This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
I hope you're at least consistent and feel the same way about indoctrinating children with evolution theory which is unscientific by definition in that it is not based on observable and repeatable evidence (zero examples of life from none life, zero evidence of something coming from nothing, zero evidence of increasing genetic information, observation of genetic entropy and the irreducible complexity of the cell).

I can at least respect you for your consistency then. But it seems whatever you believe (I have no idea what you do) you've shut out a lot of evidence and made up your mind from the start!

But hey don't let evidence get in the way of a good lie
 
pavilion103 said:
This is just your opinion.
Click to expand...

I know that. I also know that opinions don't count for anything.

Remember what I said about the "finger pointing at the moon". Only the experience of the moon is real, not the finger that points to it. Amongst good spiritual teachers, words (and opinions) are considered expedient technique, because they can never of themselves convey the truth.

Jesus said "The kingdom of God is within you" not "The Kingdom of God is up above the clouds somewhere wonderful". So why do you go on as if there is some external being that you have to obey or impress?

I could quote another 10 Jesus quotes that show you there is no person called God, no thing called God.. but that God is real at the same time!!... in fact the only real thing. The reason you won't look into this, if you're really honest with yourself, is because you are afraid of the God you have created in your mind.. Afraid of what he might do to you if you disobey.
 
The bible cannot possibly be analyses as a metaphysical text. The interpretations are completely incorrect.
The disciples died because they wouldn't renounce their testimony of a bodily resurrected Christ.
Jesus himself, it is clear, believed the Old Testament to be the word of God with real people, events and places.
Over 300 specific prophecies about Jesus fulfilled through his life.

You are more than welcome to pick out verses here and there and interpret them as you like but that it now how to analyze any historic document and it completely ignores the entire backdrop and everything going on around Jesus during this time. It is not accurate.
 
Also what an inconsistency.

You use the bible manuscript to tell you what Jesus says. You consider these reliable records yet the you omit other parts as myth IN THE SAME DOCUMENT!

You can't pick and choose this stuff!!! These are historical documents to be analyzed consistently.
 
We're at a stalemate on that point.

What about we define what this thing is we're referring to as God?

In your interpretation...

--Is God a person?
--Does God have any defining characteristics that could be defined as personal? (height, girth, beard, sense of humour, sense of right and wrong, etc.)
--Does God inhabit a particular location? eg. Up here, over there, everywhere at once.
--If God is not a person, is it a thing or object, like a cloud for example?
--If God is not a thing or object, does it have properties of a non-material entity, like microwaves, gravity or infrared?

And then we can see if we're talking about the same thing.
 

We do not know any of the above. God is a symbol in the minds of people.

There is no physical or living evidence that he ever existed.

And the various writings are at odds to such a degree that he probably never ever did. And that a God could exist with the powers muted is also very unlikely in fact.

However the brainwashing power of repetitive prayer and ritual, imprints the subcounscious to a state of belief so strong that the believer thinks it is real.

Religion was created to control people and it does a very good job of it.
 

Fossil records are observable evidence, and many experiments in genetics are providing further evidence which so far support the theory. There are still plenty of missing links, the primary ones in my mind are genesis of life from a primordial soup and macro evolution of a new limb or organ, but, in the last decade beneficial additional mutations have been witnessed, as has speciesation, which were two of the pillars of anti-evolutionists only 10 years ago.

pavilion103 said:
... The disciples died because they wouldn't renounce their testimony of a bodily resurrected Christ.
Click to expand...
Some other guys died relatively recently by plowing some planes into some buildings because they believed it was a quick ticket to 40 virgins. Martyrdom is conclusive evidence of blind faith, not accuracy of belief.

pavilion103 said:
.. how to analyze any historic document ...
Click to expand...

There're plenty of caveats to this, but in general an historical event is best analysed by looking at multiple, ideally of conflicting interest, sources. In general the larger the figure or event the greater the volume of records we can draw on.

The guy supposedly threw the Roman Empire and Jewish faith into disarray, at least in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, and was executed for it as an enemy of the state, but only four historians besides the Christians decided to record any mention of his existence, and none recorded any mention of his miraculous actions. And yet, we have historical records from Roman times of petty thefts, and minor social unrests. And you doubt evolution due to a lack of evidence?
 

The debate has progressed beyond the various charges of "no proof". There are a bunch of things you yourself believe in with no proof, such gravity and love. All you can do is see the effect of such things, then work backwards and say "gravitons must be true". But that's not proof - no one has ever seen a graviton and yet you walk around as if it's true. You'd stake your life upon gravity being true, so certain are you. If we use 'effect' as proof of cause, then we could equally say life is evidence of something having created it (ie. a God). So that whole "prooove it!" argument is null and void.... and boring.

I was asking pavillion how he defined God.
 

The debate has not progressed at all. God may exist (a belief) but the evidence suggests that he does not.

Love is a feeling and part of the senses. Gravity I feel when I get up. It increases when I corner in a car because it comes from movement/momentum (as in rotation of the planet) so is a concrete feeling of real movement.

Belief is a thought process created within ones imagining, it is not a feeling nor can it be touched.
 
Pavillion!!

Where's your definition of God? (see post above).

Have you ever considered what it looks like, where it lives, how it looks and operates?

If we're miles apart on definition then I'll stop debating you. I expect we are.
 
explod said:
God may exist (a belief) but the evidence suggests that he does not.
Click to expand...

Really?

String theory suggests a significant number more dimensions above the ones we perceive.
If you believe it's possible that conscious beings evolved from the elements created by the big bang, by what reasoning does one suggest that this can't occur on a higher dimension?

If such being exist they would be God-like to us. I just don't believe they care what we do on each seventh rotation of our planet, given the insignificance of our existence in their perception.
 
9/11 terrorists are completely different. Don't you see this?
They died for what they thought to be true.
The apostles died for what they KNEW to be true. There were there when it happened. They would not go to their death for something they knew to be a lie. Keeping in mind before the resurrection they were cowards and thought Jesus was a fake after his death.
Chalk and cheese.

Mutations are a duplication of existing information. A mutation adds NO NEW INFORMATION.
 
pavilion103 said:
Mutations are a duplication of existing information. A mutation adds NO NEW INFORMATION.
Click to expand...

A change in an information stream can completely change the information. If when replicating a binary number of 0101 it became 010101 you couldn't argue that there's no new information. A regular argument provided previously was that all stable mutations witnessed in science were deleterious, and never had an additional mutation been witnessed that was stable. My point was this has now been witnessed and as such this particular link in the theory has been proven.
 
Pavillion, I think I have you in checkmate!

If you say God is an old man with a beard who lives in Heaven, I can take your queen and it's game over!

If you say God has no form and is pure nothingness (Spirit), then I will remind you of the time you said that "something (eg. a universe) cannot possibly come out of nothing". Your king can't move.

I guess that's why you're taking so long to reply.
 

No it's because I just saw it.

My quote was "something that begins to exist must have a cause"

God is eternal
God did not BEGIN to exist
Therefore God does not have to have a cause

God is not nothing. God is outside of time. God can create something inside time that didn't exist previously.

My thoughts are that something from inside of time cannot come from nothing inside of time. I.e the materialism view breaks down here.

CHECKMATE!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...