Do gods exist?

[sealybobo]

Episode of "Through the Wormhole" was about "what is nothing?" Point was made that once we give something a name, it's something, thus "nothing" is something called nothing. So doesn't God exist once we name it, give it personality and attributes, etc.? The wormhole doc explained how a true and perfect nothing is scientifically impossible. There's always something in any point in space. So how much does God have to encompass before we agree it exists in at least some way? We murder for God, die for God, how much more "real" does God need to be?

So then Santa is real too.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note:

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

Of course, that presumes such a god wants you to know or cares if you know or not.

Exactly. If there is a god, he doesn't give a shit about gismys or me or you. That's be like a lion in africa caring about a tardigrade in the rain forest.

 

[PratchettFan]

So then Santa is real too.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note:

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

Of course, that presumes such a god wants you to know or cares if you know or not.

Exactly. If there is a god, he doesn't give a shit about gismys or me or you. That's be like a lion in africa caring about a tardigrade in the rain forest.

Perhaps. The only conclusion I have been able to draw is that if there is a god, then he/she/it has not placed a high priority on letting me know. And while I am willing to believe that GISMYS is a marvelous person, if god is using him as a spokesperson it was a less than optimal choice. So I will just have to muddle along as best I can, making those decisions I consider best. Ultimately, I think that is the best any of us can do.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Thinking of it another way:If the Bible's god is real, isn't our debating if it is a big waste of everyone's time? We'll all find out eventually, and the disbelievers will pay, and the believers will be rewarded. But if that's the case, why argue the point? Especially if a believer.

Why argue the point? For the same reason that anyone would argue the point about any other eminent danger.

If someone was going to be stung by a bee, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to be run over by a car or a train, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to fall off a cliff, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to spend eternity in Hell, wouldn't you tell them?

No. I might point out a bee, a car or a cliff to someone. But it would be arrogant of me to presume to tell them what was going to happen on the assumption that I knew how to handle their lives better than they did.

There really is a difference between you telling me what you believe and you telling me what I should believe.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Including the gospel in your decision making process means you have the data available to reach a more well rounded conclusion. Here is the difference:

You information stops at, "There is a bee." verses Lights information that, "There is a bee that could hurt you if your stung by it."
There is a train. vs There is a train that could hurt you if you don't get off of the tracks.
There is a cliff. There is a cliff that could hurt you if you fall of the edge.
There is hell. You can avoid it if you accept the gift of salvation that Christ died to give you.

There is nothing arrogant about you warning me of the consequences of the bee. I would prefer to have all the information available to me before I decide what to do with the bee. With limited information, I may decide to play with it. After listening to Light, my weak mind would tell me to avoid it.

Christians are called to tell you about Christ and the consequences of a life without Him. What you do with that information is completely up to you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why argue the point? For the same reason that anyone would argue the point about any other eminent danger.

If someone was going to be stung by a bee, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to be run over by a car or a train, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to fall off a cliff, wouldn't you tell them?
If someone was going to spend eternity in Hell, wouldn't you tell them?

No. I might point out a bee, a car or a cliff to someone. But it would be arrogant of me to presume to tell them what was going to happen on the assumption that I knew how to handle their lives better than they did.

There really is a difference between you telling me what you believe and you telling me what I should believe.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Including the gospel in your decision making process means you have the data available to reach a more well rounded conclusion. Here is the difference:

You information stops at, "There is a bee." verses Lights information that, "There is a bee that could hurt you if your stung by it."
There is a train. vs There is a train that could hurt you if you don't get off of the tracks.
There is a cliff. There is a cliff that could hurt you if you fall of the edge.
There is hell. You can avoid it if you accept the gift of salvation that Christ died to give you.

There is nothing arrogant about you warning me of the consequences of the bee. I would prefer to have all the information available to me before I decide what to do with the bee. With limited information, I may decide to play with it. After listening to Light, my weak mind would tell me to avoid it.

Christians are called to tell you about Christ and the consequences of a life without Him. What you do with that information is completely up to you.

Nothing arrogant at all about assuming you're so silly and unaware that you don't know bees sting or gravity pulls you down? Should I carry around placards with pictures of bees so I can stop strangers and lecture them on the dangers of bee encounters? What would be your response if I did that to you? If you told me you already knew about bees would you be insulted if I continued with my lecture on the assumption that you weren't showing the level of concern I thought you needed?

Please do not say "Christians" because the vast majority of Christians would not dream to be so arrogant. Only some Christians, a very small percentage, think they know better than me what is right for me.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Of course, that presumes such a god wants you to know or cares if you know or not.

Exactly. If there is a god, he doesn't give a shit about gismys or me or you. That's be like a lion in africa caring about a tardigrade in the rain forest.

Perhaps. The only conclusion I have been able to draw is that if there is a god, then he/she/it has not placed a high priority on letting me know. And while I am willing to believe that GISMYS is a marvelous person, if god is using him as a spokesperson it was a less than optimal choice. So I will just have to muddle along as best I can, making those decisions I consider best. Ultimately, I think that is the best any of us can do.

In what way is it that you think God is remiss? Before He gave you Gis, He gave you His Son, His highest priority, to "let you know". Then He raised His Son from the dead so you would have no doubts. Maybe He feels He needs to shout at you now to be heard, as your time to listen grows shorter. Our Father removed every iniquity that could separate us from Him, told us the future in advance so we would know who He is and then He died in our place, so we could live at His place. Then sent disciples out for you to listen to, lest His message to you be lost.
What more do you require of Him? Shall He shine your shoes for you too?

 

[The Irish Ram]

No. I might point out a bee, a car or a cliff to someone. But it would be arrogant of me to presume to tell them what was going to happen on the assumption that I knew how to handle their lives better than they did.

There really is a difference between you telling me what you believe and you telling me what I should believe.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Including the gospel in your decision making process means you have the data available to reach a more well rounded conclusion. Here is the difference:

You information stops at, "There is a bee." verses Lights information that, "There is a bee that could hurt you if your stung by it."
There is a train. vs There is a train that could hurt you if you don't get off of the tracks.
There is a cliff. There is a cliff that could hurt you if you fall of the edge.
There is hell. You can avoid it if you accept the gift of salvation that Christ died to give you.

There is nothing arrogant about you warning me of the consequences of the bee. I would prefer to have all the information available to me before I decide what to do with the bee. With limited information, I may decide to play with it. After listening to Light, my weak mind would tell me to avoid it.

Christians are called to tell you about Christ and the consequences of a life without Him. What you do with that information is completely up to you.

Nothing arrogant at all about assuming you're so silly and unaware that you don't know bees sting or gravity pulls you down? Should I carry around placards with pictures of bees so I can stop strangers and lecture them on the dangers of bee encounters? What would be your response if I did that to you? If you told me you already knew about bees would you be insulted if I continued with my lecture on the assumption that you weren't showing the level of concern I thought you needed?

Please do not say "Christians" because the vast majority of Christians would not dream to be so arrogant. Only some Christians, a very small percentage, think they know better than me what is right for me.

I'd rather see your placard concerning hell. Are you as well informed about hell as I am about bees?

You are right about one thing though, if a Christian doesn't tell you about your Father, then what good is calling himself a Christian? It is our co-mission with Christ to spread the good news.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Episode of "Through the Wormhole" was about "what is nothing?" Point was made that once we give something a name, it's something, thus "nothing" is something called nothing. So doesn't God exist once we name it, give it personality and attributes, etc.? The wormhole doc explained how a true and perfect nothing is scientifically impossible. There's always something in any point in space. So how much does God have to encompass before we agree it exists in at least some way? We murder for God, die for God, how much more "real" does God need to be?

So then Santa is real too.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note:

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

If He wanted to He could change our brain chemistry. Thankfully, He gave us free will instead, and His Son.

 

[sealybobo]

Episode of "Through the Wormhole" was about "what is nothing?" Point was made that once we give something a name, it's something, thus "nothing" is something called nothing. So doesn't God exist once we name it, give it personality and attributes, etc.? The wormhole doc explained how a true and perfect nothing is scientifically impossible. There's always something in any point in space. So how much does God have to encompass before we agree it exists in at least some way? We murder for God, die for God, how much more "real" does God need to be?

So then Santa is real too.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note:

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

If He wanted to He could change our brain chemistry. Thankfully, He gave us free will instead, and His Son.

Thankfully? So he hides from us, expects us to believe our ancestors who were stupid and/or liars, and if we don't we'll burn in hell for all eternity?

You call that free will? If I were dumb enough to believe in god(s), that would be like giving me the choice of either touching the iron or not touching the iron. What kind of free will is that? Who's gonna choose to burn themselves?

But I need more proof from HIM than YOUR word. Or your corrupt church/synagog/mosque.

Sent his son to be sacraficed? Do you hear yourself? What a joke. You bought that story? How old are you 10? Do you believe Adam & Eve were real people? Noah's Arc happened? If you know those are stories to teach a message then you should also know the Jesus story was made up too.

Sent his son. Put him in a virgin. He performed miracles and rose from the dead

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[sealybobo]

You are free to believe whatever you want. Including the gospel in your decision making process means you have the data available to reach a more well rounded conclusion. Here is the difference:

You information stops at, "There is a bee." verses Lights information that, "There is a bee that could hurt you if your stung by it."
There is a train. vs There is a train that could hurt you if you don't get off of the tracks.
There is a cliff. There is a cliff that could hurt you if you fall of the edge.
There is hell. You can avoid it if you accept the gift of salvation that Christ died to give you.

There is nothing arrogant about you warning me of the consequences of the bee. I would prefer to have all the information available to me before I decide what to do with the bee. With limited information, I may decide to play with it. After listening to Light, my weak mind would tell me to avoid it.

Christians are called to tell you about Christ and the consequences of a life without Him. What you do with that information is completely up to you.

Nothing arrogant at all about assuming you're so silly and unaware that you don't know bees sting or gravity pulls you down? Should I carry around placards with pictures of bees so I can stop strangers and lecture them on the dangers of bee encounters? What would be your response if I did that to you? If you told me you already knew about bees would you be insulted if I continued with my lecture on the assumption that you weren't showing the level of concern I thought you needed?

Please do not say "Christians" because the vast majority of Christians would not dream to be so arrogant. Only some Christians, a very small percentage, think they know better than me what is right for me.

I'd rather see your placard concerning hell. Are you as well informed about hell as I am about bees?

You are right about one thing though, if a Christian doesn't tell you about your Father, then what good is calling himself a Christian? It is our co-mission with Christ to spread the good news.

How else do you spread the lie? I can't believe anyone still believes these stories. When someone like you walks up to me and tells me these things I wonder who buys this shit? I wonder what your success ratio is? I bet for every 100 people you annoy you convert one new christian. And I bet that is good enough for you guys considering there are billions of people on earth so lots of lost souls, huh?

I have a customer he's an indian from India and he's a christian. He's telling me how 20% of India is christian and how his version of Christianity is the best version. You have to be saved as an adult. The only way he says. Classic definition of gullible. I wonder who got their hands on this guy when he first came over from India and converted him. I can't believe any Indians/Hindu convert to Christianity. How do they buy the whole story? Its so silly.

 

[sealybobo]

Episode of "Through the Wormhole" was about "what is nothing?" Point was made that once we give something a name, it's something, thus "nothing" is something called nothing. So doesn't God exist once we name it, give it personality and attributes, etc.? The wormhole doc explained how a true and perfect nothing is scientifically impossible. There's always something in any point in space. So how much does God have to encompass before we agree it exists in at least some way? We murder for God, die for God, how much more "real" does God need to be?

Why do normal people believe ridiculous things? If Christians used the same critical powers they use to dismiss other religions they would surely end up dismissing the claims of their own religion. But they don’t bc of Cognitive dissonance.

As anyone who works in education can tell you, children are gullible. So we have a situation where, from birth children are fed cultural myths such as Noah’s Flood as factual stories. What is happening is that children are fed improbable stories before they are taught how to rationalize the ridiculous from the scientifically verified. These children are at the most educationally vulnerable point in their lives. And who are the people they trust the most? Their parents, grandparents, preachers. These children have no hope of being able to decipher whether such truth claims are probable or not. They don’t even think to question such claims. Actually I did.

It is only after these cultural memories are embedded that children learn about life, about science, about how to tell a lie from a truth, about the notion that you can’t trust everyone, even a priest.

The second option is also prevalent. Many Christians do learn to be critical and do apply that vetting process to their embedded learning. So they think the bible is just a bunch of allegories. The theist ends up creating wildly ad hoc reasons as to how the evidence can fit in with so-called biblical “facts”.

Obviously, there are difficult questions for the theist who actually discounts such myths as symbolic. It is a potentially slippery slope as to discerning what is myth, what is allegory and what actually happened in the Bible.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are free to believe whatever you want. Including the gospel in your decision making process means you have the data available to reach a more well rounded conclusion. Here is the difference:

You information stops at, "There is a bee." verses Lights information that, "There is a bee that could hurt you if your stung by it."
There is a train. vs There is a train that could hurt you if you don't get off of the tracks.
There is a cliff. There is a cliff that could hurt you if you fall of the edge.
There is hell. You can avoid it if you accept the gift of salvation that Christ died to give you.

There is nothing arrogant about you warning me of the consequences of the bee. I would prefer to have all the information available to me before I decide what to do with the bee. With limited information, I may decide to play with it. After listening to Light, my weak mind would tell me to avoid it.

Christians are called to tell you about Christ and the consequences of a life without Him. What you do with that information is completely up to you.

Nothing arrogant at all about assuming you're so silly and unaware that you don't know bees sting or gravity pulls you down? Should I carry around placards with pictures of bees so I can stop strangers and lecture them on the dangers of bee encounters? What would be your response if I did that to you? If you told me you already knew about bees would you be insulted if I continued with my lecture on the assumption that you weren't showing the level of concern I thought you needed?

Please do not say "Christians" because the vast majority of Christians would not dream to be so arrogant. Only some Christians, a very small percentage, think they know better than me what is right for me.

I'd rather see your placard concerning hell. Are you as well informed about hell as I am about bees?

You are right about one thing though, if a Christian doesn't tell you about your Father, then what good is calling himself a Christian? It is our co-mission with Christ to spread the good news.

I have no idea if you are better informed about bees than I. As I said, it would be incredibly arrogant of me to assume I was and impose myself upon you. Likewise, you have no idea how informed I am about hell.

If I were to patiently explain to you that you are wasting your time following a false god when you need to concentrate upon the development of your essence, would you see that as just me spreading the good news? I'll bet not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly. If there is a god, he doesn't give a shit about gismys or me or you. That's be like a lion in africa caring about a tardigrade in the rain forest.

Perhaps. The only conclusion I have been able to draw is that if there is a god, then he/she/it has not placed a high priority on letting me know. And while I am willing to believe that GISMYS is a marvelous person, if god is using him as a spokesperson it was a less than optimal choice. So I will just have to muddle along as best I can, making those decisions I consider best. Ultimately, I think that is the best any of us can do.

In what way is it that you think God is remiss? Before He gave you Gis, He gave you His Son, His highest priority, to "let you know". Then He raised His Son from the dead so you would have no doubts. Maybe He feels He needs to shout at you now to be heard, as your time to listen grows shorter. Our Father removed every iniquity that could separate us from Him, told us the future in advance so we would know who He is and then He died in our place, so we could live at His place. Then sent disciples out for you to listen to, lest His message to you be lost.
What more do you require of Him? Shall He shine your shoes for you too?

I did not say he was remiss. I said he hasn't placed a high priority upon letting me know he exists. That seems patently obvious to me. It really doesn't bother me.

You refer to one book. There are many. One savior, there have been many. A few prophets, there have been prophets by the thousands. All claiming they knew the intent of god, all disagreeing with each other. That is not a clear message.

Let me say though that I am morally opposed to blood sacrifices. If what you say is true, then God is remiss in good behavior.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Politico, One did. And the relevance is, One did. The proof is accuracy.

As one of the "weak minded" what prevented me from running amok before I gave my life to Christ?

Someone could have told you about karma. Hard to argue with karma.

And, if I was "running amok" like you when I was younger, a lie like this I would have never swallowed.

Maybe I am not against teaching bad kids about god. If nothing else is getting through to them, maybe some of them would benefit from being told this lie. I'm of the position that a lie is a lie no matter how good it is, and that we don't need this lie, but maybe some bad people in prison do need it.
OR, do they need social bonding and to learn how to socialize. I think the more I type the more I'm going to cme back to my position that a lie isn't necessary.

If you were a bad kid, maybe your parents should have spent more time with you. Instead of trying to invent an imaginary baby sitter who watches your kids when you should be, why don't you instead watch your kids.

Lots of atheists raise good kids because they spend time with them and they don't fill their heads with stuff they should know isn't true once they enter adulthood. Anyone who does is a little slow imo.

Perhaps your parents should have taught you how to read. The statement was made that religion keeps the weak minded from running amok. I asked what kept me from running amok before I had "religion".

Funny you don't believe in a life with Christ after you die, but you believe in a life that is determined by your behavior. It's very easy to argue with Karma since it doesn't exist.
Karma seems to pick and choose. How many bad people have lead a luxurious life, and died happy? How many good people's lives have been a struggle till the day they die? Karma does nothing for the living and nothing for the dead.

Christ doesn't make you come back as a bug because you were bad, or punish you life after life until you are perfect enough....

He forgives your mistakes while you are alive and takes you to your coronation as a Royal Heir when you die.

 

[PratchettFan]

Politico, One did. And the relevance is, One did. The proof is accuracy.

As one of the "weak minded" what prevented me from running amok before I gave my life to Christ?

Someone could have told you about karma. Hard to argue with karma.

And, if I was "running amok" like you when I was younger, a lie like this I would have never swallowed.

Maybe I am not against teaching bad kids about god. If nothing else is getting through to them, maybe some of them would benefit from being told this lie. I'm of the position that a lie is a lie no matter how good it is, and that we don't need this lie, but maybe some bad people in prison do need it.
OR, do they need social bonding and to learn how to socialize. I think the more I type the more I'm going to cme back to my position that a lie isn't necessary.

If you were a bad kid, maybe your parents should have spent more time with you. Instead of trying to invent an imaginary baby sitter who watches your kids when you should be, why don't you instead watch your kids.

Lots of atheists raise good kids because they spend time with them and they don't fill their heads with stuff they should know isn't true once they enter adulthood. Anyone who does is a little slow imo.

Perhaps your parents should have taught you how to read. The statement was made that religion keeps the weak minded from running amok. I asked what kept me from running amok before I had "religion".

Funny you don't believe in a life with Christ after you die, but you believe in a life that is determined by your behavior. It's very easy to argue with Karma since it doesn't exist.
Karma seems to pick and choose. How many bad people have lead a luxurious life, and died happy? How many good people's lives have been a struggle till the day they die? Karma does nothing for the living and nothing for the dead.

Christ doesn't make you come back as a bug because you were bad, or punish you life after life until you are perfect enough....

He forgives your mistakes while you are alive and takes you to your coronation as a Royal Heir when you die.

Then what is the point of living?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Egyptian god Osiris comes to mind (being a Stargate SG-1 fan heh.)

except that Osiris didn't come back from the dead.....he stayed dead.....unless you're just counting his penis, which Isis used as a dildo to impregnate herself.......

Everything Christianity claims about Jesus is found in prior religions about their central or primary figures.

and yet, that isn't true......sorry...

 

[PostmodernProph]

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

"16 other religions' "messiahs""

lol....from YOUR link above....

ATTENTION: The scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book.

in other words, its a typical atheistsRus source.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Episode of "Through the Wormhole" was about "what is nothing?" Point was made that once we give something a name, it's something, thus "nothing" is something called nothing. So doesn't God exist once we name it, give it personality and attributes, etc.? The wormhole doc explained how a true and perfect nothing is scientifically impossible. There's always something in any point in space. So how much does God have to encompass before we agree it exists in at least some way? We murder for God, die for God, how much more "real" does God need to be?

So then Santa is real too.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note:

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

and given that he's looking for people who will accept him without proof, I guess that proves he isn't looking for any atheists......

 

[The Irish Ram]

Someone could have told you about karma. Hard to argue with karma.

And, if I was "running amok" like you when I was younger, a lie like this I would have never swallowed.

Maybe I am not against teaching bad kids about god. If nothing else is getting through to them, maybe some of them would benefit from being told this lie. I'm of the position that a lie is a lie no matter how good it is, and that we don't need this lie, but maybe some bad people in prison do need it.
OR, do they need social bonding and to learn how to socialize. I think the more I type the more I'm going to cme back to my position that a lie isn't necessary.

If you were a bad kid, maybe your parents should have spent more time with you. Instead of trying to invent an imaginary baby sitter who watches your kids when you should be, why don't you instead watch your kids.

Lots of atheists raise good kids because they spend time with them and they don't fill their heads with stuff they should know isn't true once they enter adulthood. Anyone who does is a little slow imo.

Perhaps your parents should have taught you how to read. The statement was made that religion keeps the weak minded from running amok. I asked what kept me from running amok before I had "religion".

Funny you don't believe in a life with Christ after you die, but you believe in a life that is determined by your behavior. It's very easy to argue with Karma since it doesn't exist.
Karma seems to pick and choose. How many bad people have lead a luxurious life, and died happy? How many good people's lives have been a struggle till the day they die? Karma does nothing for the living and nothing for the dead.

Christ doesn't make you come back as a bug because you were bad, or punish you life after life until you are perfect enough....

He forgives your mistakes while you are alive and takes you to your coronation as a Royal Heir when you die.

Then what is the point of living?

Your Father wanted children. You are what Almighty God wanted. He wants to dance over you, and say, "Look at my boy. I am so pleased with him".
He can create universes, but you are His pride and joy. This portion of your eternity takes you from drinking milk to solid food. You mature in Christ here. You determine your status in the Royal Family here. He nurtures your heart here. You learn what love is here. This is your starting point.

 

[sealybobo]

the erroneous contention that all atheists believe "God does not exist" we have to add that the intelligent atheist will acknowledge that there may, in fact, be "gods" that are unlike those described and worshipped by people through the many organized religions of this world.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps your parents should have taught you how to read. The statement was made that religion keeps the weak minded from running amok. I asked what kept me from running amok before I had "religion".

Funny you don't believe in a life with Christ after you die, but you believe in a life that is determined by your behavior. It's very easy to argue with Karma since it doesn't exist.
Karma seems to pick and choose. How many bad people have lead a luxurious life, and died happy? How many good people's lives have been a struggle till the day they die? Karma does nothing for the living and nothing for the dead.

Christ doesn't make you come back as a bug because you were bad, or punish you life after life until you are perfect enough....

He forgives your mistakes while you are alive and takes you to your coronation as a Royal Heir when you die.

Then what is the point of living?

Your Father wanted children. You are what Almighty God wanted. He wants to dance over you, and say, "Look at my boy. I am so pleased with him".
He can create universes, but you are His pride and joy. This portion of your eternity takes you from drinking milk to solid food. You mature in Christ here. You determine your status in the Royal Family here. He nurtures your heart here. You learn what love is here. This is your starting point.

My father may have wanted children, but what he worked at was to raise an adult. That is love. What you are describing, I have no idea what it is but love it is not.