Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

Your words "As I've said before, it is very easy to render judgements now under the benefit of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence."; we have a very large example of the benefit of over 2000 yrs of non-Christian influence, end result is not significantly better or worse that under the influence of the Abrahamic trio.

How so, or on what basis.

Well actually their is, you made a claim that doesn't hold water.

Principly, it does.
But being a hypothetical, we will never be able to rewind and find out for sure.
However we may find out over the next thousand plus years what a comparitive rejection of Christian values produces on moral standards.
While it is easy to claim that is an irrelevant factor based on whatever progressive present day enlightenment may be believed can sustain that standard, in reality that is akin to believing the undermining of a foundation will have no effect on the structure it supports.
Sorry but I can't entertain that as a logical concept.

And you are still using a standard incorrectly (its a psychological standard not one for historic or physical evidence) and even within the incorrect standard you ignoring parts of it (for it to stand the evidence for both sides has to be either totally absent or of an equal standing - its not) and adding in your own requirements (forgetting that the evidence has to be equal and repeatedly adding the word conclusive).

It's simple and in relation to all of that it doesn't matter.
To establish a logical conclusion based on evidence, you must have conclusive evidence.
Otherwise there is no conclusion to draw, or no determination can be made apart from personal interpretation or belief.

Even if you use your approach and consider both are false, does that prove it is false?
No of course not.
And if you use the approach that both are true, does that prove it is true?
No of course not.
Either way is still inconclusive.
The only thing that is conclusive is it is either true or it is false.

Once again for the cheap seats (and do not misquote me again), I am saying that the standards of evidence are not equal (which is a requirement of the standard you are using incorrectly).

Where did I misquote you?
See above.

Claimed by you and Christians as a "documented testemonial record of events", the problem with this is even if we were to take that at face value is error ridden, doesn't meet the physical evidence for many of the events it claims to document, has no supporting evidence for others, is contradictory, outright steals stories from older religions and uses plot devices commonly found in fiction.

First of all the Book itself claims it is a "documented testemonial record of events".
Secondly myself and many other Christians claim it is true based on a within position, not a without position.
Or in other words it is verifiable as valid from a within position only and not from a without position.
It can be believed from a without position, but not conclusively proven.

Looks as they say can be decieving.
Similarities in common do not prove anything but there are similarities in common.
They have no bearing evidentially on validity except by way of personal interpretation of evidence.
Now I wouldn't inadvertantly say that would not be to a degree logical.
But assumptive nonetheless.
The same would be the case with percieved errors, inconsistencies, etc.
They can be considered evidence against validity but for the most part are based in limited knowledge of the record and could easily prove explainable, with more complete availability of the facts.
Lastly, the Bible is written for spiritual accuracy more so than a detail of events.
A spiritual chronicle for examination by each individual to consider.
Therein is it's true validity.

Now lets consider the fact that not everyone considers it to be a "documented testemonial record of events", I certainly don't. I consider it to be a work of fiction based loosly around historic events and one that borrows heavily from older myths in the region.

Well certainly that is your choice to make.

As such stripped of its historic baggage and compared side by side with Dune they are two 'messiah' stories, the key difference being that one is a hell of a lot better written that the other.

Again that is certainly your choice to make.
Although you maynot believe it I can completely understand how you could believe that.
You may notice I already stated it is logical to believe that.
There are a few reasons why that is the case.
First from a carnal perspective(from without) it is reasonable to believe it is a myth.
Secondly, if our nature is as God describes it, that is consistent with the natural reaction.
The fact Jesus Christ is an offense also shows that to be expected.
As well God clearly states he has taken the wisdom of man and made it foolishness, and the foolishness and made it the wisdom of God.
Further he states if one wishes to be wise, let him first become as a fool, that he may truly become wise.

Clearly your belief, is not unfounded,

No it is not sound as it depends utterly on the concept that the Bible is an accurate historical record being true, its not, its akin to claiming that Mel Gibson's Braveheart or U-571 are "documented testemonial record of events" as they are set around actual events. That they are set around these events doesn't make them anything other than nonsense and certainly doesn't make them valid evidence.

For that, they and the Bible would need outside evidence to either dismiss or prove them. Until you are able to do that the Bible is not a historic record, nor can it be used as proof of itself.

Or you could use evidence (real stuff, not its true because it says it true).

And out with the word conclusive again.

For the last time, its not in the standard you are still using incorrectly.

nor is some of this.

"To the contrary, the logic employed is completely sound."

Do you talk like this in real life?

That all depends.

This is the first I've seen of this thread, since I'm never in this section... it happened to be seen from the last page! Me, I don't believe in any god/s, but - despite thinking Christians are the world's most judgmental insects in the world (that perspective and the vagueness of the bible scare me away from that religion) - I don't think it's impossible any exist. Arguing is pointless, considering you can't prove in either direction. Five... hundred... eighty-six. Congratulations.

Perhaps you should reconsider.

I claim that it is a fictional story. I do it right here, right now.

Your cute little logical chain no longer holds up, although I sincerely doubt I was the first to claim such a thing.

Imagine that.
It seems we agree upon something after all.
I doubt you are the first to claim that as well.

So, exactly the same as the evidence for the Bible being the word of God then?

What, that we have no available objective evidence for the Bible being the word of God, and no available objective evidence for it being fiction?

Yes precisely.
A true quandary, wouldn't you say?

Given those two, some might consider one more likely than the other. Considering that there's only a very limited amount of literature ascribed to God, a being that no one has any objective evidence for. On the other hand, we have a very large amount of literature that is known to be fictional, and we know that fiction authors exist.

Occam's Razor cuts the God theory to ribbons. It might be true, but for the lack of any objective evidence it's not the preferred hypothesis.

Perhaps it does, and then again perhaps it doesn't.

We have different definitions of the word "evidence".

You can say that again.

It relates to Jesus and his relevance in history. He hasn't been mentioned until late after his death (if he ever lived), by people who never met him, in the Bible. That suggests to me that he either never lived, or was insignificant at the time. If he was a well known person at the time he lived, then I would expect a lot of documented evidence supporting this, both by the Romans and the Jews. To my knowledge, none have been found. So, we're either dealing with a massive coverup that destroyed all evidence, or the Bible is a brilliant hoax.

And maybe you missed this post from Yesterday? I would appreciate an answer.

First I would just say he is still quite relevant in some circles.

At the time of his life, his significance was primarily to the Jewish covenant or the jews, and they considered him an imposter.
The significance of his death was spiritual as well and not something of Roman legend.
So he was an embarrassment to the jews and basically insignificant to the Romans.
Not something that would warrant headlines in the historical record.

 

[Imari]

A true quandary, wouldn't you say?

Not really, but I know how to reason.

I can imagine it might be difficult if you wanted one to be true, but couldn't see any method to prefer it.

 

[Scaff]

How so, or on what basis.

Are you now simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit the answer you already have chosen?

You have been provided an example of a culture that has been around for longer than Christianity, has not been culturally biased by Christianity and has not descended into a pit of chaos and deprivation.

What exactly is so difficult in that to fathom?

Principly, it does.
But being a hypothetical, we will never be able to rewind and find out for sure.
However we may find out over the next thousand plus years what a comparitive rejection of Christian values produces on moral standards.
While it is easy to claim that is an irrelevant factor based on whatever progressive present day enlightenment may be believed can sustain that standard, in reality that is akin to believing the undermining of a foundation will have no effect on the structure it supports.
Sorry but I can't entertain that as a logical concept.

We don't need to rewind, we already have an example, you are simply ignoring it.

It's simple and in relation to all of that it doesn't matter.
To establish a logical conclusion based on evidence, you must have conclusive evidence.
Otherwise there is no conclusion to draw, or no determination can be made apart from personal interpretation or belief.

Even if you use your approach and consider both are false, does that prove it is false?
No of course not.
And if you use the approach that both are true, does that prove it is true?
No of course not.
Either way is still inconclusive.
The only thing that is conclusive is it is either true or it is false.

Now aside from (once again) your repeated misrepresentation o fa standard that shouldn't even be used in the first place, you are now saying that unless we have conclusive evidence for something then it can't be considered true.

Is that what you are saying?

Where did I misquote you?
See above.

Well you best be able to show me precluding something without a logical explanation.

First of all the Book itself claims it is a "documented testemonial record of events".
Secondly myself and many other Christians claim it is true based on a within position, not a without position.
Or in other words it is verifiable as valid from a within position only and not from a without position.
It can be believed from a without position, but not conclusively proven.

Looks as they say can be decieving.
Similarities in common do not prove anything but there are similarities in common.
They have no bearing evidentially on validity except by way of personal interpretation of evidence.
Now I wouldn't inadvertantly say that would not be to a degree logical.
But assumptive nonetheless.
The same would be the case with percieved errors, inconsistencies, etc.
They can be considered evidence against validity but for the most part are based in limited knowledge of the record and could easily prove explainable, with more complete availability of the facts.
Lastly, the Bible is written for spiritual accuracy more so than a detail of events.
A spiritual chronicle for examination by each individual to consider.
Therein is it's true validity.

So its evidence because you say so?

That's the logical explanation for using the Bible to prove the Bible!

Well certainly that is your choice to make.

One that I'm making based upon the evidence available, rather than its true because it says it true.

Again that is certainly your choice to make.
Although you maynot believe it I can completely understand how you could believe that.
You may notice I already stated it is logical to believe that.
There are a few reasons why that is the case.
First from a carnal perspective(from without) it is reasonable to believe it is a myth.
Secondly, if our nature is as God describes it, that is consistent with the natural reaction.
The fact Jesus Christ is an offense also shows that to be expected.

Jesus is an offense?

And you got that from what exactly?

As well God clearly states he has taken the wisdom of man and made it foolishness, and the foolishness and made it the wisdom of God.
Further he states if one wishes to be wise, let him first become as a fool, that he may truly become wise.

Clearly your belief, is not unfounded,

Ahh, another bit of borrowed philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

 

[sammy neuman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that every group of any significant size contains at least one member who is either an idiot or an :censored:hole. Possibly both, and most likely there's more than one member.

Agreed.

 

[LeMansAid]

Agreed.

Though it would have been way more poetic if @Imari wrote ".... an idiot or a :censored:head. Possibly both, and most likely there's more than one member".

I feel very comfortable doing low brow humour in this thread. I'm almost guaranteed of not having the dodgiest post on any given page, regardless.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It has come to my attention that I mistakenly made a statement in an earlier post that was incorrect.
That statement was this:

Subjective or objective is irrelevant.

Subjectivity was relevant as the means to justification.
Depending on application, objectivity could be considered irrelevant in light of the fact everything is filtered to some degree through subjectivity or human perspective.

Not really, but I know how to reason.

I can imagine it might be difficult if you wanted one to be true, but couldn't see any method to prefer it.

The quandary is not in "if one wants it to be true" but rather, "what if it is true"?

Are you now simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit the answer you already have chosen?

You have been provided an example of a culture that has been around for longer than Christianity, has not been culturally biased by Christianity and has not descended into a pit of chaos and deprivation.

Again if it were possible to have it be embraced with the same percentage of time and volume as Chrisitianity, you maybe on to something.
But thats not the case.
And under the hypothetical, there is no Deity religion, so everyone's concept of moral standard is equal on a level of authority basis.
In that setting what reason exists for the majority of people to embrace Buddhism?

Are you a Buddhist?

What exactly is so difficult in that to fathom?

Nothing, but again it is only relevant if it's influence were embraced as described above.
The fact that it exists as an isolated exception does not imply it would be influential to the point of effecting moral standards on a large scale.
In fact the evidence is quite the opposite.

We don't need to rewind, we already have an example, you are simply ignoring it.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm recognizing it at actual value.
Assuming your estimate is correct, even though it has been around longer than Christianity, I do not see where it has had much influence on moral standards world wide.
So again what evidence exists to indicate that would change?

Now aside from (once again) your repeated misrepresentation o fa standard that shouldn't even be used in the first place, you are now saying that unless we have conclusive evidence for something then it can't be considered true.

Is that what you are saying?

With respect to pure objective logic, yes.
A conclusion is impossible to make under that discipline without conclusive evidence.
If any possiblity still exists for an alternative, it cannot be dismissed.
Otherwise a determination can only be made involving personal interpretation or belief.
Is that not precisely the reason the Scientific method is one of a measurable, testable, repeatable and reviewable procedure?

Well you best be able to show me precluding something without a logical explanation.

You made this statement earlier:

You missed a rather vital part it would seem:

"When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."

We do have evidence for one, you ignoring it doesn't change that.

My interpretation of that is you did not recognize any evidence for validity.
Perhaps you should clarify your position.
BTW I wasn't ignoring it.
I explained several times what that evidence supported.

So its evidence because you say so?

No, it is evidential by it's own standing.
It is a documented testimony, that makes it evidential.
Is it conclusive evidence?
No, of course not.
At least from without it is not.

That's the logical explanation for using the Bible to prove the Bible!

From the depth of intended perspective, yes.
From a physical evidence standpoint, no.

One that I'm making based upon the evidence available, rather than its true because it says it true.

So far, that point is pretty obvious.
But I would add again, in lieu of conclusive evidence.

Jesus is an offense?

And you got that from what exactly?

Just a quick read through this thread would easily point one in that direction.

Mainly, because as he so claims, he is the way, the truth, the light, and the only name, given by which men maybe saved.

Don't you find that offensive?
It seems as if most people do.

 

[Scaff]

Again if it were possible to have it be embraced with the same percentage of time and volume as Chrisitianity, you maybe on to something.
But thats not the case.
And under the hypothetical, there is no Deity religion, so everyone's concept of moral standard is equal on a level of authority basis.
In that setting what reason exists for the majority of people to embrace Buddhism?

So you first claim that we don't have a control group without a deity and when one is provided you dismiss it because its not big enough (a new criteria) and because it doesn't have a deity?

Are you a Buddhist?

No, not that its even remotely relevant.

Nothing, but again it is only relevant if it's influence were embraced as described above.
The fact that it exists as an isolated exception does not imply it would be influential to the point of effecting moral standards on a large scale.
In fact the evidence is quite the opposite.

It been big enough to be influential across an entire continent! How much bigger does it need to be?

I'm not ignoring it, I'm recognizing it at actual value.
Assuming your estimate is correct, even though it has been around longer than Christianity, I do not see where it has had much influence on moral standards world wide.
So again what evidence exists to indicate that would change?

It been big enough to be influential across an entire continent! How much bigger does it need to be?

With respect to pure objective logic, yes.
A conclusion is impossible to make under that discipline without conclusive evidence.
If any possiblity still exists for an alternative, it cannot be dismissed.
Otherwise a determination can only be made involving personal interpretation or belief.
Is that not precisely the reason the Scientific method is one of a measurable, testable, repeatable and reviewable procedure?

Which firstly explains why you forcing conclusive evidence into a psychological standard is absurd, yet you keep trying to do so.

Why are you unable to understand that your standard doesn't apply?

Secondly you once again have failed to understand the scientific method, nor however a big surprise.

You made this statement earlier:

My interpretation of that is you did not recognize any evidence for validity.
Perhaps you should clarify your position.
BTW I wasn't ignoring it.
I explained several times what that evidence supported.

My position is perfectly clear, no evidence exists to corroborate a claim in the Bible that Jesus, a divine being, spoke those words. The Bible doesn't even support it, given that it was utterly absent from the Bible for at least 400 years.

You claim that's not the case but are unable to provide any evidence apart from the revisions themselves to support it.

No, it is evidential by it's own standing.
It is a documented testimony, that makes it evidential.
Is it conclusive evidence?
No, of course not.

By which standard anything can claim to be evidence and should be taken as evidence.

OK, your existence is evidence that you are a blue whale.

At least from without it is not.

Gibberish.

From the depth of intended perspective, yes.
From a physical evidence standpoint, no.

More gibberish

So far, that point is pretty obvious.
But I would add again, in lieu of conclusive evidence.

As opposed to no evidence other than a claim made by what you are attempting to prove.

Just a quick read through this thread would easily point one in that direction.

Mainly, because as he so claims, he is the way, the truth, the light, and the only name, given by which men maybe saved.

Don't you find that offensive?
It seems as if most people do.

Offensive? No.

Why would I find something I have no belief in offensive? Seems you may be projecting here.

 

[DCP]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. What is it? Resurrection and eternal life?

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the Son of God.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on Christ, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.

...I no longer can follow what's going on here anymore. Way too much gibberish, page after page. I'm out.

That's his plan alright. Away from God, and into the world, fallen world.

 

[Scaff]

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the Son of God.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on Christ, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.



That's his plan alright. Away from God, and into the world, fallen world.

Looks who's back.

Now, do you have an answer to my question yet?

 

[Imari]

The quandary is not in "if one wants it to be true" but rather, "what if it is true"?

Nope. It's not a quandary if you don't know which one is true, it's just a mystery.

It's only a problem for you if you have some reason to prefer one over the other. As you do, considering that a significant portion of your actions are based on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God.

On the other hand, there's a bunch of people who are indifferent to whether the Bible is the word of God or whether it is fiction. If evidence ever comes to light to show that the Bible is the word of God, it would be interesting no doubt, but it doesn't really change a thing for those people. They will continue to live as they best see fit according to the best information that they have at the time.

You don't seem to understand how someone could live by relying only on their own best judgement.

 

[Scaff]

You don't seem to understand how someone could live by relying only on their own best judgement.

Or do so without raping and murdering everyone in sight.

 

[Mike458]

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the Son of God.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on Christ, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.

Oh dear... this is absolutely ridiculous! Anyway, this is a non-answer to my question as well as you have clearly evaded for the longest time:

What if there was a world without religion? Would we be better off? How so?

So you are a mass murderer? What if you were in a room full of people that didn't believe in your religion? You have a gun with you, and you heard a "message from God" telling you to kill EVERY LAST PERSON in the room. Would you?

 

[JKgo]

...Huh, I got quoted. Wow. And now I've become a part of the ongoing gibberish rhetorics. Gee whiz, thanks a mil.

 

[Danoff]

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the Son of God.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on Christ, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.

This thread has had some real gems, and this one up here is pretty far up the list. Let me explain how this sounds to me:

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the tooth fairy.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on the tooth fairy, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.

 

[dylansan]

Buddhism is undenyably influential in many countries. Many of Japan's most famous classical writings prominently feature buddhist themes of impermanence and karma, and these works are still famous and read today. Many Japanese have shrines for both Buddhist and Shinto gods in their house. Less than 1% of Japanese identify as Christian.

We have an entire country which represents the influence of Buddhism so let's not ignore it.

It is a documented testimony, that makes it evidential.

How long after the fact would it have to be before it stops being testimonial and becomes an unsubstantiated claim? If, instead of being added to the Bible years after Jesus existed, it had been written and added to the Bible say, yesterday, would you still consider that evidence?

 

[Dotini]

The persistence, even expansion, of the belief in life after death is evidence of the potential existence of something greater and higher than ourselves. Perhaps even the phenomenon of consciousness is evidence of this.

The persistence, even expansion, of UAP/UFO phenomena is evidence that some other form or level of organization and intelligence is at work in nature which we cannot yet comprehend or explain.

As seen in the "religious miracle" (actually UFO event) of the Marian apparitions at Fatima, there is a heavy clue that the religious experience, god meme and alien/angel meme are all tangled together. Perhaps deliberately so by another agency.

The modern human being is being torn by contradictory beliefs, wants and needs. Humanity still has one foot in the realm of magic and superstition, and another in the realm of rationality and materialism.

There is absolutely no assurance whatever that our great civilization or economy are here to stay. They could all blow away tomorrow for any number of causes.

In such a world of doubt, fear and incipient conflict, it is no wonder so many people are confused, conflicted and insecure in their thinking and in their beliefs. In other words, it's all to play for. The belief system of the future is not here yet.

 

[Imari]

The persistence, even expansion, of the belief in life after death is evidence of the potential existence of something greater and higher than ourselves. Perhaps even the phenomenon of consciousness is evidence of this.

How so?

The persistence, even expansion, of UAP/UFO phenomena is evidence that some other form or level of organization and intelligence is at work in nature which we cannot yet comprehend or explain.

Have you ever started a completely unfounded rumour in a group of people and watched to see how fast it propagates? I guess not.

Explain how people "observing" something and randomly ascribing one of many possible explanations to it is evidence that that particular explanation is the correct one. It sounds like confirmation bias to me.

As seen in the "religious miracle" (actually UFO event) of the Marian apparitions at Fatima, there is a heavy clue that the religious experience, god meme and alien/angel meme are all tangled together. Perhaps deliberately so by another agency.

What's the clue. Spell it out for those of us who are a little slower.

You're being very vague and handwavey. You think these things are evidence? Explain how.


P.S. Don't think I've forgotten your conspicuous disappearance when faced with the need to answer your own question previously in this thread. If you want to drop it, fine, let's discuss this topic.

 

[Dotini]

P.S. Don't think I've forgotten your conspicuous disappearance when faced with the need to answer your own question previously in this thread.

?
Sorry, if you really want something answered, you have to make it simple and hit me on the head. Please, no multi-quotes.

 

[Imari]

?
Sorry, if you really want something answered, you have to make it simple and hit me on the head. Please, no multi-quotes.

You asked whether resurrection and eternal life was the greatest lie ever told.
I suggested that all men being equal was in fact the greatest lie ever told.
You then attacked this in a number of ways, including asking whether I thought a society based on a lie was healthy.

Given that you've stated basically the same thing, but just with a different lie, I'd like you to address those points as well.

To save the amount of back and forth on this however, I'll include my thoughts in this post. But don't get sidetracked responding to those points and forget to answer your own question.

I made a sizeable post addressing the questions that you had asked in as clear a manner as I could, thinking that you were a reasonable dude and that I would be saving us both some back and forth by just giving you my thoughts straight up.

Possibly I made the mistake of not simply replying with "Well, if you want me to answer your questions then you first".

Or possibly you'll make the effort I made, and tell us if you think that a society founded on a lie is healthy and will endure, and why (or why not, as your question seemed to be leading pretty strongly in that direction). Perhaps you'll address your own statements that doing so is lying and hypocrisy and manifestations of cognitive dissonance or mental illness, and why these are bad. And why you think that your lie is necessary for society to function successfully as it does.

==========

There are also questions I asked you in the post you just replied to which you've ignored as well, which is why I said if you wanted you could drop the old topic and we can talk about the questions I asked about your statements regarding evidence of higher powers, the current topic.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So you first claim that we don't have a control group without a deity and when one is provided you dismiss it because its not big enough (a new criteria) and because it doesn't have a deity?

A comparitive control group?
None has been provided that is an equivalent influence regionally as described.

No, not that its even remotely relevant.

Since you appear to extol the moral value of it so highly, I thought you maybe a follower.

It been big enough to be influential across an entire continent! How much bigger does it need to be?

Much bigger.

Which firstly explains why you forcing conclusive evidence into a psychological standard is absurd, yet you keep trying to do so.

In reality there is no conclusive evidence in that examination, only inconclusive.

Why are you unable to understand that your standard doesn't apply?

Simple, I'm not applying my standard.

Secondly you once again have failed to understand the scientific method, nor however a big surprise.

Now who's misquoting who.

My position is perfectly clear, no evidence exists to corroborate a claim in the Bible that Jesus, a divine being, spoke those words. The Bible doesn't even support it, given that it was utterly absent from the Bible for at least 400 years.

You claim that's not the case but are unable to provide any evidence apart from the revisions themselves to support it.

There is no need to provide any further evidence, since the evidence you speak of is unsupportive of illegitimate intent, or that the later statement was added illigetimately, or even added in error for that matter.
Therefore you have to assume speculatively that the later statement was added in error or by illigitimate intent.
You wouldn't happen to have some corroborating evidence to support your conspiracy theory would you?

By which standard anything can claim to be evidence and should be taken as evidence.

To the contrary no it is not.
Only if it is testified too, is it evidential.

OK, your existence is evidence that you are a blue whale.

No thats not evidential, unless you are testifying to that as a fact.

As opposed to no evidence other than a claim made by what you are attempting to prove.

As I've said several times now it is not provable or confirmable from without.
Only from within can that be done.

Offensive? No.

Why would I find something I have no belief in offensive? Seems you may be projecting here.

No just asking.
Perhaps you find it offensive for others to claim it is true then?

Nope. It's not a quandary if you don't know which one is true, it's just a mystery.

It's only a problem for you if you have some reason to prefer one over the other. As you do, considering that a significant portion of your actions are based on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God.

For me it's no longer an assumption, but for you perhaps it is.

You don't seem to understand how someone could live by relying only on their own best judgement.

Well isn't that what we all do?
The question is how reliable and objective is that own best judgement.

Can in your own best judgement, declare with certainty that it is not the word of God, even though you believe there is no evidence for it?

 

[Scaff]

A comparitive control group?
None has been provided that is an equivalent influence regionally as described.


Much bigger.

Quite frankly you're behaving like a petulant child in this, an example of a control group has been provided, and because it undermines your world view you simply dismiss it by shifting the goalposts on an almost daily basis.

That's aside from the fact that religions without deities influenced the most populous country on the planet for over 2,000 years.

In reality there is no conclusive evidence in that examination, only inconclusive.

I know, I'm not the one who keeps demanding it be conclusive, you are.

Since you appear to extol the moral value of it so highly, I thought you maybe a follower.

I've extolled nothing of the sort, don't make things up as a distraction.

You know fully well that I'm an atheist, I've stated as much enough times in this thread.

As such I can only conclude that your either being deliberately misleading or antagonistic. Neither are acceptable.

Simple, I'm not applying my standard.

You are applying a standard you presented.

Now who's misquoting who.

Not me.

There is no need to provide any further evidence, since the evidence you speak of is unsupportive of illegitimate intent, or that the later statement was added illigetimately, or even added in error for that matter.
Therefore you have to assume speculatively that the later statement was added in error or by illigitimate intent.
You wouldn't happen to have some corroborating evidence to support your conspiracy theory would you?

Except that's not what I have said at all.

I've said that it was added by men, mortal men and that no evidence that what was added by those mortal men are the direct words of a 400 year dead divine being named Jesus.

You clearly know this to be the case because you then tried to use a philosophical standard (which doesn't apply) to say that both are equally likely, and in doing so had to redefine the standard.

Let me be clear in this, you have still failed to demonstrate why a philosophical standard should be used for physical evidence? The standard you presented is less relevant to this discussion that citing Moore's Law as a standard, simply because you 'think' it fits doesn't make it so.

To the contrary no it is not.
Only if it is testified too, is it evidential.


No thats not evidential, unless you are testifying to that as a fact.

A claim would make it testimony and by your logic evidence.

You are a Blue Whale.

As I've said several times now it is not provable or confirmable from without.
Only from within can that be done.

It either has evidence or it doesn't.

No just asking.
Perhaps you find it offensive for others to claim it is true then?

No you were not asking, you stated it as a fact.

Once again assigning a position to others that they do not hold.

That you then rephrased it as a question when pressed on the matter doesn't change that you stated it as fact.

All you have done, once again, in this thread is miss-quote people, assign positions and beliefs to them that they do not hold, miss-use systems and methods that you don't understand and attempt to re-define them when that is pointed out to you.

I will first tell you (and this is not subject to debate) that if you miss-quote another member or assign a position to them that they clearly do not hold you will receive a formal warning. Given your past history of this, the warning will see you banned as a member.

If you wish to continue to discuss this subject then do so in a manner that actually demonstrates some respect for the other members here, rather than simply changing definitions and systems in an attempt to suit your own world view.

I will ask you one very simple question in regard to the current discussion.

Do you have any independently verifiable physical evidence outside of the Bible that the words spoke are a direct quote from Jesus?

 

[niky]

Careful there, keep moving those goalposts around and you're bound to hurt your back.

 

[Dotini]

You asked whether resurrection and eternal life was the greatest lie ever told.
I suggested that all men being equal was in fact the greatest lie ever told.
You then attacked this in a number of ways, including asking whether I thought a society based on a lie was healthy.



I made a sizeable post addressing the questions that you had asked in as clear a manner as I could, thinking that you were a reasonable dude and that I would be saving us both some back and forth by just giving you my thoughts straight up.

Possibly I made the mistake of not simply replying with "Well, if you want me to answer your questions then you first".

Or possibly you'll make the effort I made, and tell us if you think that a society founded on a lie is healthy and will endure, and why (or why not, as your question seemed to be leading pretty strongly in that direction). Perhaps you'll address your own statements that doing so is lying and hypocrisy and manifestations of cognitive dissonance or mental illness, and why these are bad. And why you think that your lie is necessary for society to function successfully as it does.

==========

There are also questions I asked you in the post you just replied to which you've ignored as well, which is why I said if you wanted you could drop the old topic and we can talk about the questions I asked about your statements regarding evidence of higher powers, the current topic.

Dear Imari, thanks for the clarification. I'll look it all over and may make some additional response(s). Just offhand, if I ask a question, it is almost always because I don't know the answer, and am not in a position to answer it myself. A demand that a person who asks a sincere question answer it himself is an easy demand to ignore.

As you may have noticed, I like to keep my posts short and punchy. I do tend to ignore long-winded, meandering replies that don't come quickly to a point. If you really want to get into a conversation with me, keep it short, polite and to the point. Ask one question at a time and don't multi-quote me, please. I am not a trained dog. If we get into a good conversation, eventually all your questions will be addressed. Also, I am put off when you characterize my response as an attack. Rather than get into an adversarial mode, I will simply cease communicating. If you want a polite conversation, I'm your man. If you think I'm attacking you, I'm not; I'm questioning. I you still think of it as an attack, say it and we are finished.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Scaff]

The persistence, even expansion, of the belief in life after death is evidence of the potential existence of something greater and higher than ourselves. Perhaps even the phenomenon of consciousness is evidence of this.

The persistence, even expansion, of UAP/UFO phenomena is evidence that some other form or level of organization and intelligence is at work in nature which we cannot yet comprehend or explain.

As seen in the "religious miracle" (actually UFO event) of the Marian apparitions at Fatima, there is a heavy clue that the religious experience, god meme and alien/angel meme are all tangled together. Perhaps deliberately so by another agency.

The modern human being is being torn by contradictory beliefs, wants and needs. Humanity still has one foot in the realm of magic and superstition, and another in the realm of rationality and materialism.

There is absolutely no assurance whatever that our great civilization or economy are here to stay. They could all blow away tomorrow for any number of causes.

In such a world of doubt, fear and incipient conflict, it is no wonder so many people are confused, conflicted and insecure in their thinking and in their beliefs. In other words, it's all to play for. The belief system of the future is not here yet.

You seem here to be saying that religion is effectively alien encounters?

I'm not convinced that evidence exists to support that and would have to disagree that Fatima is, to use your words, "actually UFO event", given that plenty of perfectly natural events can explain the very contradictory reports from Fatima.

 

[Dotini]

You seem here to be saying that religion is effectively alien encounters?

I'm not convinced that evidence exists to support that and would have to disagree that Fatima is, to use your words, "actually UFO event", given that plenty of perfectly natural events can explain the very contradictory reports from Fatima.

I'm suggesting religion could be influenced by alien encounters, and more besides. But what are alien encounters? I and everyone else knows aliens aren't proven to exist. So it's in the realm of fun speculation.

I see you're inclined, as always, to take a strictly materialistic approach to the Fatima event, denying its interest and mystery. Okay, fine, it's not a legitimate mystery or question to you. But it is to me. Not much to discuss anymore.

 

[Scaff]

I'm suggesting religion could be influenced by alien encounters, and more besides. But what are alien encounters? I and everyone else knows aliens aren't proven to exist. So it's in the realm of fun speculation.

I see you're inclined, as always, to take a strictly materialistic approach to the Fatima event, denying its interest and mystery. Okay, fine, it's not a legitimate mystery or question to you. But it is to me. Not much to discuss anymore.

I didn't say that at all, as such either please quote me specifically or refrain from making claims on my behalf.

My point is that before we get to 'aliens' plenty of other possible explanations exists that should be explored. Nor does being a rational skeptic remove interest and/or mystery, what the exact cause of it was we may never know and as such its a legitimate 'mystery and question' and simply because I don't just jump to more extreme possibilities (UFO / God) as a first step doesn't mean otherwise (nor does it mandate you to make that claim for me).

 

[Imari]

If you want a polite conversation, I'm your man.

I'm not sure that you are. I think you can't respond to questions from users called Imari, for whatever reason. You appear to answer ones from users called Scaff just fine, but instead you spent two posts telling me why you couldn't answer my questions instead of just getting on with the discussion.

Best of luck with that, I think I'll try my hand with some other users who are interested in talking instead of beating around the bush.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

No, the realm of the spiritual cannot be tested or measured by Science.
So you are assuming it cannot be known or evidential on that basis.
Now I will agree that is logical, but is also subjective.
Or biased and prejudiced against the possibilty that individually it can be explored and confirmed.

Nothing can be confirmed individually, most certainly not on the level you're trying to push. Two different scenarios below:

1. You state "I believe in God, and have spiritual proof he exists".
2. I state "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and have spiritual proof of its divine deliciousness."

Tell me why 1 is acceptable and 2 is not.

First of all the Book itself claims it is a "documented testemonial record of events".
Secondly myself and many other Christians claim it is true based on a within position, not a without position.
Or in other words it is verifiable as valid from a within position only and not from a without position.
It can be believed from a without position, but not conclusively proven.

It is only ever believed, from any position. A thought, on it's own, is neither truth nor proof.

 

[DCP]

Looks who's back.

Now, do you have an answer to my question yet?

I'm here until the Rapture Scaff.... Please give me that question again. I'll answer faithfully.

Oh dear... this is absolutely ridiculous! Anyway, this is a non-answer to my question as well as you have clearly evaded for the longest time:

Mike458 clearly said
What if there was a world without religion? Would we be better off? How so?

Mike, I don't know. What I do know is that there is a world of religion. Many of them. And many of them feature Jesus Christ, and that is undeniable proof that this man walked the earth 2000 years ago.
Jesus said: He who denies Me, I will deny him before my Father in heaven.
Jesus didn't force you to believe in Him. You can choose whatever your heart desires.
The bible says, what a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

Mike458 also said
So you are a mass murderer? What if you were in a room full of people that didn't believe in your religion? You have a gun with you, and you heard a "message from God" telling you to kill EVERY LAST PERSON in the room. Would you?

No I'm not a mass murderer.
No, I wouldn't kill anybody in that room, because that message wouldn't come from the God I have a spiritual relationship with.
Yes, if I was possessed, I would have killed everyone in that room, like most people are doing around the world today.
Godless people.

This thread has had some real gems, and this one up here is pretty far up the list. Let me explain how this sounds to me:

No, the greatest lie is to lie to others NOT to believe in the tooth fairy.
To put that to the test, most wouldn't even consider calling on the tooth fairy, because they don't want to, yet make all kinds of excuses for it. Every man knows this in his heart, and that is a shame.

Thats great, except you don't know the tooth fairy.
With Jesus, the difference is, you know He existed, and you know the purpose of His sacrifice by now.
You choose not to have any dealing with this Jesus. It's all good, because He respects your choice, and won't ask his followers to behead you.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm here until the Rapture Scaff...

Got a date? I don't want to miss it so have to check if I'm busy