Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[BugI02]

What is the evidence there is no God? The inability to see Him in a telescope? That people choose not to believe what writings He may have inspired? If the realm of the "supernatural" is rejected, exactly what evidence could there possibly be?

...other than the FACT that disorder does not beget incredible order....unless you assume it did during unobserved eons....or that everything that there is must have sprung into existence from nothing....which, again, is an assumption that is neither observed, nor observable.

Perhaps God wants people to have faith without appearing in front of them (again)...which, of course, would be rejected for numerous reasons.

2nd law of thermodynamics. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I most definitely agree, if there is no God.

But what if there is a god, and it isn't yours? What if the Hindus were right all along?

Entirely different discussion.

 

[BugI02]

I most definitely agree, if there is no God.

But what if there is a god, and it isn't yours? What if the Hindus were right all along?

Or the Mormons. Start stitching those undergarments

 

[HoughMade]

[video=youtube;G1XJ7DeR5fc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1XJ7DeR5fc[/video]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It forces you to confront the fact that there is a fixed truth and it may not align with your desires or the desires of society in general. It forces you to subject yourself to His will. It places a priority on service to the Creator and His plan.

Often this is very much aligned with social equity, but social equity in itself is not the end goal. There's something behind the curtain that's much, much better.


It means it's a relative. From a social standpoint, screw community - you and your survival is most important. Now going along with the rules and making your community a better place may be the optimum method of survival and happiness.

How so? I cannot be a moral person if I don't believe the same creation story as you?

I cannot have a sense of community and also not believe intelligent design?

These are completely separate things.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

If I could copy videos on my smartphone I would've put that video up a long time ago Hough.

 

[HoughMade]

How so? I cannot be a moral person if I don't believe the same creation story as you?

I cannot have a sense of community and also not believe intelligent design?

These are completely separate things.

Sorry, but you can be a moral and decent person without believing. You can't shake the Imago Dei if if you don't believe in it. It is, however an imperfect and blurry "Imago"....just like all of us.

 

[BugI02]

Sorry, but you can be a moral and decent person without believing. You can't shake the Imago Dei if if you don't believe in it. It is, however an imperfect and blurry "Imago"....just like all of us.

Excuse, its been a long time since I took Latin, but isn't 'Dei' plural? Image of the Gods?

 

[jamil]

What is the evidence there is no God? The inability to see Him in a telescope? That people choose not to believe what writings He may have inspired? If the realm of the "supernatural" is rejected, exactly what evidence could there possibly be?

...other than the FACT that disorder does not beget incredible order....unless you assume it did during unobserved eons....or that everything that there is must have sprung into existence from nothing....which, again, is an assumption that is neither observed, nor observable.

Perhaps God wants people to have faith without appearing in front of them (again)...which, of course, would be rejected for numerous reasons.

Hough, I can't prove God doesn't exist for the same reason you can't prove any other religion's god/s don't exist. I'm left with deciding for myself, given whatever faculties I have available that I trust most. Faith has produced myths as well as truths.

My argument concerns the logic of arguing faith/opinion vs science. I don't see the point of arguing faith vs science.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sorry, but you can be a moral and decent person without believing. You can't shake the Imago Dei if if you don't believe in it. It is, however an imperfect and blurry "Imago"....just like all of us.

I'm not sure why the "sorry" as it appears we are agreeing?

 

[HoughMade]

Excuse, its been a long time since I took Latin, but isn't 'Dei' plural? Image of the Gods?

"Dei" is the singular genitive which implies relationship or possession- in other words: God's image.

 

[HoughMade]

Hough, I can't prove God doesn't exist for the same reason you can't prove any other religion's god/s don't exist. I'm left with deciding for myself, given whatever faculties I have available that I trust most. Faith has produced myths as well as truths.

My argument concerns the logic of arguing faith/opinion vs science. I don't see the point of arguing faith vs science.

I don't see faith and science as opposed to each other, so I guess I agree with you.

I'm not sure why the "sorry" as it appears we are agreeing?

Just me trying to be cute. I agree that people who do not believe can be moral people....because they are a reflection of the image of God, whether they believe or not.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There are other cases in Latin than nominative. I believe Dei is the singular genative, the Image of god.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Several people have hit on the essential problem of religious believers versus religious skeptics. It does indeed start with the dichotomous question, "Does god exist?" The problem with this question is, you're already building in a bias for monotheistic religions. If you answer that question "yes", you're assuming that there's indeed only one god. You're cutting all of the polytheistic religions out of the picture before the fun even starts. So, let's start from a properly eccumenical foundation:

"Do any gods exist?"

The Atheist answers, "no."

The deist answers, "yes."

The theist answers, "yes."

The monotheist answers, "yes."

The polytheist answers, "yes."

The agnostic answers, "I don't know."

The ambivatheist answers, "I don't care."

The Dadaist answers, "carrot."

Now, what duties do the various answerers of this question have for their responses? The Atheist has no responsibilities. I say there is no god. The universe never had one, never will. Materialistic natural law and mechanistic time is entirely sufficient to explain all phenomena given enough time and honest investigation via the Scientific Method.

Everyone who answered "yes", however, now has a responsibility. You've made a positive claim of existence for this thing called by the English word "god". Okay. Describe it. What's it called? Where is it? What does it do? What color is it? How much does it weigh? And, of course, how many are there?

Now, here's the thing, all of those answers to the core question, "Do any gods exist?" are logicly, morally, ethicly, and in all other ways that matter, equivalent, because every one of those answers share the exact same degree of proveability, i.e. none. I cannot prove that there is no god, first and foremost because there is no system of logic in which you can prove a negative. One answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is Zeus, he sits on a throne of clouds up on Mt. Olympus with all his other god friends, Hera, his wife, Apollo, Vulcan, Hermes, etc. Another answerer cannot prove that there is only one god, he goes by many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, I Am, he is totally non-corporeal and only exerts influence on this universe through the minds of men. Another answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is George, he's a purple unicorn. He stands just 2 feet tall at the whithers, which is convenient for him to hide behind my couch so no one but me can see him and he feeds me Skittles from the tip of his horn.

All possible answers to this question are equivalent, because this question, and all possible answers to it are at the core, are the beginning of religion. The very nature of religion is that it is unproveable. Once it can be proven, it ceases to be religion.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

So what says the Blue? Where did all those big bang particles come from? Better be proven. Otherwise it's religion.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So what says the Blue? Where did all those big bang particles come from? Better be proven. Otherwise it's religion.

Or, it's theoretical physics and it is proveable, just not proven yet.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Or, it's theoretical physics and it is proveable, just not proven yet.

So you have absolutely zero proof of how the universe began? Sounds like a lot of faith. Religious woman indeed.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So what says the Blue? Where did all those big bang particles come from? Better be proven. Otherwise it's religion.

That stretches religion beyond any useful meaning.

And I have no idea.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Cathy: the very nature of religion is that it is unprovable

Cathy: not proven yet

What am I missing?

 

[indiucky]

I tried Atheism once but I couldn't do it for more than a couple of years...It required more Faith than I could muster.......