GOD

[crin]

It is not a property of the idea of a crocophant that the crocophant exists, but it is a property of the idea of something Perfect (un-[stop*]-able) that the Perfect being exists. I can't make it any simpler

 

*This includes any arguments in your mind now

[BEAKER]

It always amazes me to consider the vanityof the human ego. As though a created being could ever hope to fully comprehend the mind of it's creator. Instead we rage against the unknown, and elevate (in our own minds) our pathetic excuse for knowledge above all that is true and right and good.

[crin]

Well done Beaker.

 

I hope, because you realise no one can know anything beyond nature (the circuitry in our brains has evolved just to cope with nature), that you realise theories of bizarre things are really just as likely as theories of seemingly non-bizarre things.

 

I would agree with most that the Christian theory is bizarre (That God exists, and made the universe, and the universe is different from him, and those parts of the universe that are men have "sinned", and the way God has made it right is to have become part of the universe himself; to have become a mere ape in fact, and by this ape existing, dying, and rising, the universe has somehow been made right with God.) but it is not strangeness that must be thought about; it is evidence.

 

The more scientific a man is the more, I think, he will agree. That may be why Darwin, Einstein, and Newton (I don't know about the rest of them) all believed in God, but it may not, I don't know.

[crin]

The evidence that Jesus was the Son of God is basically the fact that there were over 300 prophecies about him in the 1st half of the Bible that came true. Now I only read this on 1 website (the 1st one that came up when I typed in "Jesus" on google) so I thought the information wasn't really trustworthy. For example, it didn't take into account that there were some prophecies historians couldn't say were true, some that him or his family could have deliberately fulfulled, and obviously, there was the fact that simply loads of people have existed and Jesus was 1. Plus it was only 1 website.

 

But no, all the other websites said the same thing. Granted, they were stricter; they all took into account that Jesus could have fulfilled some of the prophecies, that some can't be historically proved. And anyway Jesus was a man out of millions. But they all admitted that the chances of it all happening were close to zero. 1 in the hundreds. There wasn't one (I saw) that refuted the evidence. You can check all this.

 

The other thing is that few historians who look at everything that happened at the place and time of his dying/ressurection come up with alternative explanations, and many sceptics go away saying that they think he did, incredibly, rise. This matter is beyond the scope of this tiny box so you can check it all up.

[BEAKER]

"There were two trees in the middle of the garden that God had made. One gave Life; the other gave knowledge.

 

Knowledge does not give life".

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: crin

Well done Beaker.

 

I hope, because you realise no one can know anything beyond nature (the circuitry in our brains has evolved just to cope with nature).

 

That's why we can destroy nature with good conscience, as we are only a product of nature we do what nature wants.

 

 

 

 

but it is not strangeness that must be thought about; it is evidence.

 

Where is the evidence?

Your stories about prophecies come true is no evidence, I can write as well in a book today that a second world war will come and in 2000 years they will take as prophecy! You can't prove what has written/added when to the bible!

 

Somewhere earlier in this thread (don't know if you read all of it) I told you how the ten plagues of egypt could easily be explained without any need of any divine intervention. How many natural catastrophes became legends (call them prophecies if you want)? It's the only way the peole that survived could explain themselves what had happened. This is just human psicology.

 

By the way, that Neton believed in god is quite obvious I defy you to find any person of his time that didn't!

About Darwin I don't know if he believed or not, but if he did it's quite ironic, as he is the incarnification of satan in the creationists worldview....

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: crin

 

 

But no, all the other websites said the same thing. Granted, they were stricter; they all took into account that Jesus could have fulfilled some of the prophecies, that some can't be historically proved. And anyway Jesus was a man out of millions. But they all admitted that the chances of it all happening were close to zero. 1 in the hundreds. There wasn't one (I saw) that refuted the evidence. You can check all this.

.

 

I believe you didn't find a site as you looked for what you wanted to find. I can do the same I googled"Jesus son of god?critics, atheism"

 

I found for example:http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106446

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: crin

It is not a property of the idea of a crocophant that the crocophant exists, but it is a property of the idea of something Perfect (un-[stop*]-able) that the Perfect being exists. I can't make it any simpler

Simple is as simple does. Simple has nothing to do with FACTUAL or PROOF.

 

All you are doing is claiming that this "Perfect (un-[stop*]-able)" exists merely because you can claim it exists. It is simple tautology. Repeat it often enough and ther are people that will sucker for it.

 

This is NOT PROOF. It is an EXPLANATION. Explanations don't PROVE anything.

 

PROVE that it is a REQUIREMENT for a "Perfect (un-[stop*]-able)" to exist in order for us to exist. Or stop pretending it's true.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BEAKER

It always amazes me to consider the vanityof the human ego. As though a created being

The fallacy of a priori, begging the question, Circular Reasoning, Petitio Principii. You require that we accept, without providing the first shred of evidence to support it, that we are "a created being".

 

Unless you can PROVE it, there is no reason to allow it in a reasoned intellectual discussion.

 

When you PROVE we are "a created being", then we can discuss it further.

 

Or at least we can explore any evidence you may want to submit in an effort to prove it.

 

But it is a waste of time to pretend an unsupported claim has value in the discussion before then.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: crin

Well done Beaker.

Yes nothing like throwing argument fallacies into the discussion to draw approval from others that also base their philosopy on the usage of fallacies. I call this the "Misery loves company". It is usually more formally titled "preaching to the choir". Which is also an argumentfallacy.

I hope, because you realise <u>no one can know anything beyond nature</u>

So you admit that you can not know anything about a SUPERnatural being!

 

Well then stop claiming that you do!

(the circuitry in our brains has evolved just to cope with nature), that you realise theories of bizarre things are really just as likely as theories of seemingly non-bizarre things.

Postmodernistic drivel. It IS very possible to differentiate between things that can be supported and things that can not. Claiming otherwise is just another fallacy used by those that want to promote philisophies that lack any credible support.

but it is not strangeness that must be thought about; it is evidence.

So why not actually provide some for a change?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: crin

The more scientific a man is the more, I think, he will agree.

And we once more see that a lack of knowledge is behind such claims. It has been proven beyond question that the better educated a person is, the less likely they are to have a religious POV. It has been proven that the more highly regarded a scientists is, the less likely they are to have a religious POV.

 

Let's look specifically at your false claim. First remember that in the US the general pop shows rooughly a 86% religious belief structure. Compare that to Scientists. From:

 

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) ? Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

 

"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had <u>increased to 67 and 85, respectively</u>.

 

In 1996 ... we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

 

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey,<u>"You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."</u> [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists. ... Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. "[/i]

 

So we have SIGNIFICANT PROOF (you know that nasty thing I keep asking for from your camp!) that you are completely wrong. It is a FACT that the greater level of knowledge, especially Scientific knowledge one ahs, the less likely they are to accept religious superstition.

 

And we find even futher that ignorance is the basis for claiming value to religious superstition when you add:

That may be why Darwin, Einstein, and Newton (I don't know about the rest of them) all believed in God, but it may not, I don't know.

Yes Newton was religious. But he rejected a lot of the dogma associate. However that was long ago when the feild of Science as we understand it today was just being developed. Let's look at the more recent individuals you claim to be aligned with.

 

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (Charles Darwin, 'Aspects of Scepticism,' 1883)

 

We have many letters and other quotes in which he very politically claims to not give much thoought to religious matters, but that he rejects anything that is claimed "proof" of a god.

 

We also have many specific texts and quotes in which he trashes the bible and Christianity.

 

"the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian... as Christianity is connected with the Ol

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: crin

The evidence that Jesus

PROVE that the biblical Jesus the Christ ACTUALLY EXISTED!

 

Show us ANY accepted contemporary eyewitness reports that support the Jesus stories of the bible. ANY!

was the Son of God is basically the fact that there were over 300 prophecies about him in the 1st half of the Bible that came true.

Not a single one was a PROPHECY. They were many stories about what was happening at the time and later Christians CLAIMED them to be prophecies.

 

Besides, the NT was not written and compiled till hundreds of years after the claimed events. It is easy to invent coincidents.

And anyway Jesus was a man out of millions.

Then you should have no trouble providing ONE accepted contemporary eyewitness report that support the Jesus stories of the bible. ONE!

[IrishEyes]

This topic is getting way too long.

 

It would be very difficult to follow this discussion from its begining to its present state. There have been some interesting points made, and some very heated and enlightened discussions from all parties involved. However, even with my settings at 25 posts per page, it's into it's 8th page already. Just too much info for one thread.

 

Therefore, I'm asking that a new topic be created to continue this one. Someone please start a new topic, and continue this discussion there. It's 12:00pm on the US East Coast right now. This topic will be locked in 24 hours.

 

Thanks to all of you for a great round of discussion, and for much food for thought!

[Freethinker]

Ya let's stop an active discussion and start one with no history or established interest. It is way too inconvenient to click the ">>" icon to go to the last page of the thread. There is little chance a newbie might look at stats to see which discussion threads are most active and thus would be most interesting to read.

 

We can start a new thread with the extensive documentation of

 

Topic Title: GOD

 

(Body) There isn't one!

[IrishEyes]

Thanks for your opinion, Freethinker. Your concerns have been noted, and will be read by all, as I'm sure was your intention. If you have negative or derogatory remarks to make, sarcastic or otherwise, feel free to send me a Private Message with your concerns.

 

There is plenty of history in these forums for starting new threads when current ones get too large. As this discussion has been dragging along for more than a few months now, I don't think starting it fresh is a bad idea at all. This specific topic gets a lot of read, that's true. But there are large gaps of time that go by with no posts. Then someone will come along, read through a few of the last pages, and post something new, just to get the discussion off and running in a (usually) new direction. MY point is that it has altered directions enough times in the past few months, that it probably should have been locked a while ago. Locking a thread does not prohibit anyone from reading it, if they want to - as you well know. Encouraging some of our more involved members to start new thread that 'newbies' could enter into on the ground level should not be seen as a bad thing.

 

As for it being way too inconvenient to click the ">>" icon - that could just be personal laziness. I have my settings set to view up to 25 posts at a time. Takes the pages a little longer to load, but cuts down on having to do the ">>" thing. If pushing the little button is too inconvenient for you, maybe you should consider changing your preferences.

 

My comments were not about how difficult it is to change the page, but rather how daunting it might be for new people to read through the entire thread in order to make an informed post. As to history and established interest... none of the topics have either of those things when they are started, yet most topics seem to gather steam as they go along. I think to say that you can't continue this discusion in a new topic because the new topic has no established interest or history is really a bit ridiculous. Why start ANY new topics then?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

As to history and established interest... none of the topics have either of those things when they are started,

Which is exactly why, when a topic DOES take off, it is foolish to lock it when it is active and not problematic.

yet most topics seem to gather steam as they go along.

This is just plain false. MOST threads die quickly.

 

If you review the

FORUMS > PHILOSOPHY AND HUMANITIES

page you will see exactly that. Of the 20 threads listed on my paged 1, almost half have less than 10 total posts. Only 2 others exceed 100 posts. And only 1 other had over 1,000 views.

 

So ya, let's close the biggest, most active thread in that entire section and one of the most successful on the entire site.

 

Esp since you don't want religious discussion on other threads and this IS a GOD thread!

[IrishEyes]

That's fine. You have about 20 hours left to argue about this.

 

FYI - I checked the P/H main page, all the way back to its beginning post. I've read the last 10 or so posts in all of the larger threads, including those that are locked. You are right, which is exactly why I am closing this topic. There are numerous times in the past when a topic has been closed because it was too large. This has happened in the last 2 weeks, 2 months, etc. It happens. Topics are not only closed because there is a heated discussion. There are many reasons for a topic being closed. YOU know this already.

 

I suggest you take some of the energy that you are currently expending fighting me at every turn and instead use it to start a few new topics. With all of the passion that you put forth in your posts, I have no doubt that *your* topics WILL take off, and be very successful!

 

Esp since you don't want religious discussion on other threads and this IS a GOD thread!

Not true, and shame on you for making such a claim. I don't think it is right to inject religion into every topic. That is a discussion that *we* have had many times. If a thread specifically involves religion (ie "God", "Creating a Religion", "What would it take to prove the existence...") I have no problem with discussing religion. If there is no indication that the members want religion to be discussed, yet you drag it into the thread (ie "AI" , "world cop" etc), then you are correct, I don't want it discussed. Also, I think it's rather amusing that the Christian keeps having to remind the atheist to stop talking about God. For someone who spends so much energy fighting against Christianity and God, you sure do spend a lot of time drawing attention to both.