There is no God.
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 05:01
VIEWED: 30440
PAGE 16 of 25
some people on this thread should do some research on religion, philosophy, and theology before assuming so much crap about each other. when you get into it, you see that everything is nearly the same, the only differences are really only seen when you put different words to the same concepts. and try to see your self as soemthing you are not. just as ender understood his enimies to the point that he loved them as they loved themselves. I am "Christian" but I am deeply fascinated by religion and theology, and try to see what others see themselves at, just because these people are different (christian, athiest, hindu,etc.) doesnt mean that whatever group of thousands of people are all idiots. everyone can use IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combonations)
PS true christianity is not meant to convert out of force, as a matter of fact it is impossible to do that. and those that try to convert are not(or arent supposed to) be doing it for pride or conformity or whatever, it is them wanting good things(heaven) for people, so you shold forgive them for it and respect their beliefs, as they should respect yours. respect isnt isolation though, it still seems good to share beliefs so that everyone can grow spiritually or philosophically. christian conversion is a personal thing which nothing out side the individual mind can sense. (no one can ever really know if anyone else is chrisitan...for that matter no one knows if each other exists....yeee!, philosophy, thats why this stuff is so fascinating)
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one, so I joined starfleet and was stationed at the SGC to fight the covenant, whos gate happens to be down, and through which I must cast the ring from whence it came. It was our last best hope for peace but it failed so millions of voices cried out and were suddenly silent but there was no spoon and also no fate but what we make for ourselves.
-I thought of that in the shower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Mordacil:
I am "Christian" but I am deeply fascinated by religion and theology, and try to see what others see themselves at, just because these people are different (christian, athiest, hindu,etc.) doesnt mean that whatever group of thousands of people are all idiots.
...
respect their beliefs, as they should respect yours. respect isnt isolation though, it still seems good to share beliefs so that everyone can grow spiritually or philosophically.
I like you.
Quote:
(no one can ever really know if anyone else is chrisitan...for that matter no one knows if each other exists....yeee!, philosophy, thats why this stuff is so fascinating)
While it isn't quite the same as the wrath of god I should warn you that you can bring great wrath down upon yourself by bring up that fact.
Watch your back.
Good luck and I definitely like the way you think, it is fascinating.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your response is so nonsensically constructed, it's hard to know where to start.
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
First off, I never said their claims were based on facts, but rather their belief was derived from their faith.
Quote:
originally posted by christhecynic:
I'm sorry, I should never assume that someone uses the same version of the English langauge as is used by me because there are so many versions to go around, when I said the words, "You were," I meant, "You were the one claiming your beliefs were based on facts."
If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post. I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university. I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You responded to, "state these facts please," in response to your claim of facts with talk about the burden of proof. How does the burden of proof relate to the facts which you claimed existed but did not reveal?
Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God. If they want me to follow, then I want some proof. In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really don't care whether it is evidence or fact, I just want to know which claims they back up in this way and which things, fact or evidence, they use to do so.
Again, I already answered this in the last post. Just because it's not the answer you wanted to hear, it doesn't make it any less valid.
Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:
Now let me say something about scientific theory. Scientific theories are technically speaking theories; however, theories are grounded upon years of scientific evidence and are generally accepted in the scientific community as facts until proven otherwise. The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity etc.. Let's take the "Theory of Evolution". Yes it's a theory, but the work being done by geneticists everyday is solidly grounded in the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, this "theory" is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community as a fact.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really don't see how this relates to the large context of the conversation, the smaller context of my post and your response to it, or the even smaller context of your post. I would like to point out that I believe the theories you mentioned are correct and am well aware that they are fairly solidly backed up, which seems to be your point.
That's partially my point, and it also serves, I thought, to provide a clearer understanding of why scientific evidence is the basis for my lack of belief. I expanded upon that in my last response.
Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:
That said, some evidence for my belief that God doesn't exist: The Big Bang Theory and the The Theory of Evolution to name a couple.
Quote:
According to the (last) Pope, head of the Catholic Church and most prominent religious figure of any sort on the planet, friend of the Dalai Lama, friend to Jews, friend of many Protastants, and so forth, the Big Bang was the way in which God created the universe and Evolution is more than just a theory, it is the Truth.
Of course they said that, becuase the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Quote:
Originally popsted by MISBEHAVEN: When these are juxtaposed against the creation myths of any religion, I think science does a more than adequate job of disproving them.[/qNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for an interesting discussion everyone, but I have to get up early tomorrow. I'll be in my bunk.
Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
First off, I never said their claims were based on facts, but rather their belief was derived from their faith.Quote:
originally posted by christhecynic:
I'm sorry, I should never assume that someone uses the same version of the English langauge as is used by me because there are so many versions to go around, when I said the words, "You were," I meant, "You were the one claiming your beliefs were based on facts."
If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post. I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university. I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You responded to, "state these facts please," in response to your claim of facts with talk about the burden of proof. How does the burden of proof relate to the facts which you claimed existed but did not reveal?
Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God. If they want me to follow, then I want some proof. In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really don't care whether it is evidence or fact, I just want to know which claims they back up in this way and which things, fact or evidence, they use to do so.
Again, I already answered this in the last post. Just because it's not the answer you wanted to hear, it doesn't make it any less valid.Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:
Now let me say something about scientific theory. Scientific theories are technically speaking theories; however, theories are grounded upon years of scientific evidence and are generally accepted in the scientific community as facts until proven otherwise. The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity etc.. Let's take the "Theory of Evolution". Yes it's a theory, but the work being done by geneticists everyday is solidly grounded in the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, this "theory" is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community as a fact.Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really don't see how this relates to the large context of the conversation, the smaller context of my post and your response to it, or the even smaller context of your post. I would like to point out that I believe the theories you mentioned are correct and am well aware that they are fairly solidly backed up, which seems to be your point.
That's partially my point, and it also serves, I thought, to provide a clearer understanding of why scientific evidence is the basis for my lack of belief. I expanded upon that in my last response.Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:
That said, some evidence for my belief that God doesn't exist: The Big Bang Theory and the The Theory of Evolution to name a couple.Quote:
According to the (last) Pope, head of the Catholic Church and most prominent religious figure of any sort on the planet, friend of the Dalai Lama, friend to Jews, friend of many Protastants, and so forth, the Big Bang was the way in which God created the universe and Evolution is more than just a theory, it is the Truth.
Of course they said that, becuase the scientific evidence is overwhelming.Quote:
Originally popsted by MISBEHAVEN: When these are juxtaposed against the creation myths of any religion, I think science does a mNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well i agree that there is no God. There's no evidence, no proof. Without evidence it's just like Russell's teapot:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
To me, i don't see why people still believe in God when there is so much evil in the world, the various holy texts are not totally internally consistent, and the morals are pretty twisted (the Torah and Bible both advocate the murder of evangelists from other religions). I just don't get it. Why would anyone do that?
And another problem i have with the Christian God (the idea of it) is the Tower of Babel. God fractured humanity to prevent us from doing what we were capable of. The Tower was a symbol of that, we were as gods when we were united (a good message in my opinion, and of course, this is all in the Biblical sense, since Genesis is one solid load of gose anyway) and instead of allowing humanity to reach it's full potential, God stopped it. I don't like that; i have a very strong humanist bent and i hate anything that restricts the potential of humanity or gets in humanity's way (like the concept of God right now, causes dogmatic religions, which are the most important problem, and thereby wars and restricted thinking and bigotry).
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.;'>)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If there were evidence, we wouldn't need to "believe in" it. We'd just point and say, "Hey, it's there."
I believe in God. At least, I call what I believe in, "God." I believe there is a strength and power that carries us when we think we can't go on anymore. I believe we aren't alone, even when we feel lonely. I believe there is good in all of us. I believe freedom is worth fighting and dying for.
It's just like they say in Jaynestown. Faith isn't about "truth" or the specific ideas--it is about what you need to believe in to keep on fighting and to keep on giving in the midst of all the evil and tragedy in this world. What you believe isn't as important as THAT you believe. It means you have chosen an inspiration to hang on to, an answer when you're flying against the headwinds and asking, "What's the point?"
I believe, as a species, all humans have a spiritual hunger for this inspiration, for meaning. We call it the soul, if you will. Some fill this hunger with religious stories and rituals, some fill it with arts and creativity, some fill it with good deeds, some with knowledge. Others deny they have the hunger. But we are all inspired by something, something that makes us silent in awe when we see it. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it. That thing is one of the many faces of God.
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I'm glad you've decided to be so civil.
Quote:
If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post.
Please don't accuse me of doing things which I did not do. I didn't deride you. There are in fact many versions of the English language and in some of them when one says, "They didn't do ____, you did," it means that, "you," did the "____" with all of the pronouns adjusted. For example, "They did not toot their own horn, you did," would mean, "They did not toot their own horn, you did toot your own horn."
In other versions, "They did not toot their own horn, you did," means, "They did not toot their own horn, you tooted their horn." Without thinking I assumed that you were using the same version of English as myself. The assumption was unbased and ethnocentric, I should never have done that.
I am sorry and have already apologized but apparently that wasn't enough for you. Even if you think I should have done more there was no need to be rude about my apology.
Quote:
I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university.
In which case you should be well aware of the variations.
I agree that the only things I can teach you about English are probably things that you already know. They are simple things that anyone with a mild education would know, like the fact that the language used to have four cases and our plural system once included a dual, or that syntax differs from place to place and terms like sand-blind are actually the result of folk-entomology.
The thing is that I wasn't trying to teach you anything, I was just telling you the way parallel structures are used in sentences around here fully understanding, even without knowing your background, that you probably already knew they were used that way in some places. In essence I was telling you more about my location than the language itself.
If you're angry because you think I was using that as an exuse for using a type of counstruction that was unclear I'm sorry you feel that way, I meant it only as explanation.
Quote:
I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".
I don't need to be reminded of my habit of double keystrokes, I am well aware of it. Most people are polite enough to ignore "litteral"s and "deffintion"s, however you seem intent on insulting me. I have attempted to remove all double strokes that don't belong, I hope it makes you more civil, I certainly don't see the harm in a few consistently mistyped words when their meaning is clear and the intent of the writing does not include publication.
Quote:
Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God.
Even if the burden of proof only rests with one claiming existence, something I personally disagree with, it still rests with you as you are the one who claimed the existence of facts. More importantly:
Quote:
If they want me to follow, then I want some proof.
But that has not come up, people have not tried to get you to follow them, at least not in the course of recent conversation. Instead they have tried to get you to back up that which you claimed to be true.
Quote:
In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.
I don't understand what the claims are which are supported by facts so far I have seen only one: the Jewish-Christian creation story is is not literal (I hope this makes you happy,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not quite sure why I feel the need to make this distinction, but here goes: I don't care what any one person, or collection of people, believes. But, when their beliefs cause less-than-good things to happen (i.e. restricting gay couples from gaining the same legal rights as 'straight' married couples, or voting down stem cell research, etc.) I have an issue.
If Fred wants to worship Shiva, that's fine with me. But, if Fred prevents people from access to life-saving operations because of Shiva, that's a problem.
---
Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.
I have trouble believing that.
You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.
You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.
Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.
But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?
If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.
But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.
-
This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.
I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME