Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Holy Bible?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 90 (45582)
07-10-2003 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Spud
07-09-2003 7:28 PM


I didn't realise this was a competition crashfrog?
Sorry, I guess I'm used to thinking in those terms. Basically, when two people take opposite, mutually exclusive positions and try and defend them against one another, there's a potential "winner' involved.
Like I said, in a discussion where "God exists" is pitted against "there's no evidence for God" all you have to do to win - prove your opponent wrong - is show incontrovertable evidence of God. It's simple, really.
So, what kind of incontrovertable evidence of god are we talking about here? What would it take for you to believe in God?
Seeing God, perhaps. God talking to me. Seeing the hand of God do something impossible.
I mean, if we were talking about the potential existence of a person - like, a "Canadian girlfriend" if you're familiar with that term - what would it take to prove to you they exist? A phone call from them? A personal meeting? Stuff like that is what I might accept as "proof" of God.
It doesn't take any more evidence to prove god exists than it does to prove you exist.
You mention all these acts of love but you can't tell me what love actually is.
No, I told you that. It's a feeling that people report having for specific other persons, generally associated with physiochemical reactions related to sexual arousal and attraction.
Did it evolve or was it always there? Why is it so strong and yet so weak. Your thoughts on that please not the 'acts' of love.
I imagine it "evolved" when the mind evolved. When we started making words for stuff. People noticed that they bonded to other humans in specific ways and gave words to that relationship.
As for the physiochemical and behavioral reaction of love, it evolved because it's a survival trait. Humans in love tend to protect the results of love - children. Ergo, more copies of the "love gene" survived, until it spread throughout the population. A simplified version, of course. Love isn't specific to humans, of course. Almost all social animals display the kind of co-operation, interest, and self-sacrifice for mate that typify "love".
You love the word incontrovertable don't you?
I don't love it per se, I keep using it because the evidence for god has to be incontrovertable - unable to be explained by a simpler theory.
I mean, if I gave you "evidence" that Elvis was (against all odds) alive in Tennesee, and you could explain my evidence with a theory that it was just somebody dressed as Elvis (a much simpler and more likely theory), I could hardly expect you to be convinced, right? That's what "incontrovertable" means. It means that your evidence must survive dispute.
Well I could go on and on about the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, landscapes, horizons, the human eye, dna storage, bla bla bla but you probably get that a lot so I won't go there ok
See, that would be "controvertable" evidence. I can explain all that with a much simpler theory (one that doesn't require an invisible being with unobserved powers) so it's not evidence for God.
We can either follow Him, through His Word and his Son etc, or follow Satan, the deciever, doing whatever he can to turn you away from God.
What's the point of having choice in this world if we don't get to have choices in the next? If I die and God's there, guess what? I'll believe in him/her/whatever. But if I don't get to choose then - if choice is removed after death - then what's the point? We don't really have choice at all. Choice must not be a requirement of existence in your worldview.
You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong. You would have to have ALL the evidence and knowledge in the universe not just some of it. You would have to know everything in order to state something like that, which I can assure you, you don't.
I never said I did. I don't need every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what the picture is.
I can hardly take into account evidence that I don't have - especially the evidence that I don't know I don't have. More on this in a second.
What is your belief anyway crashfrog? I presume you are an athiest/evolutionist but when you keep asking for evidence on God saying you will believe in God if there is evidence, you come across as someone undecided. Atm you tag along next to evolution, but if something better with more evidence comes along you'll follow that??
Yes, exactly. Because that's how science works. We know that we never have all the evidence - we don't even know yet what evidence we don't have. Ergo the conclusions of science are tentative. When we get new evidence, we revise science. In that way, science moves ever closer to the truth. It's an ongoing process of getting more right.
I'm an atheist, and an evolutionist, because that's the best explanation for the evidence I see. But I know I don't know everything, and I don't even know everything I don't know. Therefore I know I could be wrong about the non-existence of God (and everything else).
Constancy of belief (which you appear to prize) means that you can't ever admit you're wrong, even in the face of data that proves you are. That level of intellectual arrogance is just revolting to me. Saying "I could be wrong" isn't just humility, it's a necessary part about being a finite, and often wrong, human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Spud, posted 07-09-2003 7:28 PM Spud has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Spud, posted 07-10-2003 7:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 90 (45584)
07-10-2003 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by truthlover
07-09-2003 4:56 PM


God rarely speaks about any Biblical subject until there's some practical purpose for doing so, as he tends to be much more concerned about action than talk.
Now that's the kind of God I could believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by truthlover, posted 07-09-2003 4:56 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Spud
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 90 (45599)
07-10-2003 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
07-10-2003 4:35 AM


I don't need every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what the picture is.
In the case of God, yes you do. In fact you write as though you won't accept anything less. But in the case of evolution, your mind is content with the knowledge you have now. You accept and believe evolution without the whole picture quite easily.
Constancy of belief (which you appear to prize) means that you can't ever admit you're wrong, even in the face of data that proves you are. That level of intellectual arrogance is just revolting to me. Saying "I could be wrong" isn't just humility, it's a necessary part about being a finite, and often wrong, human.
I am the first to admin when I am wrong, you and I have discussed this before crashfrog. But what if I don't know that I am wrong? Same goes for you.
It's a feeling that people report having for specific other persons, generally associated with physiochemical reactions related to sexual arousal and attraction.
So basically it's just a bunch of physiochemical reactions is it? What's you take on things like ghosts, palm reading, horoscopes, fortune tellers etc. Are these all just things made up in our minds? Do you believe in any kind of 6th dimention? Unexplainable circumtances etc?
You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong.
You did. Early in this post I raised the question "Erroneous means - containing or derived from error; mistaken. Maybe I am, maybe you are? Are you open to that fact?" In answer to that question you said and I quote "I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence."
------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2003 4:35 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2003 6:00 PM Spud has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 90 (45697)
07-10-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Spud
07-10-2003 7:14 AM


In the case of God, yes you do. In fact you write as though you won't accept anything less.
You're quite mistaken, and I challenge you to find where I said this. I don't need the whole completed puzzle to see the picture. But in terms of evidence for god, I don't even have a single piece.
You accept and believe evolution without the whole picture quite easily.
Neither you nor anyone have even come close to providing as much evidence for God as there is for evolution.
But what if I don't know that I am wrong? Same goes for you.
Hence, tentativity of belief. I don't go around saying the things I believe are absolutely and eternally right. All I say is, "the current evidence points to such and such a belief."
What's you take on things like ghosts, palm reading, horoscopes, fortune tellers etc. Are these all just things made up in our minds? Do you believe in any kind of 6th dimention? Unexplainable circumtances etc?
Not sure why you ask, but: Ghosts aren't real. Palm reading, horoscopes, etc. are well-understood con games (cold reading, etc). Yes, they're just made up in our minds. The mind is a tricky thing, especially under stress or when it expects to see something.
6th dimension? Don't know what you're talking about, exactly. I know that superstring physics posits the existence of an additional six spacial dimensions above our own, only they're compressed to singularities so they can't be observed. I'll believe that when I see it, myself.
In an incredibly large universe, there will always be things that defy certain explanation, usually because you can't go back and test the circumstances once you've developed a reasonable explanation. We can only speculate on unexplainable events in the past.
In answer to that question you said and I quote "I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence."
What's your point with this? Have I ever claimed to have absolute knowledge? Have I ever claimed to need it?
My beliefs are tentative. I could be wrong. I likely will be (about something, anyway) when new evidence comes to light. But when that happens it just means I get more right.
(also - and you've been doing this for a couple posts - you're occasionally quoting other people's words as mine, and responding to them in posts to me. I'm more than happy to debate any propositions you care to - including other peoples - but it's a little impolite to quote other people's words without making it clear who's words they are.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Spud, posted 07-10-2003 7:14 AM Spud has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 90 (45704)
07-10-2003 8:20 PM


sorry to but in but i have been reading and Crash seems quite a wise chap, he is reasonable and isn't up his own butt when admitting he could be wrong.
however Crash says he would like a personal visit from God,to be honest i dont think many get this , i have had no personal visit but there are 5 billion on the planet , i know how about coming in the flesh and establishing a word for everyone, hence the Messiah came.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2003 8:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 90 (45706)
07-10-2003 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 8:20 PM


Crash seems quite a wise chap
You're too kind, but if I've ever said anything wise, I was probably quoting somebody else.
Crash says he would like a personal visit from God,to be honest i dont think many get this
Guess why I think that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 8:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 90 (45721)
07-10-2003 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Souljah1
07-08-2003 6:51 PM


Re: To Answer this Matter
quote:
Well Schrafinator you brought up some interesting points in your reply. And to respond I would like you to answer a few questions and would be interested in your answers or anyone else's for that matter.
You claim to be an agnostic: Define for me an Agnostic?
Well, everyonce defines it differently, I suppose, but for me it means that I don't know if God exists or not. Additionally, I doubt (but do not actually know) if God can be knowable even if it exists.
quote:
An Agnostic is just an Athiest who compromises between Theism and Theology, or could you better explain your difinition. Or should I say in brief "One who is too confused to believe in either God or No-God"
Ah, yes, more condescension and a patronizing attitude from the Christian Theist.
I just love that character quality!
quote:
You see at the end of the day if there is not one true God, and one true way to know him than does that not make us all agnostics trying to create our own God or whatever else we would like to worship? If nothing at all.
Well, that's really the question for each person to decide for themselves, isn't it?
quote:
Another Question:
How many different races are there?
Your answer to this question at first might be hundreds, but the fact is there is only one - The human race, made up of different cultures but scientifically proven to have come from one set of DNA.(And you thought Science disproved biblical events)
Um, what the heck are you talking about?
Of course there's only one race of humans. Please tell me why you are bringing this up because it surely seems out of left field to me.
quote:
You said you could not understand why some one who has murdered and raped and then accepts Christ as their Personal Savior should get to go to heaven, but someone who hasnt and lives a good life doesn't.
well answer this
How Good is Good enough?
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who seems to know what God's rules are concerning who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't.
I was simply posing a scenario which was completely consistent with the rules as you stated them, but would seem to be grossly unfair and illogical, not to mention immoral.
quote:
Another Question:
If you think about killing someone but dont actually kill them, does this change what is already brewing in your heart?
If you are asking do I think it is just as bad to think about killing someone than to actually kill them, then the answer is no. While I think that a person is probably pretty disturbed if they think a great deal, and very seriously, about killing someone, and this person might well be abusive or harmful to people in other ways, it is the actual harm one causes to another, the actual killing, that counts. We all have disturbing or otherwise inappropriate thoughts; it's part of being human. It's how we act upon them, or not, that makes us moral.
quote:
Another Question:
Define for me Christianity in it's biblical sence? Not according to the experiences you have had of so called Christians.(Mormans, jehovah's, Baptist etc.)
Christianity is a religion based upon the belief that a person named Jesus was actually the son of the Jewish God, died for their sins, then was raised from the dead three days later. I could go on...
quote:
Just because a missionary claims they are a missionary does this mean God has sent them? Remembering the Bible says "by their fruits you will know them"
OK. What are these "fruits" supposed to be?
quote:
Now to answer your questions.
quote:
what has happend is many of us have changed the uncorruptible God into an image made unto corruptible man and therefore have moved away from the truth of God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
Um what the heck does this mean?
It means that through the ages even in the times of Moses people have chosen to glory in an idol or something they can worship that they can see. For example the Israelites who made the golden calf. The Hindi religions who have made statues and even Catholics who worship the statue of Mary and so on. The Bible says people have made there own images of God.
Sure, but wouldn't this be a natural thing for people who are promoting their religion to do; make it illegal or "wrong" for people to tolerate other religions and crush them out of existence?
Of course, I have no "image of God" and I don't worship anything, so this doesn't really apply to me.
quote:
quote:
The bible teaches that if people are truly seeking God then it is God's obligation to send someone there way. Therefore that is where missionaries come into play.
I find missionaries arrogant and annoying
And to be honest Schrafinator I do to. But all I am saying is that in order for people to hear the Gospel, someone needs to be sent to tell them and if everybody God called to be a missionary actually went then all would hear one way or another. And in our day and age if there is a group they truly seek to know God, there are plenty of means where this can happen.
I have two questions.
1) Why can't I seek out God on my own; why does there have to be a missionary at all?
2) How do I know which group has the true message of God? There are over 600 demnominations of Christianity in the US alone. Whaich one is correct?
quote:
I agree with you Schrafinator that there are so many different types of Christianity and therefore who to believe? Well if this helps I found that Christianity is soley based on the Bible if there is any extra or any less to whatever denomination than it is not biblical Christianity.
But, given that there are no original copies of the Bible, and all of the current versions have been translated many, many times over by imperfect (and often politically-motivated) humans, how do you know that so-called "Biblical" Christianity is dependable, either?
quote:
You see this word has been stereo-typed so much even to the point where it does not actually reflect what it means. And to this I say I follow Christ according to the Holy Bible, not according to it's worldly interpretation.
So, are you saying that you do not interpret the Bible at all, and that you take it entirely literally?
If so, I have a few questions for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Souljah1, posted 07-08-2003 6:51 PM Souljah1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by truthlover, posted 07-16-2003 11:40 AM nator has replied
 Message 88 by Pogo, posted 07-22-2003 1:55 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 90 (45722)
07-11-2003 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
07-09-2003 3:23 PM


quote:
There's the change in chemical states in the brain.
Oxytocin, baby.
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2003 3:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-11-2003 12:48 AM nator has not replied
 Message 85 by Gzus, posted 07-15-2003 10:18 PM nator has replied

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 90 (45724)
07-11-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
07-11-2003 12:05 AM


massage done on rats had previously been shown to influence oxytocin levels
It’s a worry. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 12:05 AM nator has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 90 (46175)
07-15-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
07-11-2003 12:05 AM


where can i buy tablets?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 12:05 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 07-22-2003 4:48 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 90 (46190)
07-16-2003 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Spud
07-09-2003 6:07 AM


quote:
Well all choose what we want to believe and what we don't want to
believe, regardless of what evidence we have and don't have.
So long as you are referring solely to the existence or not of
a god or gods, then that is exactly the point.
If you mean this generally you should have a long sit and think
about what the above actually means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Spud, posted 07-09-2003 6:07 AM Spud has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 87 of 90 (46236)
07-16-2003 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
07-10-2003 11:55 PM


Re: To Answer this Matter
Schraf,
When contra was getting on me in another thread, you said you wish you'd have said something. I rarely bother saying anything when the shoes on the other foot, because creationist/Christians say the darndest things so often, it hardly seems worth bothering. But, I thought I would at least make one effort.
An Agnostic is just an Athiest who compromises between Theism and Theology, or could you better explain your difinition. Or should I say in brief "One who is too confused to believe in either God or No-God"
It's hard for me to think of something more rude, unless someone were simply purposely insulting someone else. It's funny, but I think it's entirely possible that in that "apologetic fervor" (as in defensive, not as in repentant) I think many Christians really aren't intending to be that insulting. They're just "standing up for the faith."
There should be a Guiness world record category for "Most Insulting Religious Statement." Of course, it happens so often that the above probably wouldn't be able to compete, but it's way up there.
It's embarrassing. I apologize if he/she doesn't.
Oh, and I think you're way off on those 600 Christian denominations. A 1984 US News & World Report article stated there were over 22,000 registered in the US. I found the reference in the book _Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up_ by David Bercot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 07-22-2003 4:44 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Pogo
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 90 (46905)
07-22-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
07-10-2003 11:55 PM


Re: To Answer this Matter
I apologize for cutting in, but Schraf has raised some of the very points that led my unbelief. The bottom line seems to be, if the final authority regarding "true biblical christianity" is the bible, then the bible needs to put under the light of open and direct inquiry. Since this has happened numerous times and volumes have been written about the results, (I'll provide a book list if anybody would like) then it appears that biblical christianity is on rather shakey ground.
Yet I have this gnawing feeling that perhaps there is something else other what can be observed or proven. As a former believer, I haven't thought about this in over 10 years, but I cannot go back to the bible.
Just far too unreliable.
In my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:55 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 90 (46915)
07-22-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by truthlover
07-16-2003 11:40 AM


Re: To Answer this Matter
quote:
There should be a Guiness world record category for "Most Insulting Religious Statement." Of course, it happens so often that the above probably wouldn't be able to compete, but it's way up there.
It's embarrassing. I apologize if he/she doesn't.
You are some kind of stand-up guy, TL. Thank you.
Just so you know, I don't think that many people, when they learn that I am Agnostic (and they are Theists and somehow threatened by my beliefs), think that I can be insulted WRT my worldview.
I actually had to set my well-educated, bright, wonderful, loving, ordinarily very respectful older sister straight some years ago.
She kept making rather patronizing comments to me, saying things to the effect of "You don't know what to think", or "You're just confused", or, my personal favorite, "I feel so sorry for you because you are missing so much in your life."
We had a big fight about it and I told her that she wasn't allowed to talk down to me. I told her I had come to hold the world view that I did after years of introspection and self-searching, and I also had to correct all the assumptions she had about what I thought.
So, She didn't feel she needed to show me, an Agnostic, the kind of respect she would need to show someone of another religion.
quote:
Oh, and I think you're way off on those 600 Christian denominations. A 1984 US News & World Report article stated there were over 22,000 registered in the US. I found the reference in the book _Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up_ by David Bercot.
Holy Crap! (so to speak)
Even better for my argument!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by truthlover, posted 07-16-2003 11:40 AM truthlover has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 90 (46916)
07-22-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Gzus
07-15-2003 10:18 PM


Just eat some chocolate.
Seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Gzus, posted 07-15-2003 10:18 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024