Prove that jesus is imaginary in less than 5 minutes

[M@RS]

I red them, I have a really good comprehension, my teachers used to freak out about how fast and good my comprehension is, I'm tired of this thread anyways, bye bye

[Tyrion]

I red them, I have a really good comprehension, my teachers used to freak out about how fast and good my comprehension is, I'm tired of this thread anyways, bye bye

 

Your English teachers probably didn't freak out, however.

[M@RS]

True True mock me if you will, and actually it would be my Spelling and Vocab teachers you should know that...

[Tyrion]

True True mock me if you will, and actually it would be my Spelling and Vocab teachers you should know that...

 

That's typically covered in English classes. At the very least, I've never had a Spelling and Vocab teacher.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

True True mock me if you will, and actually it would be my Spelling and Vocab teachers you should know that...

Are you a troll?

[TiE23]

Being agnostic and stuff, I guess I'd have to take a neutral stance on this situation... Anyway, you guys can't really touch each other. If a person believes on faith, then you can't really touch them or truly affect them. Some may call this stubborn or ignorant of the 'truth' (in whatever way one sees it) - but the faithful pride themselves on being able to claim belief in a thing that is illogical; to some, and hard to believe.

 

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"

Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

 

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

 

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

[Tyrion]

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

 

I'll only get along if I get to be the big spoon.

[Achilles]

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"

Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

At the end of the day, that might be the case. But wouldn't it be awesome if someone actually learned something though?

 

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

How is a discussion on the internet different from one in person? If two people discussing opposing viewpoints are retarded for doing so here, then they are retarded for doing so anywhere. And if our options are groupthink and retardation, I think I'll take my chances with retardation

 

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

I would tend to agree.

 

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

That's a nice thought and I agree that such a scenario would probably be preferable. However, I don't think that all situations can have compromised outcomes. There are certain things that most people recognize as being absolutes.

 

What we have here are fundamentally different views of the world. In each case, the reality (or at least the perception of reality) is that the beliefs of others have an impact on everyone. People that believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners. They understand that they just can't live and let live, because if their neighbor is sinful and god decides to punish that city, then their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. So these people vote for similarly minded politicians that will act to implement laws that are consistent with their values. But on the other side of the coin, we have people that see their rights and freedoms being restricted based on a belief/value system that they do not share. So the conflict, by it's very nature, is not (and I do not believe can be) live and let live. Both sides have something at stake, and their beliefs are in directly opposed to one another's.

 

To your point, one would think that intelligent people might be able to sit down and choose to examine the merits of each side of the argument. The problem is that there is no common language. Unfortunately, the religious argument is completely insulated from rational thought, so trying to have an intelligent conversation about the matter fails every time. In the best case scenarios you might here something like, "I know it doesn't make sense, but I choose to believe anyway". In the worst case scenarios, you'll probably hear arguments chocked full of fallacious thinking like, "You cannot prove that [insert name of preferred magic invisible sky daddy here] doesn't exist". So how in the world can we have compromise when rational thinking isn't even possible? How diametrically opposed groups hope to find middle ground when they can't even agree on a basis for examining the merits of a belief?

[Pho3nix]

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

No. That's not human nature.

[EnderWiggin]

True True mock me if you will, and actually it would be my Spelling and Vocab teachers you should know that...

 

Seriously? You "red" it - I'm sure that impressed your spelling teachers.

 

Not sure why you say things like these.... it's like you're requesting a tongue-lashing.

 

_EW_

[Alexrd]

People that believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners. They understand that they just can't live and let live, because if their neighbor is sinful and god decides to punish that city, then their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. So these people vote for similarly minded politicians that will act to implement laws that are consistent with their values.

 

These are not christians ideals. I'm against that type of though too, but if you think that all those people that "believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners" are christians, then you're wrong.

[Achilles]

These are not christians ideals.

Well, they aren't your interpretation of christian ideals anyway. That doesn't mean that a great deal of christians don't hold an opposite view that they are "christian ideals".

 

I'm against that type of though too, but if you think that all those people that "believe that acts of nature such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc are god's punishment for the sinful actions of humans have a vested interest controlling the actions of sinners" are christians, then you're wrong.

Nope, they are 100% christian. They just cherry-pick the bible differently than you do.

 

I think the point you're trying to make is that these views are not representative of all christians, and I would agree. However that only a small comfort. Moderate and liberal variations of christianity still act as a buffer for this kind of thinking, and are therefore part of the problem, even if they don't realize it/agree with the more extreme viewpoints.

[Vikinor]

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

 

 

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it. This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope. Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

[Alexrd]

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

 

 

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it. This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope. Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

 

I agree with you Vikinor, and with you Achilles (except the part when you say they are 100% christians).

 

I also understand your concern and your reasons to change those people thoughts. But I think unbelieving people that God exist is not the best way.

Maybe helping them to change their way of interpreting the Bible. What do you think?

[Achilles]

Those views are 100% anything. There are radicals and extremists in every religion and every beleif.

I think you may be overshooting the point. Liberal views of christianity are 100% in alignment with the parts of the bible that those christians consider relevant. Same thing goes for moderate christians, conservative christians, and fundamentalist christians. The problem is that there isn't a single objective interpretation of the bible. There cannot be as it was written by many authors with many agenda during different times and in different cultures.

 

Again, with the people who try and say that a god does not exist and work towards proving it.

How does one prove that something doesn't exist? For instance, how would you prove that invisible pink unicorns aren't real? How does this differ from being skeptical of any claims regarding invisible pink unicorn barring some sort of objective evidence?

 

This being, fictional or not gives people faith and hope.

Believing that I might win this week's lottery might also give me hope. Doesn't mean that it's true. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't be delusional if I walked around insisting that it will happen either.

 

Why would someone want to take that away from someone else?

Because holding these beliefs has an impact on everyone. I thought you congratulated me on making that point earlier

 

I agree with you Vikinor, and with you Achilles (except the part when you say they are 100% christians).

Okay. On what basis do you disagree?

 

I also understand your concern and your reasons to change those people thoughts. But I think unbelieving people that God exist is not the best way.

I would say that this is like stating that helping people learn to live without alcohol isn't the best way to help them not be alcoholics.

 

Maybe helping them to change their way of interpreting the Bible. What do you think?

Who gets to decide which interpretation is right? If god's ways are mysterious because his nature is so far beyond our comprehension then don't you think it makes sense that we blindingly follow every "suggestion" that he makes, regardless of whether it makes sense to us or not? If god tells you to murder disobedient children and people that pick up sticks on the sabbath, don't you think it would be a good idea to do what he asks? Who are you to question whether that is moral behavior or not?

[M@RS]

Being agnostic and stuff, I guess I'd have to take a neutral stance on this situation... Anyway, you guys can't really touch each other. If a person believes on faith, then you can't really touch them or truly affect them. Some may call this stubborn or ignorant of the 'truth' (in whatever way one sees it) - but the faithful pride themselves on being able to claim belief in a thing that is illogical; to some, and hard to believe.

 

So essentially, the only outcome for this thread will probably be all of the non believers gathering together in one corner, grunting comments like "How idiotic. - He believes in God? - Religious hick. - Clutch that Bible tight, it'll make you feel better!"

Then the believers gathering together in the other corner, sharing thoughts like, "What barbarians! - These angry people are truly lost. - Doesn't he understand? - I'll have the last laugh!"

 

So yeah, even though there are no spamming of exclamation points and rants written out in CAPS; highlighted in red, too. Even with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation in all of our statements, this is nothing more than a fight (a bloody brawl is more like it) on the internet. ... and we all know how those end... Just like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

But by all means, continue. It's great reading both points, I'm using it as a learning opportunity. Looking at both sides, how they rationalize and shoot down (or attempt to) each other's points, is a great thing to watch. It really reveals the minds of people, exposes them, it's interesting. Two ideologies combating each other is entertaining food for thought.

 

But it's still sad seeing anyone fight... tearing us in two... Can't we all just get along?

 

thank you for putting it in that err, colorful way, I do agree.

[EnderWiggin]

I would say that this is like stating that helping people learn to live without alcohol isn't the best way to help them not be alcoholics.

 

Yet weaning them off of it is both less painful and more effective.

 

_EW_

 

EDIT:: @ M@RS - Rodney King, Bitch.

[Achilles]

Yet weaning them off of it is both less painful and more effective.

You're taking the analogy too far.

 

It's been my experience that people don't have a 5-year plan for adopting rational thinking. Truth tends to come in epiphanies. There is a certain percentage of people with whom I converse that I know I'll never get through to. However, if my dialog with them is "overheard" by someone else and what I say has value for them, then I'm still having some effect.

 

EDIT: EW, I think

may make some of my points better than I have.

[Alexrd]

In what do you believe anyway? I mean, who/what created the universe and all?

[EnderWiggin]

In what do you believe anyway? I mean, who/what created the universe and all?

 

Did you not pick up on the fact that he's an atheist who believes in evolution...?

 

@Achilles

 

Thank you for the link - It was very interesting.

A couple of things:

Firstly, I agree with the idea that he described - God caused the big bang and then evolution and such followed. So some of this was lost on me because I'm also sad for anyone who actually feels that Earth is 4000 years old.

 

I know it's fiction, but that thought reminds me of this video:

(At least it's based on facts.)

 

Second of all, I thusly know that the Holy Bible can't be completely correct. But the errors in words written by humans (with human biases and perceptions) about something divine do not convince me that God Himself can not exist.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

In what do you believe anyway? I mean, who/what created the universe and all?

I believe in whatever the evidence supports. As for the creation of the universe, all the evidence points toward the big bang. Who/what caused the big bang is still a little fuzzy, but that isn't a problem for me. "I don't know" is vastly more satisfying than making something up.

 

Thank you for the link - It was very interesting.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

 

A couple of things:

Firstly, I agree with the idea that he described - God caused the big bang and then evolution and such followed.

Err...I think you may have misinterpreted what he said.

 

He does not argue that god caused the big bang at all. He mentions that pre-big bang is one of the only remaining hiding places for our "god of the gaps". Even then, the idea that "goddidit" isn't an answer because it doesn't provide any details.

 

So again, I think you might have taken some liberties with what was said

 

I know it's fiction, but that thought reminds me of this video:

(At least it's based on facts.)

Scopes may be an old case, but I hope that it scares everyone just a little bit to know that it's still being fought in our court rooms.

 

Second of all, I thusly know that the Holy Bible can't be completely correct. But the errors in words written by humans (with human biases and perceptions) about something divine do not convince me that God Himself can not exist.

Everything that we've been told about god and jesus comes from the bible. If you accept that the bible is not extant and most likely contains errors, then you also accept that what we've been told is incomplete and could be wrong.

 

Rational thought does not start with a position, only to abandon it only after it has been sufficiently disproved. This is because there are some ideas that cannot be disproved. You can look and look and look, but just because you didn't find Russell's teapot where you looked, doesn't mean that it isn't somewhere else. Instead, rational thinking encourages us to be skeptical of fantastic claims until we have sufficient evidence to accept them.

 

By the standard that you've adopted, you must also accept islam, paganism, the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, and every other god, demigod, faeries, etc invented by the mind of man just as wholly as you do "God". If you do not, sir, then you being extremely hypocritical.

 

Take care, my friend

[EnderWiggin]

Err...I think you may have misinterpreted what he said.

He does not argue that god caused the big bang at all. He mentions that pre-big bang is one of the only remaining hiding places for our "god of the gaps". Even then, the idea that "goddidit" isn't an answer because it doesn't provide any details.

 

So again, I think you might have taken some liberties with what was said

 

No, I just wasn't clear with how I worded the last post. I know he wasn't supporting this claim. He actually was kind of refuting it; I was just identifying it as the one that I believe.

 

Everything that we've been told about god and jesus comes from the bible. If you accept that the bible is not extant and most likely contains errors, then you also accept that what we've been told is incomplete and could be wrong.

Perhaps incomplete, but not totally false as you claim.

 

By the standard that you've adopted, you must also accept islam, paganism, the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, and every other god, demigod, faeries, etc invented by the mind of man just as wholly as you do "God". If you do not, sir, then you being extremely hypocritical.

 

I'm not sure if I can adequately present a counterpoint here. Perhaps I am.

 

Take care, my fir

 

Fir?

I would assume you mean friend.

Either way, same to you

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

No, I just wasn't clear with how I worded the last post. I know he wasn't supporting this claim. He actually was kind of refuting it; I was just identifying it as the one that I believe.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Perhaps incomplete, but not totally false as you claim.

I don't claim that it's "totally false". I do recognize that there is no reason to believe any of it without evidence, that there are other explanations that do not require such hypothesis, and that the story that is presented is not special or unique in a historical context. But that's not the same thing

 

I'm not sure if I can adequately present a counterpoint here. Perhaps I am.

No, my friend, I don't imagine that you can

 

Fir?

I would assume you mean friend.

Either way, same to you

That's what I get for trying to post and get ready for work at the same time.

 

It's fixed now. Thanks for the catch

[M@RS]

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but I'll say it...

God's like the wind, you can't see him or the wind but you can see the effects around you (IE:The trees blowing in a certain direction, leaves blowing in that direction) ( IE. Miracles, Supernatural things happening) stuff like that . If God didn't exist because we couldn't see him, then you don't have a brain because I don't see it...see where that goes, I hope that helps

[Tyrion]

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but I'll say it...

God's like the wind, you can't see him or the wind but you can see the effects around you (IE:The trees blowing in a certain direction, leaves blowing in that direction) ( IE. Miracles, Supernatural things happening) stuff like that . If God didn't exist because we couldn't see him, then you don't have a brain because I don't see it...see where that goes, I hope that helps

 

You can study the wind. You can study the brain.

 

You can't, beyond the use of the assembled musings of a very human multitude of philosophers, priests, and preachers, study God.