100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: is there logical proof of god? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? Great point. Intolerance of other faiths is a basic tenet of many religions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? Great point. Intolerance of other faiths is a basic tenet of many religions. I dont believe intolerance is the correct word. Yes, most believe they are the right religion, but I have not seen many that don't tolerate other religions. As for other "theories of creation", if they have not been actually proven false by science, then who am I to say that they are not a possibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? Great point. Intolerance of other faiths is a basic tenet of many religions. I dont believe intolerance is the correct word. In some cases it is... "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter on Muslims |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? Great point. Intolerance of other faiths is a basic tenet of many religions. I dont believe intolerance is the correct word. In some cases it is... "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter on Muslims That doesn't mean her official religion supports that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushido:
Something from nothing I think not. The thing about saying its god is just as Di mentioned, it has soo many preconceived notions regarding it, that it really does no good to even bring that name into it. To perceive reality correctly you do need new words, words without meanings that are irrelevant to understand this reality and how we came to be here.
Is this what you are saying Davidben? If so, then I apologise for misunderstanding your words. Bushido, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think we are in a time that requires some amazing piece of writing to make such changes. In many years past it was philosophers who created much of the language. Actually, the early philosophers were often sceintists as well, simply because there were no others. Then something happened, scientists began to write science fiction, imagine that. One of the most influential in creating a new language was Isaac Asimov with his robot series. Ray Bradbury also helped to create new language. I wonder where the next leap in language will come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some cases it is... "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter on Muslims That doesn't mean her official religion supports that. The actual Bible is much worse. The actual Bible says to destroy the non-believers altogether, killing, not just their leaders but all their women, children and livestock. It says to burn their villages to the ground and to never build on that spot again. So Ann Coulter is a heathen to her own religion since she refuses to obey the biblical God and wants to only murder the leaders and then convert the masses. She seems to be making up her own rules instead of obeying the word of her God. But that shouldn't be surprising, because if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, then her God also said that women should not speak out publically on religious matters. She's a heathen twice over. Most likely she's the Anti-Christ. 
She just makes up her own rules. She picks and chooses what she personally likes and then spits in the face of her God. Heathen to the core she is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some cases it is... "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter on Muslims That doesn't mean her official religion supports that. The actual Bible is much worse. The actual Bible says to destroy the non-believers altogether, killing, not just their leaders but all their women, children and livestock. It says to burn their villages to the ground and to never build on that spot again. So Ann Coulter is a heathen to her own religion since she refuses to obey the biblical God and wants to only murder the leaders and then convert the masses. She seems to be making up her own rules instead of obeying the word of her God. But that shouldn't be surprising, because if the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, then her God also said that women should not speak out publically on religious matters. She's a heathen twice over. Most likely she's the Anti-Christ.
She just makes up her own rules. She picks and chooses what she personally likes and then spits in the face of her God. Heathen to the core she is. Yes, it is true that the bible does say those things "in the old testament". The thing is, however, in a christian religion (at least in mine) Jesus came and started a new covenant and we are to follow his teachings. Either way, most christian religions that I know of teach tolerance. That doesn't mean they don't still think they are right lol. They just respect your decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/07/08 06:35 AM
|
|
Well I don't think anyone was ever accusing you personally Chaz of intolerance. I was a little concerned with your lack of attention to my posed questions as it involved the Christian creation mythology as opposed to any other Creation myth found throughout the world and why one should be considered superior to another. However, the point still stands that certain individuals can be quite intolerant of their fellow human beings and sometimes this can be horribly destructive.Very often religion can used as a vehicle for this hatred and resulting paranoia. We have seen this time and time again throughout history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't think anyone was ever accusing you personally Chaz of intolerance. I was a little concerned with your lack of attention to my posed questions as it involved the Christian creation mythology as opposed to any other Creation myth found throughout the world and why one should be considered superior to another. However, the point still stands that certain individuals can be quite intolerant of their fellow human beings and sometimes this can be horribly destructive. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. I already answered that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't think anyone was ever accusing you personally Chaz of intolerance. I was not... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't think anyone was ever accusing you personally Chaz of intolerance. I was not... Don't worry dude, I never thought you were. I was just standing up for the people that run the church that don't do those things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't think anyone was ever accusing you personally Chaz of intolerance. I was a little concerned with your lack of attention to my posed questions as it involved the Christian creation mythology as opposed to any other Creation myth found throughout the world and why one should be considered superior to another. However, the point still stands that certain individuals can be quite intolerant of their fellow human beings and sometimes this can be horribly destructive. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. I already answered that one. Where? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Sun 09/07/08 06:40 AM
|
|
I dont believe intolerance is the correct word. Yes, most believe they are the right religion, but I have not seen many that don't tolerate other religions. As for other "theories of creation", if they have not been actually proven false by science, then who am I to say that they are not a possibility. Second sentence. As long as they are not disproven by science, then who am I to say they are not a posibility. I never claimed my idea was superior. I never even claimed to follow what my church believes as creationism, because I am a catholic but I believe more in the clockmaker theory. I just don't go around being intolerant and claiming others beliefs as myths when they are not proven to be false in any way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/07/08 07:11 AM
|
|
Sorry Chaz this was directed at you but I forgot to grab your quote. Right. So what is the problem exactly? Do you want me to say Im wrong and you are right. I will of course but you need to show me how. Just because we have yet to discover something, doesn't automatically make it false or untrue or non-existent. However, there is such a thing as credible evidence. It is highly praised in our culture. We like to be able to see things and touch them. This is why the Theory of Evolution enjoys its place in museums through out the world. People like looking at it and touching it. My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? And you will notice my reply.And you DID in fact assert that my initial response to the posed question of "is there logical proof of god" was somehow erroneous. By the very definition of tolerance, I should be entitled to hold this belief. This is what sparked the initial debate as to WHY the Christian Creation Mythology should be considered superior to that of any other peoples discovered through out the world. If it is simply because Chaz chooses to believe in it, well I need something a little more credible than that assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Sun 09/07/08 06:50 AM
|
|
Sorry Chaz this was directed at you but I forgot to grab your quote. Right. So what is the problem exactly? Do you want me to say Im wrong and you are right. I will of course but you need to show me how. Just because we have yet to discover something, doesn't automatically make it false or untrue or non-existent. However, there is such a thing as credible evidence. It is highly praised in our culture. We like to be able to see things and touch them. This is why the Theory of Evolution enjoys its place in museums through out the world. People like looking at it and touching it. My point was that if you choose to have faith in your Christian god, thats wonderful, Im happy for you, but how can you justify the non accreditation of every other Creation Myth found the world over? And you will notice my reply. LOL your reply is that I am ignoring your question which I am not. There use to be no credible evidence that the world was round, that there were other solar systems, that there were things smaller than atoms. There is no credible evidence for dark matter yet scientists are looking for it right now. If there was evidence then there would be no faith. If God came to Earth and said "hey I am here" then the whole point of faith would be moot. It is also called keeping an open mind. If everyone thought as you did then there are lots of things we would have never discovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/07/08 07:31 AM
|
|
Well then maybe the whole point of faith is moot if it will only lead one to follow blindly and ignorantly and destroy ALL that does not fall in line with their own belief system. I suppose we could pose this same question to the thousands who have been oppressed, tortured, murdered, imprisoned, assaulted and robbed over the years by those claiming the designation and authority of the church. They might have an answer.
And you were the one who implied that I could not assert that there was no credible proof of the existence of a Cristian godhead. I also used the word PERSONALLY to denote that I was not attempting to speak for anyone else but ONLY myself which you still seem to gloss over time and time again. You are quite skilled at dancing around questions, I will give you that. Who is actually being intolerant here when I am not allowed to take that position and when my questions are ignored? You can also explain the difference between the Christian creation mythology and that of the Greeks and why one should be considered more credible than the other? We can start with the Greeks and then go onto the next Creation Myth....and the next and the next. The point being is that it will be a daunting task for you to attempt successfully. Just because you choose to pray to a different invisible man does not make any other invisible men or women or snake or whatever the case may be less likely to be truthful. "There use to be no credible evidence that the world was round, that there were other solar systems, that there were things smaller than atoms." Chazster Interesting that you bring these various scientific discoveries up. Thank goodness the church is no longer involved in deciding who or what should be considered credible or able to supply evidence or contradictory premise to the scripture. They were a menace in that capacity. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"is there logical proof of god?" As opposed to illogical proof of god's existence? Something like the Jesus outline in the tortilla down in Mexico? I just saw this now. I didn't even think about the "twist" in the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to go now everybody, thanks for talking with me, i should be rejoinging in three hours, if you are here then i will see you. Take care of yourselves ok... Bye welcome and nice meeting.......peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is good and that is not good.......it is no more than this in it's root, but this would mean that each human is thrust into the root of religion just by being born, and this is why each sec is and was devoloped in it's infancy, all growing into empires of belief, many tasting of the leaves or interpretations, but all founded in an essence of it's neighbor is LESS correct, never allowing a gathering of all data of truth that each hold, and why i believe in EVERY religion of the peoples, seeing all was built on a foundation of truth, which leave sight of the interpretations that were created by dividing into good and bad, even seeing the thought that was percieved as a "negative", now flipping it into the positive it was meant to be, allowing to see the essence of the root of the truth that was percieved as "bad" creating divide, and founded the tree of any belief, and there is peace seen at the root of all things.......... How kind, even generous, you are, and how forgiving as well. There is an old philosophy “Hobbes & Rousseau” that seems to take the same stand about “the social contract” as you do in the above. “The social contract”, very basically, that man, without societal rule (a political structure) will constantly be at odds with each other. So man created this social contract in a mutual agreement to be ruled by “ethically and morally” created laws. Without constantly having to do battle to agree on such things, man would then be “FREE” to pursue their individual wishes. In the beginning, most of “society” was family or tribal. The laws they created stemmed from the religious – and that is how I see your statement, above, fitting in. But I don’t agree with what you say, and the reason I don’t is because not every person “agrees” to the “Social Contract”, especially if that contract means having to uphold laws that deny or defy ones religious belief. THAT, is what makes religion wrong. If there is one religious statement I find to contain the most truth, it is: a man cannot serve two masters. Religions that claim a single master are religions that serve the “self” first, and then society. ABRA – BY THE WAY, I AGREED WITH YOUR POST. Notice here that I have differentiated between the kinds of spirituality that you spoke of from the nature of a religion centered around the self and the relationship between the self and the belief. ok...... you have expounded with several posts the essence of the root of what you believe..... all religions cannot be embraced, or this create a new false religion? all religions cannot be based of truth? ideologies are not the same as the root of any religion......... if one embrace others beliefs they are entering some contract? this is as to say that if one understands a murderer, and helps the murderer understand what misconception caused oneself to murder, and help them to SEE the real truth within oneself, that DID NOT WANT TO MURDER, that was smaller than the side that wanted to murder, because it was listented and fed least, this one that helps by believing all words of the murderer as true, embrace murder as well for themself, lol...... indeed, these words are not spoken from some contractual perspective as one that believe in their own beliefs as much as you do for yourself, lol....... indeed, religion is not most beneficial if it is no longer needed, and this is agreed empahtically, but not as a defect as "wrong" as your perspective deem it to be..... all serve first what cannot give peace, to create a "need" to seek out more..... indeed, if ANYTHING is worshipped as "truth" in oneself, evidenced by what one speak as "professed truth", then serving this "master" is fulfilled by any such human by default, without effort, and this is recognized within all as human nature...... thoughts percieved and actions committed all by the beliefs held as enacting all behaviour, and IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT ALL HUMANS ALIKE WILL DO NO MATTER WHAT BACKGROUND OR ETHNICITY, there is common occurence that shed much light into greater understanding........... how can this be....... to break it down and follow the logistics train of the mind is not hard....... to build "value in others" was as a top choice of yours as "most good", so this can be followed to see if this as the "most good" can and will create most good.... one cannot serve two masters........ another stated professed MOST TRUTH..... IF GOOD AND BAD ARE THE TWO MASTERS, AND SATAN AND GOD ARE JUST THE "PINNICLE OF TOP CHOICES" ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL SEES AS MOST "BAD" AND MOST "GOOD", THAN WHAT IS REALLY RELIGION? HOW CAN ONE SAY RELIGION IS WRONG, AND NOT SAY AND KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT BUILD RELIGIOUS PERCEPTION? this is observations of good and bad as some proposed wisdom.......... to follow the train of creation that comes from all things believed is knowing with all sight what anything will create....... if one sees building "value in others" as the MOST GOOD POSSIBLE, then this belief formulate by default without any effort a conscious GUIDE all others actions and words will be judged by, and it is obvious from this statement it is not believed that all things heard are for good, but many as bad, and producing evil, or one could never believe to "add value" was good, as this belief could not be held without first believing many things "did not add value", which show one believes in many things as bad, and so perpetuation of fear of the many things that are "bad" is created thru this perception, and such effect all that are touched each day, as each reaction of self shall be thru this "filter of good and bad of self religion of ones beliefs.......... any guide of "good" of the mind, is what one bounce all other behaviour against, to "see" if it is "good"........??????? ultimately this becomes with time the guide used to decide how to "interact with all others", even subconsciouly bringing the mind to a thinking and believing of others that believe different than oneself as "less"...... there are many more things this will create as we look into beliefs held on to as "truth"....... indeed, you speak you have "problems" with the things spoken of in the posts written.... how can one have a problem with others unless they are basing all most "good" on their own ideas as most good......... indeed, this is not without pure and good reason and nature, but somehow, the notion that none other is credible unless it "concur and agree" with self is ludicris...... this self limit is absurd, and this perspective can "see only" what is most like itself, and recieves compliments and praise as some form of validation of what is believe as good, lol...... each "serves the master" of most good believed oneself for sure, and until it is seen serving this "master of good" create rightfully so the opposite, this practice continues, as the seeing this serving "percieved good" draws the "conscious eye to what is not good", and that one soon with time becomes only a "reaction of all that is believed to be bad" eludes the conscious mind seeped in self good as guide for others........ do you propose you do not serve a master? if one does not, then one cannot profess anything of themself, as the first profession out of the mouth, and one has created their own "master"..... does not one serve the master of all preconcieved ideas of what is MOST GOOD, which these are within, and are spoken of with the mouth, and become as refected outward, and are seldom the guide of all things of oneself, but become as more the guide for others, lol............. is this not human nature, which you say we are all ignorant of, and have no good sight into, for seeing and knowing even our own self, lol..... how can one propose with the mouth to speak for a greater and common good for society, when all words spoken are thru perception by belief that no greater understanding of ourself is possible, and is useless, and from these notions of ideas one is to believe we cannot even understand ourself totally......... if you do not understand yourself and your own nature, this is no indication that others do not is it? do you believe this to be so in all cases based on your own "status"...... is not it critical for all of one human being in all essence to be understood first, oneself, then all understanding of others is added, a little more each day....... is not this the way of all understanding, as first small, then more, and more......... indeed, this mindframe you deem as the only one "correct" could never understand anything outside itself, as it has no true sight yet into itself, and no seeing or believing there is any "accuracy of truth of human nature" and is believed to be impossible as stated by your own beliefs spoken aloud......... this perception looked thru indeed is not capable of having what it deem impossible, but this is only because there is no point of reference built as yet, or this perception could not exist........ what you deem understandable, and even "possible" to understand, is not what determines the realm of possibility to me, but it is obvious you believe that it should, lol...... all things are TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE, and we have the path to "all perfectness" right in front of our face, and any other "premier thought" of the mind held is the same as to bury the head in the sand....... to say "we have no way of knowing", "we are not privy to such understanding" limits the mind in all things......... to blame as it were some "notion alone" that we "just can't know these things" or "can't truly create peace", or "can't truly unite all relgions in peace and untiy"...... is this not starting out with many thigns believed not possible, so they shall not be...... there seems to be a lot of "impossibles" in your beliefs......many, many, many, many, many things NOT POSSIBLE, lol..... seems this condition happens only if ones beliefs are founded on themself most, as you state of "religious ones", and are not of anything more than personal notions of beliefs, all steming from ones own past pain and pleasure of past experience...... is this the basis for whether things are possible or not? how can your own brain be as the guide, as this is based on all past experience from one lifetime, and all data heard run thru your "own filter" of your own past, and this process is completed by asertaining all "good" based on proposed "positive" data input into brain, based most on the total sum of all that was "emotionally good in feeling", based most on what was wished most, and is further processed by accessing all past thru "good and bad emotion" alone, and if one was despised in any way in life at all by any other, this will enter much into all beliefs, as this is the holy grail of opposites that humans hate, lol........... a clue into why you have deemed building "value" in another as the greatest good"........ this is what will guide what you yourself wish most to feel for yourself, and comes out in every word typed, as all wished for oneself is built and designed around ones own belief, and anything that one believe, is what subconsciouly build ones own empire, each person that one allows to surround oneself, how one treats all others, how one recieves and gives "love", decides who deserves love and who does not, who is smart and who is not smart, and in ways such as this, the "greatest belief" will "create" all things for self in ones own "self changable environment"......... this proposal as truth is based on what? logic of the essence of how human emotion guide... seems most to be by how one wishes to be treated themself, lol....... if one does not think these things are as possible, then so be it to oneself, as this is ones own guide, but i know it as "is possible" by all logic applied across the entire spectrum of the logic of human emotion, lol......... all is possible, or nothing is possible, is the only state of mind the human brian exist in to understand "greater" than what it already knows...... are you not bouncing all things read off what your own brain already knows, and use this as the guide of what is possible and best for others? we have lived for centuries, and have acquired much data, and one would propose we have no ability to see into all history, for any and all patterns of unbreakable truth, when it comes to human nature, lol..... this is as absurd to me as the notion one brain is the "wisest" thing one meets all day, ITSELF, lol....... all others worth based on this principle of oneself as wisest and most knowing of "good" is the beginning of all religion, so ALL religion comes not from outside, but from INSIDE, and is nothing more in root than worhsipping oneself most, and the guide of all "good emotions" as better than "negative" ones, lol....... all emotions are as equal, then what is seen and felt as truth is FAR MORE DIFFERENT THAN BEFORE, AS BEFORE THIS TIME, ALL IS BASED ON THINGS OF TOTAL EMOTIONAL RELATIVITY, AND THIS IS TOTALLY BASED ON WHAT FEELS AS GOOD TO EACH AND ANY HUMAN, LOL....... and will not each have their own diagnosis of the "evil" of religion, as if this thing "religion" and is not in the eye of the beholder, lol...... if ones sees and hears religiously, then one is looking thru religious notions themself, or this assessment could not be made...... all words WILL BE HEARD and filtered thru this your own "self religion"...... and that one cannot serve two masters...... who said one was supposed to serve any master? all is good or there is no good, as to think one thing is not good, create by all reaction less good, lol...... yes indeed one cannot serve two masters, and why ALL serve only one, the BELIEVED MOST GOOD, as even if one follows what to another is believed as "bad", it is followed as the "most good by the follower", and even if one does not follow the belief of oneself in all ways and actions, it decide and garner all that is decided as good outside itself, and dictate all "good" actions and emotions of others, serving as the "master" of what all others will be accessed in worth against, and also determine if and when guilt is felt, which effect many in many different aspects, and create most what is the least wished for in society, but the two masters, of percieved "good and bad", when they are converted into friends within, seeing all is as equal, are never SERVED EVER AGAIN, and this religion in it's root form that live within any mortal being is as dead, which came first from just the act of being born, and springs forth from any and all beings into a law others are judged upon as time progresses with mortal life, the natural first state when born, and there is no way one's own words do not belie the defintion held within as personal religion, as it is spoken each day by the tongue that pronounce what is good, and what is bad, who is understood, and who is not, who is selfish, and who is not selfish, who is smart, and who is not smart, and the repeating of the lie that one believe itself as wisest, somehow makes it to become as true to oneself the most, limiting the sight in time to near zero, and it's own greatest wish of treatment of itself as the holy grail of pure, and it's own thoughts as some how wiser and more knowing than it's neighbors, lol....... nothing is my master, and all is my master, as this make only one master, no more two, that make the mind flutter with confusion, lol..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of god. Ask yourself what would be proof of god.
If you can answer this without appealing to irreducible complexity (LOL), then you are on the right track. |
|
|
|
|
