On one hand, I am wrong for killing, on the other hand he is wrong for refusing to kill when ordered. Is this right? can you sense just how wrong it is? Be honest...
This is what happens when morality is made subjective, opinions of the masses or those in power decide what is right. Can someone really decide that rape is ok? Even if the masses took a vote and rape was made legal, how many of you would go out and start raping women? How about children? How about if scientists proved that regularly raping women was PROVEN to strengthen society and make you live longer. If this was the case, if it was 100% proven, would you go and rape the weak and vulnerable?
let me ask you...
Are we God made moral creatures that can be sickened to the stomach by the crimes we visit on one another, when turning from God and Godly behaviour?
or
Are we just a collection of chemicals that gets sickened to the stomach, when it hears that another child has been tortured and raped?
C'mon, what is more reasonable. What makes more sense.
In Peace, Mr Average
Mr Average said:
Have you heard of Occam's razor? It slices and dices, you know?
Anyhoo, back to the problem in hand. There is evidence* that 'morality' is hardwired into us by evolution. A lot of work in this field, Neuroethics, has been done by Princeton University's psychology department's Carl Green.
He essentially bombardes volunteers with moral conundrums and measures their responses. Here are a selection of questions that Green has used in one of his tests:
Dr Carl Green said:
As you can see, some of these questions are very difficult to answer. Green studies the brain as these types of questions are posed. Green also poses simple, innocuous questions to serve as sort of a control in the study. Another of Green's methods was mass polling of responses for the 'Trolley conundrum'. It goes something like this:
Imagine you're at the wheel of a trolley and the breaks have failed. You're approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side five railway workers are fixing the track. On your right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing the trolley will bear left and kill the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take the responsibility for changing the trolley's path by hitting by hitting a switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?
This seems relatively straight forward. The greater good is to pull the switch and save the five but lets look at the situation from a slightly different angle:
This time imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death, But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you allow five people to die?
Logically, both of these thought experiments should have similar answers. The greater good requires sacrificing one life for the five but if you poll your friends you will probably find that many more are willing to pull a switch than sneak up behind and push a man off a bridge. It is very difficult to explain why what seems right in one scenario can feel so wrong in another with similar parameters. Evolution may hold the key to unraveling this mystery.
The two trolley experiments seem to boil down into the Kantian vs. Utilitarian dilemma in ethics. Immanuel Kant believed that pure reason alone could lead one to moral truths. He declared, through his own reasoning, that it was wrong to use someone for personal ends and that it was proper only to act according to principles that everyone could follow.
John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, argued that the rules of morality should, above all else, achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people even if particular individuals might be worse off as a result.
Green seeks to explain these differences as products of millions of years of evolutionary history. Primatologists have found that moral instincts have very deep roots. For example, last September Sarah Bosnan and Frans de Waal (of Emory University) conducted experiments showing that monkeys have a sense of fairness.
Brosnan and De Waal trained capuchin monkeys to take a pebble from them; if the monkey gave the pebble back, they got a cucumber. Then they ran the same experiment two monkeys sitting in adjacent cages so that each could see the other. One monkey still got a cucumber, but the other one got a grape--a tastier reward. More than half the monkeys who got a cucumber balked at the exchange. Sometimes they threw the cucumber at the researchers; sometimes they refused to give the pebble back. They realized that they weren't being treated fairly.
De Waal also conducted an earlier study on a colony of chimpanzees which suggested that primates seemed capable of making moral judgments without the benefit of human reasoning. The chimpanzees were only fed after all of them had gathered into an enclosure. On one occasion a few chimps lingered behind for hours forcing the other chimps to go hungry. One the following day the hungry chimps attacked the stragglers, apparently in an effort to punish them for their selfishness.
Humans have a similar distaste for unfairness as capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees. The ultimatum experiment is where two players are given the chance to split a sum of money. The first player gets to divide the cut as he or she sees fit. The second player can then accept or reject the offer but if the offer is rejected both get nothing. A good economist will assume that the first player will offer the second player a significantly smaller portion of the money and that the second player will none the less accept it. After all, some money is better than no money.
After hourz said:
link
Green goes into the problem in greater length in New scientist magazine:
New scientist said:
Does this theory rule out God? Does it rule out objective morality?
As Green says,
If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing or neurons why bother being good? But Green insists the evidence coming from neuroimaging can't be ignored.
Sorry if the above post looks a bit strange. I had to heavily edit it to get it down under 10000 characters.
I have to put this bit in though. Just for Mr Average, so you know exactly where i'm coming from!
*Please note: Evidence is just that-evidence. It does not constitute fact, belief, proof, absolute truth or any other certainty, but it does have heavy bearing on my point of view.
I have to put this bit in though. Just for Mr Average, so you know exactly where i'm coming from!
*Please note: Evidence is just that-evidence. It does not constitute fact, belief, proof, absolute truth or any other certainty, but it does have heavy bearing on my point of view.
Mr Average said:
Ok, so your contention is that God says all the above are wrong therefore it is wrong. But God also says these things about those crimes:
> sexual misconduct [cheating on partner etc]
If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
> killing someone without a just reason,
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
> taking something which is not given,
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed. (Exodus 22:2)
However, here's an example of something we can all agree on is immoral, yet there's not a word spoken against it in the Bible: slavery. If God is the fount of morality, why did he leave out this terrible evil?
nickm said:
God says a lot of strange thinks for an omnibenevolant being.
Mr Average, why not try out some of these bible quizzes from those good folks over at landoverbaptist?
The bible logic quiz
The creation science quiz
The bible punishment quiz
The bible sex quiz
Let me know how you get on...
I do not have the time or energy to reply to everything systematically but here are a few thoughts.
1) No scientist or athiest suggests that humans are merely a collection of chemicals. We are the product of an awe inspiring process that is stunning in its efficiency. To me far more awe inspiring than the idea that we are some supernatural persons plaything.
2) Evolution/natural selection can explain just about everything about human anatomy and social structure. Our social structure is so complex however that it may be some considerable time before we can fully understand the complexities. No intelligent design is neccesary.
3) I think we need a new term or for the term athiest to be redefined. I for one do not "believe" that there is no God. I think that there is no God based on current evidence. I also think that it is highly unlikely that anything will turn up that will change my mind but belief does not come in to it. I am also not an agnostic because I am not undecided either.
4) Humans probably have some sort of need for God hardwired into their brain from millions of years of evolution (this is what I consider likely but as far as I know there is no current proof of this) which makes it hard for us to shake off this unneccesary and illogical throwback to the dark ages (and before).
5) Believing in God is the easy way out intellectually because you never have to examine your beliefs too carefully because of the nature of belief/religion. It is also far easier to cop out and believe, safe in the knowledge that the "cost" of being wrong is nill in evolutionary and after life terms. I also have a suspicion that this lack of cost in terms of biological fitness (with a vague possibility of a fitness benefit) may explain why religion has persisted so long in our species.
6) Examining an ancient novel for inconsistencies is only useful in so far as some people are foolish enough to believe it word for word. Although it is almost as annoying when religious types believe the bits they want and discard the rest as mistranslations/metaphores etc etc. Blessed are the cheesemakers I say.
7) There is no such thing as absolute morality. Might make life simple if there were such a thing.
1) No scientist or athiest suggests that humans are merely a collection of chemicals. We are the product of an awe inspiring process that is stunning in its efficiency. To me far more awe inspiring than the idea that we are some supernatural persons plaything.
2) Evolution/natural selection can explain just about everything about human anatomy and social structure. Our social structure is so complex however that it may be some considerable time before we can fully understand the complexities. No intelligent design is neccesary.
3) I think we need a new term or for the term athiest to be redefined. I for one do not "believe" that there is no God. I think that there is no God based on current evidence. I also think that it is highly unlikely that anything will turn up that will change my mind but belief does not come in to it. I am also not an agnostic because I am not undecided either.
4) Humans probably have some sort of need for God hardwired into their brain from millions of years of evolution (this is what I consider likely but as far as I know there is no current proof of this) which makes it hard for us to shake off this unneccesary and illogical throwback to the dark ages (and before).
5) Believing in God is the easy way out intellectually because you never have to examine your beliefs too carefully because of the nature of belief/religion. It is also far easier to cop out and believe, safe in the knowledge that the "cost" of being wrong is nill in evolutionary and after life terms. I also have a suspicion that this lack of cost in terms of biological fitness (with a vague possibility of a fitness benefit) may explain why religion has persisted so long in our species.
6) Examining an ancient novel for inconsistencies is only useful in so far as some people are foolish enough to believe it word for word. Although it is almost as annoying when religious types believe the bits they want and discard the rest as mistranslations/metaphores etc etc. Blessed are the cheesemakers I say.
7) There is no such thing as absolute morality. Might make life simple if there were such a thing.
Wibble said:
The above reason you give I can then turn around and say to you "since science can't prove the existence of God, this is your cop out." It is too easy to deny existence without proof, as proof is the final confirmation for human beings. Proof answers most questions, if not all. Everything has a beginning and end (as we know it) and we can reasonably conclude, without evidence, that such a supernatural being cannot exist. To think beyond human reasoning (as we know it) is near impossible. We humans do not know what exists outside our world nor what might exist outside our realm of thinking. To simply deny a God because there is no proof of existence (as we humans see "proof") is an easy way out, IMO.
How many species did science say were extinct or did not exist only to discover "proof" at a later date?
Who's to say that God does not give proof to His existence? For me, the proof is before your eyes. Human beings, animals, the air, the water, the trees, nature...everything before you is proof.
MrMarcello said:
And likewise the tooth fairy, santa claus and the bogeyman..........
seanoc said:
And the One True God made out of sacred buffalo Mozzeralla.
seanoc said:
Oh yeah, St Nicholas of Myra never existed (the person whom Santa Claus originated from).
Tooth fairy and bogeyman...talk about clutching straws. Yeah, these two have obvious religious tones. I see your point, but even as a child I never bought into the tooth fairy myth and I never believed in the bogeyman. I bought into the Santa Claus story till age 8 when my grandparents told me the true story (St. Nicholas).
It is conceivable that religion was created to control a population and place boundaries on human free will. It is also conceivable that a supernatural being did create this world and all the goes with it.
I believe in God, and will not alter my belief. Just like those that do not believe will not change their belief without proof (as we humans view "proof").
To each, his/her own.
MrMarcello said:
"The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason - but one cannot have both." (RA Heinlein).
There's no evidence that God exists but there's no evidence that he dosn't exist either.So it's up to every person if you believe in it or you don't.
You have already decided to believe and the idea of intelligent design is merely trying to justify that belief by any means neccesary whilst ignoring or misunderstanding all the evidence that intelligent design isn't required. Evolution/natural selection and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive so I don't know why there is a need to invoke something so demonstrably wrong as intelligent design.MrMarcello said:
Humans greatest skills which enabled them to advance so far are a) toolmaking and b) data analysis enabling us to come to conclusions based on minimal information. The later skill helps us in many ways but can lead us astray if left unchecked. In effect things like religion are a spiritual form of optical illusion where our brain makes pattern where there is none.
Toolmaking is also very relevant. As man sat outside his cave and surveyed the cool stuff he had made to cover his wedding tackle and the asorted flint and sticks he had formed into useful mammoth killing and fire making tools he was pretty damn pleased with himself. This world was fantastic, especially with the cool stuff he had made. And at this pont an insidious little idea occured to Ugg. If he could make all this cool stuff who had made all the other cool bigger stuff like rivers and mountains and Mammoths? It obviously had to be a man (cos men made cool stuff) and he had to be pretty big and powerful since he made brilliant big stuff that made Ugg's sticks pale into insignificance. Now given that he was big and powerful he must also be invisible because Ugg hadn't seen anyone big and powerful wandering around. Ugg though about it some more and it made sense. God and religion were born.
MrMarcello said:
A belief in God is an easy way out because if you are wrong then you are no more nonexistant after death than I am.
If you apply the same reasoning to life as you do to the subject of God you wouldn't be able to function because you would be unable to make any decisions. You have to make choices based on evidence so why is God different?
Can you prove that that there isn't a large pink stuffed rabbit called Timmy who lives on a planet far far away who in fact rules the universe?
And as for "beyond human reasoning", it is, ironically, religious people who try to prove the existance of God by their inability to understand science e.g. evolutionary biology and Physics (big bang/string theory etc).
MrMarcello said:
I'm not sure what your point is here? Because some Marsupial mouse has remained hidden for a decade or two the same might be true of God? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
> I don't know why there is a need to invoke something so demonstrably wrong as intelligent design.
Quite apart from the fact ID is wrong, it also cannot be used to prove the existence of a supernatural god. It is as likely that any ID was done by superintelligent aliens as by god.
Quite apart from the fact ID is wrong, it also cannot be used to prove the existence of a supernatural god. It is as likely that any ID was done by superintelligent aliens as by god.
MrMarcello said:Oh yeah, St Nicholas of Myra never existed (the person whom Santa Claus originated from).
I bought into the Santa Claus story till age 8 when my grandparents told me the true story (St. Nicholas).
St Nicholas as santa is another example of christians hi-jacking pagan festivities and deities. The whole father christmas thing has it roots in european pagan tradition and dates as far back as odin:
BBC History said:
To suggest that Santa Claus has anything to with Christianity is plain sillyness.
i am a Christian to answer some of you athiest questions
There is no God
were is your proof, God is a spirit you cant see him, how can u know him, if you have faith he will reveal himself to you like he did to me.
The bible is true
Achiologist found the red sea scrolls were u have everything written by the apostles of Jesus.
the ressurrection
go do facts A man named Jesus came to earth 2,000 years ago and died on the cross for mans salvation and rose on the third day seen by over 500 eye witnesses.
Persecusion
Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail on the church. Christians have been persecuted for over 2000years, people have tried to discredit our faith and God but our religion still stands these day and so shall it be till the end of time.
If there is a God why is there so much evil
Ok if your dad says dont go out in the night and u disobey him and get hurt whose fault urs or dads he warned you. God didnt make man to be a puppet man choose to rebel and bring these chaos upon himself because he wants to do his will, if everyone stays on the same page with God and do Gods will there wont be chaos.God is not happy he is sad but he wont take action, he is willing that all come to repentance, God is giving all a chance till the day of judgement when the wrath of God will come down on the ungodly.
If there is a God and you dont believe you will perish
if there is no God you will go back to dust
if you believe you will be in heaven
if you believe in God and he dont exist you will go back to dust
think you dont have anything to loose for believing
but you have everything to loose for not believing
it requires simple faith i advice u to put your faith in the creator and his son before its to late.
if there is no God how did the world come into being evolution crap, how did a car and a house or painting come to been of course man made it duh and not some dumb theory like evolution. the trees ofcourse seeds were planted to make it grow into a tree and not evolution duh, if you believe humans evolved or happened by accident you have no hope bcos it means u dont know ur future, dont you see that everything about humans is perfect, our body features, homones, cell membranes everything connects. No matter what the critics say God Almighty the holy One creator of heaven and earth exists,its even an insult to the holy one to say he dont exist.
Anymore challenge i lay down the gaunlet you aint gonna come out of these victorious. i have been persecuted but i go from strength to strength because we believers in God have something the world dont have no one cant take away what we believe and what we stand for, if our religion is fake it would have faded and the name Jesus would have been forgotten but bcos its true the faith withstands all forms of persecusion. you see people healed and demon cast out in the name of Jesus. I was at the point of death 6 years ago but at the name of Jesus i was healed believe or not i dont care cos i saw it happen. my mom saw a devil one night at my house she thot it was a thief and she screamed thief many times it kept coming to her but when she called Jesus it vanished. my godmoms father was diagnised with cancer and we all prayed for a miracle guess what the cancer was gone these aint a joke its real i experienced it, its true Jesus is the only way.
As for other religions i dont judge but any that dont acknowledge Jesus is both fake and antichrist religion.
Well love me or hate me i have said my mind and the truth and if you want to challenge me i say bring it on.
There is no God
were is your proof, God is a spirit you cant see him, how can u know him, if you have faith he will reveal himself to you like he did to me.
The bible is true
Achiologist found the red sea scrolls were u have everything written by the apostles of Jesus.
the ressurrection
go do facts A man named Jesus came to earth 2,000 years ago and died on the cross for mans salvation and rose on the third day seen by over 500 eye witnesses.
Persecusion
Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail on the church. Christians have been persecuted for over 2000years, people have tried to discredit our faith and God but our religion still stands these day and so shall it be till the end of time.
If there is a God why is there so much evil
Ok if your dad says dont go out in the night and u disobey him and get hurt whose fault urs or dads he warned you. God didnt make man to be a puppet man choose to rebel and bring these chaos upon himself because he wants to do his will, if everyone stays on the same page with God and do Gods will there wont be chaos.God is not happy he is sad but he wont take action, he is willing that all come to repentance, God is giving all a chance till the day of judgement when the wrath of God will come down on the ungodly.
If there is a God and you dont believe you will perish
if there is no God you will go back to dust
if you believe you will be in heaven
if you believe in God and he dont exist you will go back to dust
think you dont have anything to loose for believing
but you have everything to loose for not believing
it requires simple faith i advice u to put your faith in the creator and his son before its to late.
if there is no God how did the world come into being evolution crap, how did a car and a house or painting come to been of course man made it duh and not some dumb theory like evolution. the trees ofcourse seeds were planted to make it grow into a tree and not evolution duh, if you believe humans evolved or happened by accident you have no hope bcos it means u dont know ur future, dont you see that everything about humans is perfect, our body features, homones, cell membranes everything connects. No matter what the critics say God Almighty the holy One creator of heaven and earth exists,its even an insult to the holy one to say he dont exist.
Anymore challenge i lay down the gaunlet you aint gonna come out of these victorious. i have been persecuted but i go from strength to strength because we believers in God have something the world dont have no one cant take away what we believe and what we stand for, if our religion is fake it would have faded and the name Jesus would have been forgotten but bcos its true the faith withstands all forms of persecusion. you see people healed and demon cast out in the name of Jesus. I was at the point of death 6 years ago but at the name of Jesus i was healed believe or not i dont care cos i saw it happen. my mom saw a devil one night at my house she thot it was a thief and she screamed thief many times it kept coming to her but when she called Jesus it vanished. my godmoms father was diagnised with cancer and we all prayed for a miracle guess what the cancer was gone these aint a joke its real i experienced it, its true Jesus is the only way.
As for other religions i dont judge but any that dont acknowledge Jesus is both fake and antichrist religion.
Well love me or hate me i have said my mind and the truth and if you want to challenge me i say bring it on.
tokunbo said:
What I am about to write will in no way shake your faith, that I know, but a rational thinker would not continue to push the Resurection of Jesus as a fundamental proof of the existence of God, nor of Jesus' divinity.
At the outset let me say that something may have been lost in translation. 'Resurection' as written in the original texts could also be translated as resuscitation. I have no doubt that your 500 (?) witnesses saw Jesus 'die' on the cross and three days later reappear in living physical form. My premise, though, is that there was not complete death, that Jesus was still alive, albeit barely, when he was revived. It happens.
Few, if any, modern Christian theologists believe in the Resurrection as it has been preached down the centuries. They recognise it for what it is; a myth of wonderment to capture fertile minds - 'we are going to tell you something that is beyond belief, but believe it you must, and once you believe it we have captured your mind for ever.' Its how religion works. Christianity just happens to have hit on a trully spellbinding tale, and that partly through the luck of circumstance. Indeed the Resurrection only entered Christian thinking as an after thought. The original Gospels, written long after Jesus' death (or not as the case may be) make little reference to the Resurrection, and fuller explanations, where they exist in The Gospels, were appended at a later date. Historical fact. The Christian Church has long persecuted any branch of faith that preaches a different version of events so it is no surprise that there have been few competing branches.
There seems no doubt that the historical figure of Jesus was nailed to the cross in traditional Roman cruscifiction. In this method the feet are nailed together above a platform, which takes the weight of the body sufficient enough to enable a prolonged and agonising death. The outstretched arms, tied and nailed as they are to the cross-member, cause severe constriction to the upper body. As a result death comes slowly through suffocation, which takes two to three days. To hasten death it is only necessary to remove the 'standing' platform or to break the legs, so that support is removed.
By all accounts Jesus was on the cross from between 6-9 hours before being taken down. Excrutiating yes, but considerably less time than necessary to bring about death. He had earlier been given something to drink on a vinegar soaked sponge. That could very well have been a drug to numb the pain. it equally well could have been a drug to induce a death like state.
Again, according to the accounts, the Romans decided to hasten the death of those on the crosses, probably because of the upcoming holiday. So they broke their legs. End of suffering, quick death. However it was decided not necessary to break Jesus' legs because he was declared to be already dead. Its just as likely, given the relatively short time he'd been on the cross, that he had actually fallen into a coma, possibly drug induced. The Roman guard, sympathetic possibly, may very well have been lying and knew that Jesus was still alive.
Either way, Jesus was hastily taken to burial, where he was attended by Joseph who brought a heap of aloe based herbs; the type of herbs that are used for healing purposes, not for annointing the dead. So the 'resurrected' Jesus could just as well have been, I'd say was much more likely to have been, a resuscitated Jesus. This does not mean, in the absence of modern medical science, that he and his followers did not genuinely believe he had risen from the dead, that a miracle had occured, but believing is not the same as fact.
So, what happened to Jesus? Did the 'resurrected' being, not truly alive as we would understand it, ascend to Heaven to sit at God's right hand? Hm. Well, if on the other hand, he was physically alive 'again', to the touch rather than just metaphysically 'being among us', then he would know very well that if he was to show his face he would be put on the cross again. That's what the Romans did to Messiahs. This time, though, they's see the job through. Jesus probably did what anyone in those circumstances would do, he hastily left town. Perhaps he went with Mary to the Camargue disguised as one of her followers, or perhaps he joined a trading ship at one of the many coatal ports and made his way to India, where many believe he had spent the period between his 14th and 29th years, learning to be a priest, and from where he learned his Buddhist like thinking. Whatever, it should be no surprise that, after his experience on the cross, he kept a much lower profile or dispppeared altogether from the Roman world.
That's the rational explanation. I doubt you'll believe it. But not believing it does not in anyway disprove God, it just removes the foundation of the Christian based Church, which is why Sunday school teachers continue to tell the compelling story in order to recruit new followers.
i respect ur views but sorry that is a load of fabricated crap. You say he didnt die his legs were not broken because according to prophecy if you pick up a bible it says not one of his bones will be broken. Jesus with what he went through on the cross to say he didnt die its either you are dillusioned or you just want to discredit his death. Look what Jesus went through on that cross there is no way someone would have appeared ok in 3 days in that time of no hospitals and facilities. When he appeared to people he was ok and lively. Besides the apostles and all christians who have been killed because of him wont just die for something that is fake, its divine you cant die for something that dont exist, they saw him ascend into heaven, you dont know you were only born recently, we have so many people trying ti discredit the faith so its no suprise we have all these theorys. You listen to what theologians say i dont listen to know one i feel God everyday in my life in everything i feel and see some supernatural things happen. You cant see the wind but you can feel iot because it blows from north to south, thats how God is if you have the holy spirit you can feel him and communicate you wont understand because i guess you are an intellect or athiest. I feel people who have spend years and years trying to discredit the faith are misguided people, if everything was fake Jesus would have been forgotten ages ago and people would stop dying for him. You dont have any valid claim and i dont care what quote you come out with said by anyone because all these persecutters are tools used by satan to destroy the hearts of Christ followers.what do u say of people having visions or angels of God appearing to them tell me they were sick, christianity is based on facts and the inner being while athiest base their facts on what some misguided theologians have said. Have u been to the milkyway or space to see if God dont exist besides like i said he is a spirit and you cant see a spirit.
Let me ask you a Question if heaven opens now and you see Jesus coming out of heaven in a white horse with his angels coming to pass judgement what are you going to do.
Let me ask you a Question if heaven opens now and you see Jesus coming out of heaven in a white horse with his angels coming to pass judgement what are you going to do.
tokunbo said:
It seems clear to me that you have little understanding of human physiology nor of Roman crucifixion. You shouldn't confuse your faith, your daily feeling of God in your life, with the myths that all religions develop in order to enhance the power of their faith over other faiths.
You would do well to question the stories that have been handed down and not rely on fuzzy philosophy garnered from a collection of internally inconsistent books (The Bible). As for fabricated crap, its a historical fact that Roman crucifixion was designed to be slow and excrutiating...typically three days before complete death for an averagely fit male...that's the whole point of it. So we agree that His bones weren't broken, either by prophecy or by the reports of the event in The Gospels. If his legs weren't broken he would have been able to support his weight on the foot platform, which, as explained, is positioned specifically to ensure a long and excrutiating death. Jesus was taken down, legs intact, after between 6 and 9 hours (The Gospels vary in their account, though the 3 hour report is generally discredited). Assuming the Romans did the job properly, and bearing in mind they decided to break the legs of Jesus' neighbours because they were still alive, 9 hours is not enough time for a healthy 33 year old male to die on the cross. For sure he would have been pretty wacked out, but most probably not dead. The fact that people at the time believed he had literally risen from the dead does not make it so. And in anycase, as I explained, you are relying on a version of texts that went through many translations. The original text can equally well be translated as resuscitated, or revived.
As to the question as to why the Romans decided to forshorten these crucifixions, it is probably because of their misjudgement of the mood of the time and the resultant unwanted kerfuffle they had created so close to the local religious holiday. They probably thought best get it over quickly. They thus broke the legs of those still alive, but not Jesus' because he was reported to be dead already; reported not by a doctor but, as it seems, by a sympathiser. It's not too far a stretch to believe that that sympathiser was doing his level best to preserve Jesus, not see him killed.
And I am in no way trying to shake you faith in your God, its your choice whether or not you believe. But it is quite irrational to believe that Jesus, with all his strength of character, was only able to last 6-9 hours on the cross before expiring, when it would usually take 3 days...especially as you have so eloquently pointed out, his bones couldn't be broken.
It was not long after being brought down from the cross, if The Gospels are to be believed, that Jesus was ministered to using healing herbs. If, as I contend is more likely, he had not suffered the suffocation that crucifixion was designed to cause, then a reasonably competent healer of the day could well have been able to revive him. After all we are talking about a pretty advanced society with deep knowledge of the healing properties of herbs.
I don't know if you are aware, but in parts of the world, India in particular, there are people who undergo crucifixion in order to be experience what Jesus went through, nails and all. They stay up there for a few hours before being taken down, still very much compus mentus, a long way from suffocation and are soon revived. I feel fairly sure that Jesus was a strong enough man, both physically and mentally, to endure for 6-9 hours and still survive.
No intention of discrediting Jesus' death. FWIW, I believe that he most probably went back to India, where he ministered and is buried. But that's another story.
FWIW also, as I said, I have no doubt that there were contemporaries, maybe even Jesus himself, who truly believed that he had literally come back from the dead, so in that way they are not 'faking', not wittingly so at any rate, but believing it was so doesn't nescessarily make it so.
In answer to your Question, if Heaven was to open now, and Jesus was to descend, on a white horse, with His angels, to pass judgement, I would firstly be quite shocked and most probably change my mind, but then Jesus is not going to descend from Heaven, on a white horse, or otherwise, with or without Angels, so it's a moot point.
The King said:Am i winding you up so much that you cant sleep?
I shall pardon your ignorance on this matter. You seem to have the single notion that God is an external being. Well, thats wht certain religions say. But some believe that each and every one of us have divinity inside us. God may not necc be an external being. He could be a level of super consciousness. The state of Nirvana or bliss as they say is a state of mind. When one reaches a level of consciousness where he sees himself a connected to everything in the universe and everything being part of him, he discovers true and selfless love. This stage developes into something where the worldly pleasures mean nothing to him anymore. Some call this state enlightenement. Maybe this is what being a God is, abt being all Love.
Its quite funny on how you talk abt God when you dont even have a firm understanding abt the definition of God amongst the various religions. Again, dont let things fly by your "EV" the next time!
Just concede defeat. You're an embarrassment to yourself and the Caf.tokunbo said:m a Christian to answer some of you athiest questions
There is no God were is your proof,
Here we go again
It is logically impossible to prove the non-existance of the non-existant. For example, you can't prove that God is not a 19 foot tall pink hermaphrodite penguin. By your logic this proves that God is in fact a large stangely coloured sexually confused flightless bird. Just doesn't work does it?
God is a spirit you cant see him, how can u know him, if you have faith he will reveal himself to you like he did to me.
I was brought up as a Catholic and I believed for years until I saw the light (or whatever the opposite is) and I have to say that nothing was revealed to me (with the exception of the obvious since I was taught by Christian Brothers). Most of us seek the advice of a mental health expert once people we can't see start talking to us.
The bible is true
What? Every bit of all of them?
Achiologist found the red sea scrolls were u have everything written by the apostles of Jesus.
Which is why their contents have been so closely guarded. The church must not want this wonderful proof to recruit new believers
the ressurrection
go do facts A man named Jesus came to earth 2,000 years ago and died on the cross for mans salvation and rose on the third day seen by over 500 eye witnesses.
I though he was nailed to a cross (assuming he even existed) for daring to suggest that we should be nice to each other for a change. An idea the Romans found to be subversive and dangerous. As most modern governments would agree
secusion
Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail on the church. Christians have been persecuted for over 2000years, people have tried to discredit our faith and God but our religion still stands these day and so shall it be till the end of time.
There are persectued people of all races and religions (and non religions for that matter. Does this prove each of their respective beliefs and/or religions? Or is it perhaps a sign that people tend to be mean to each other.
there is a God why is there so much evil
Ok if your dad says dont go out in the night and u disobey him and get hurt whose fault urs or dads he warned you. God didnt make man to be a puppet man choose to rebel and bring these chaos upon himself because he wants to do his will, if everyone stays on the same page with God and do Gods will there wont be chaos.God is not happy he is sad but he wont take action, he is willing that all come to repentance, God is giving all a chance till the day of judgement when the wrath of God will come down on the ungodly.
So all the good stuff is to his credit and all the bad stuff is the result of his naughty little children misbehaving. I'll bet politicians wish that they could pull that trick off.
there is a God and you dont believe you will perish
Well thats me fecked then
If theres no God you will go back to dust
Just like all true believers
if you believe you will be in heaven
Will you? How do you know it exists? Or did the big man have a word in your ear?
if you believe in God and he dont exist you will go back to dust
think you dont have anything to loose for believing
Except if God exists he will know that I don't believe no matter how much I try an intellectual cop out in a feeble attempt to bet each way.
you have everything to loose for not believing
Apart from intellectual integrity you mean.
requires simple faith i advice u to put your faith in the creator and his son before its to late.
Did you come to my door last week and get bitten by my dog?
if there is no God how did the world come into being
You don't know?
evolution crap
OK Einstein. Explain to us what you understand about evolution and natural selection. I can't wait.
how did a car and a house or painting come to been of course man made it duh and not some dumb theory like evolution.
Are you seriously suggesting the aethiests/scientists think that cars or works of art evolved? If you are arguing that evolution is incapable of producing complex organisms that can do all sorts of cool stuff then quite simply you are a deluded fool.
the trees ofcourse seeds were planted to make it grow into a tree and not evolution duh,
I see that you do in fact have no understanding of evolution whatsever. Are you a creationist? Please say that you are and explain why God put dinosaur bones int eh ground to fool us.
if you believe humans evolved or happened by accident you have no hope bcos it means u dont know ur future,
Indeed I don't know the future. You imagine that you do but at least I understand the past.
dont you see that everything about humans is perfect, our body features, homones, cell membranes everything connects.
Perfect?
No matter what the critics say God Almighty the holy One creator of heaven and earth exists,its even an insult to the holy one to say he dont exist.
Where should I write to apologise?
Anymore challenge i lay down the gaunlet you aint gonna come out of these victorious.
You are a religious zealot so you will believe that you are right and have won an argument no matter what. Self delusion, the gift that keeps on giving.
i have been persecuted but i go from strength to strength because we believers in God have something the world dont have no one cant take away what we believe and what we stand for, if our religion is fake it would have faded and the name Jesus would have been forgotten but bcos its true the faith withstands all forms of persecusion. you see people healed and demon cast out in the name of Jesus.
You are the loon who knocked on my door last week.
I was at the point of death 6 years ago but at the name of Jesus i was healed believe or not i dont care cos i saw it happen. my mom saw a devil one night at my house she thot it was a thief and she screamed thief many times it kept coming to her but when she called Jesus it vanished.
Yes, that must have been why you got better. I've always thought that the health service would do much better if they did away with the huge expense of doctors and medicine and just get a few faith healers in.
my godmoms father was diagnised with cancer and we all prayed for a miracle guess what the cancer was gone these aint a joke its real i experienced it, its true Jesus is the only way.
What about all those true believers where their relative died? Did God forsake them? People do get better you know. No Godly asistance required.
As for other religions i dont judge but any that dont acknowledge Jesus is both fake and antichrist religion.
So you don't judge the milllions of antichrists out there. Very non-judgemental I must say.
Well love me or hate me i have said my mind and the truth and if you want to challenge me i say bring it on.
Is there any point?
Red Molly
What's the India connection?
What's the India connection?