Disproving the existence of God

[A Tripolation]

When you say that you just want an answer and you don't care whether or not it's true, that is the exact opposite of the sentiment that makes science great.

 

I agree that science is great. I wouldn't be suffering through Introductory Quantum right now if I didn't think it was great.

 

I DO CARE if it's true. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. There are a certain set of questions that often arise that science cannot currently address or that science will never be able to address, due to the nature of those questions. To me, that doesn't mean that those questions are without substance or truth, just that we may never be able to have the answers to them. Religion provides those answers for people like me. Some aren't satisfied with those answers. That's cool, whatever. As long as you don't run around hurting people, I have no problem with your beliefs, be it Hinduism, Atheism, Wiccan, etc.

 

 

There's a quote from Sagan that I like which displays just about the opposite attitude: "I don't want to believe; I want to know."

 

Yes, unfortunately that's not possible for every question.

 

 

But the elevation of faith as a virtue-to say it's good because it doesn't care about verification-is almost the very definition of anti-science.

 

I greatly respect people that have faith when tragedy befalls them or something that should destroy their faith in God does not; in that instance, their faith is quite the virtue. You are either misrepresenting what I said, or I wasn't being clear enough.

[ydoaPs]

To me, that doesn't mean that those questions are without substance or truth, just that we may never be able to have the answers to them. Religion provides those answers for people like me.

Religion doesn't give answers either. It has no mechanism by which to come by the answers! Giving a response and giving an answer are not the same thing. Science saying "I don't know" is intellectually honest. Religion pretending like it has an answer when it doesn't know either is not. It's perfectly fine to say "I have no idea and there's currently no way to find out, so I'll believe x, y, and z", but to pretend "x, y, and z" are actual answers is not. To say that religion (which is no better suited to answer the questions than science) is the answer to the question because it doesn't have to check its answers with reality is not ok.

 

So, science has to check its answers. It goes to its axioms and justifies them. Like you said, it is dependent on facts. Science gives us a method of finding truth.

 

Religion gives us no such method. How is religion a better answer than just making stuff up yourself? Science might not be able to answer a question, but that doesn't mean religion can despite it pretending to.

[Moontanman]

Its a false comparison those people won't give you a method to falsify their claim, they just claim it, they don't provide a method to repeat those voices again and hence they cannot be passed on, that's why its not real knowledge while I have given you a method to repeat those experiences again and that experience can be passed on therefore it constitutes knowledge because such knowledge is repeatable. They won't say that angels will visit only when we walk backwards or in right angles so that we can perform and falsify their claim.

 

 

Yes they do give you a method to falsify their claims, they say if you believe hard enough pray for the revelation long and intensely enough and have faith god and or angels will appear to you, they speak in tongues and other interpret these tongues, they all claim it's as real as what you say. If he doesn't then is means you haven't believed hard enough. How is that different than your claims?

 

 

I had argued about this a year ago that this is not a hallucination but no one took it seriously and I expected it.

 

That is because your argument is bogus, your claim is no better than any other theists claims, dedicate your life to god, believe and have faith and god will appear. How is that different? Drugs are not necessary to produce hallucinations, intense belief can cause them as well.

 

 

 

The new discovery of Gospel of Judas says that it was Jesus himself who sent Judas Iscariot to bring the romans to his hiding place, it was God's plan and Jesus knew what was coming and only a divine man can dare to do such a thing knowing the consequences of it. He sacrificed himself to save the world for us. Judas didn't betrayed Jesus Christ, infact he was the only one who truly understood Jesus. Nothing is what it seems.

 

 

None the less how is a bad weekend a sacrifice if you know that not only are you coming back but you will sit at the right hand of god, if that was true you could skin me alive with a rusty knife, it would have only been a sacrifice if he was truly and permanently dead.

[A Tripolation]

Religion doesn't give answers either.

 

Yes, it does. If the answers are not to your satisfaction, then you should seek answers elsewhere.

 

 

None the less how is a bad weekend a sacrifice if you know that not only are you coming back but you will sit at the right hand of god

 

I don't think he knew that.

 

Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Edited January 13, 2012 by A Tripolation

[ydoaPs]

Yes, it does. If the answers are not to your satisfaction, then you should seek answers elsewhere.

Thank you for ignoring the entirety of my post.

[A Tripolation]

Thank you for ignoring the entirety of my post.

 

No need to address the rest since your basic premise was incorrect.

[ydoaPs]

No need to address the rest since your basic premise was incorrect.

"Premise" and "conclusion" are not synonyms.

[iNow]

Nor are "answers" and "stories" equivalent terms.

 

(this comment is directed at trip)

 

No need to address the rest since your basic premise was incorrect.

What about his premise do you find flawed? Stories are not the same thing as answers, yet you conflate them. Religion doesn't have to be right, so it's arbitrary. How is accepting it as if it were "true" anything other than intellectually dishonest?

[Appolinaria]

Speculating arbitrarily over the reason why we exist is not intellectually dishonest, a creator is on the same caliber as any other explanation simply because we have no evidence to point us in any direction. Whichever possible explanation sounds better to you doesn't make the other's idea less correct.

[A Tripolation]

Nor are "answers" and "stories" equivalent terms.

 

(this comment is directed at trip)

 

 

What about his premise do you find flawed? Stories are not the same thing as answers, yet you conflate them. Religion doesn't have to be right, so it's arbitrary. How is accepting it as if it were "true" anything other than intellectually dishonest?

 

They are a possible answer if you are to believe the holy texts. I really don't understand what is so confusing about this.

[immortal]

Yes they do give you a method to falsify their claims, they say if you believe hard enough pray for the revelation long and intensely enough and have faith god and or angels will appear to you, they speak in tongues and other interpret these tongues, they all claim it's as real as what you say. If he doesn't then is means you haven't believed hard enough. How is that different than your claims?

 

Yes you need to do it with the right frame of mind and the outcome depends on your approach to such knowledge. In Angels and Demons when Father asks Tom Hanks "Do you believe in God professor". Tom hanks says "I'm a research academic, faith is a gift of god which I'm yet to recieve". Even I was a atheist once, a fan of Richard Dawkins but there is this thing called human curiosity and I started studying the scriptures and my intellect just couldn't discard them easily, if science had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish.

 

These theistic models are for the gifted ones who have faith and once you have that gift these models provide a method to testify whether they are true or not and they go on to form the major religions of the world. This is how theism operates and should operate to ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine and can be passed on to others. So theists believe there is something which has to be investigated seriously and their testable methods provide a means to accumulate genuine knowledge favouring the existence of god and they don't accept anything just by blind faith, the methods are the key to differentiate genuine knowledge from invalid ones. This is not science but in no way this is intellectually dishonest.

 

That is because your argument is bogus, your claim is no better than any other theists claims, dedicate your life to god, believe and have faith and god will appear. How is that different? Drugs are not necessary to produce hallucinations, intense belief can cause them as well.

 

You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him.

 

Unfortunately this is how theism operates, theists have faith and revealations provide a means to testify those belief systems. Theism answers questions which science doesn't. When I ask "Does God exist?". I want a honest answer with evidence as to why he doesn't exist, I don't want answers like probably, may be he doesn't exist. Science can not show me God, religion can. Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast, if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith. I may not have a knowledge to upload a new language on to my mind and start speaking in it with out even taking time to learn about it but I have knowledge to show God to an another theist.

 

Hallucinations happen randomly during random times where as God's experience happens only when one is performing those yogic methods and not at other times. This shows there is a pattern in the observed data and this collection of testified data is the foundation for some of the major religions of the world. This is the reason it is so important in brain research to model such experiences and if you can stimulate my brain and induce a feeling of god's experience then I will have no problem in believing that it is just a mere hallucination and I will change my view. You haven't shown me that it is a hallucination either and therefore my argument still stands. Why should I take that default position and dismiss it completely.

 

None the less how is a bad weekend a sacrifice if you know that not only are you coming back but you will sit at the right hand of god, if that was true you could skin me alive with a rusty knife, it would have only been a sacrifice if he was truly and permanently dead.

 

But he didn't asked God to open up a new heaven for him as the price of his sacrifice, he didn't expect anything from God nor from anyone. He didn't asked that he wants to rule the earth and take control over the earth and enjoy its pleasure.

 

His body is permanently dead he came back with his spiritual body. We all are immortals he would have died permanently if we were mortals. Don't blame Jesus for not dieing permanently.

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

Yes you need to do it with the right frame of mind and the outcome depends on your approach to such knowledge. In Angels and Demons when Father asks Tom Hanks "Do you believe in God professor". Tom hanks says "I'm a research academic, faith is a gift of god which I'm yet to recieve". Even I was a atheist once, a fan of Richard Dawkins but there is this thing called human curiosity and I started studying the scriptures and my intellect just couldn't discard them easily, if science had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish.

 

These theistic models are for the gifted ones who have faith and once you have that gift these models provide a method to testify whether they are true or not and they go on to form the major religions of the world. This is how theism operates and should operate to ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine and can be passed on to others. So theists believe there is something which has to be investigated seriously and their testable methods provide a means to accumulate genuine knowledge favouring the existence of god and they don't accept anything just by blind faith, the methods are the key to differentiate genuine knowledge from invalid ones. This is not science but in no way this is intellectually dishonest.

 

You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him.

 

Unfortunately this is how theism operates, theists have faith and revealations provide a means to testify those belief systems. Theism answers questions which science doesn't. When I ask "Does God exist?". I want a honest answer with evidence as to why he doesn't exist, I don't want answers like probably, may be he doesn't exist. Science can not show me God, religion can. Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast, if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith. I may not have a knowledge to upload a new language on to my mind and start speaking in it with out even taking time to learn about it but I have knowledge to show God to an another theist.

 

Hallucinations happen randomly during random times where as God's experience happens only when one is performing those yogic methods and not at other times. This shows there is a pattern in the observed data and this collection of testified data is the foundation for some of the major religions of the world. This is the reason it is so important in brain research to model such experiences and if you can stimulate my brain and induce a feeling of god's experience then I will have no problem in believing that it is just a mere hallucination and I will change my view. You haven't shown me that it is a hallucination either and therefore my argument still stands. Why should I take that default position and dismiss it completely.

 

But he didn't asked God to open up a new heaven for him as the price of his sacrifice, he didn't expect anything from God nor from anyone. He didn't asked that he wants to rule the earth and take control over the earth and enjoy its pleasure.

 

His body is permanently dead he came back with his spiritual body. We all are immortals he would have died permanently if we were mortals. Don't blame Jesus for not dieing permanently.

 

 

 

"had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish."

Just because science doesn't have all the answers, that does not make religion any more valid.

 

"ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine"

 

What knowledge are you talking about? Religion has never offered any new information (other than untestable claims of an afterlife).

 

"You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him."

 

Why should anyone "surrender" to a god with no prior knowledge of him? Respect is mutual and earned.

 

You do not know me, would you surrender yourself to me in return for promises of eternal life? Even without knowing if I would keep my promises?

 

I have the advantage over a god, in that, you know that I exist so I don't even require you to make the leap of faith required for that

 

"Science can not show me God, religion can."

 

I suspect there's a good reason science can't show you god, science can't show me unicorns - LSD could. Is that a reason to take it?

 

Google "god spot" research is being done to "show" you god

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&site=&q=god+spot&oq=god+spot&aq=f&aqi=g5g-s2g2g-m1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1997l3463l0l4727l8l7l0l0l0l0l296l1263l1.0.5l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=43df0cd70b03fab&biw=747&bih=420

 

 

"Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast...."

 

Define "prove" - This falls short in my opinion

 

"....if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith."

 

So, it can only be proved if you already believe? Again, not really proof.

 

Once again, theists are not stupid and have had a long time to think this through. If religion was in anyway provable it would fall down.

 

Any evidence or proof can be said to be "gods will" or "a test of your faith"

[immortal]

"had answered all my questions it would have been easy for me to discard it and say they are talking rubbish."

Just because science doesn't have all the answers, that does not make religion any more valid.

No either one is right or the other is wrong. I had earlier made claims which if science proves then this belief system will be abandoned. Both religion and science simultaneously can not show god that would be a contradiction either religion has to show a personal god who is beyond the sense organs or science has to reduce such a phenomena to the brain and show a personal god at request in a laboratory. There is no bias here the challenge is which side of the people will be able to show a personal god is the real issue. It has nothing to do with answers which science has not yet answered.

 

"ensure that its knowledge is valid and genuine"

 

What knowledge are you talking about? Religion has never offered any new information (other than untestable claims of an afterlife).

 

The new information is that there is a method to reveal the personal god and therefore the existence of god can be faslified by repeating that method but unfortunately you have to believe in the method and have faith in him and that faith can be tested so this method is more suited to theists.

 

One has to pray the following verse in the begining of the method.

 

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

 

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

 

It means that the truth is hidden behind God's complex geometry of light rays and those light rays are preventing us from seeing him clearly and the ultimate truth so we should plead him to remove those impeding light rays and show us the path of righteousness

 

SURYANAMASKAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Stand facing the Sun with palms folded and

 

both the thumbs touching the chest.

 

Breathing: Inhale while raising the hands

 

and exhale as hands are brought down to

 

chest level.

 

 

 

* Om Hraam 'Udhyannadhyamitramahaha' Mitraya Namaha (Mitra - friend)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Raise hands upward, with feet firmly on

 

the ground, bend backwards, stretch arms

 

fully. Breathing: Inhale

 

 

 

* Om Hreem 'Aarohannuththaraamdivamm' Ravaye Namaha (Ravi - radiance)

 

 

 

 

 

3. Slowly bend forward, hands touching the earth

 

with respect, head touching the knees. Breathing:

 

Exhale.

 

* Om Hruum 'Hridrogam mama surya' Suryaya Namaha (Surya dispeller of

 

darkness)

 

 

 

 

 

4. Set both hands with the palms down firmly on the

 

ground, pull the left leg backward, raise the head

 

looking at the Sun, full weight resting on the two

 

palm and ten fingers. Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hraim 'Harimaanam cha naashaya' Bhanave Namaha (Bhanu Shining

 

with luster)

 

 

 

 

 

5. Bring right leg back close to left leg, keeping

 

hands and legs straight, bend the body at the hip

 

forming an arch, just like a mountain, known as

 

'parvathasan or mountain pose'. Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hroum 'Shukeshu May Harimaanamm' Khagaya Namaha (Khaga all

 

pervading)

 

 

 

 

 

6. Stretch yourself fully on the ground in the

 

Saashtanga Namaskar pose (all eight 'anga' or

 

parts of the body on the ground head, thigh,

 

eyes (sight), mind, word, feet, hands and ears

 

(hearing)). In reality, feet, knees, thighs, chest,

 

forehead touch the ground with the hands

 

stretched out and in folded position, with your

 

mind and thoughts on the full namaskar, then

 

slowly turn the head to the sides first to left and

 

then to right so that each ear touches the ground.

 

Breathing: Inhale first and then Exhale fully.

 

 

 

* Om Hraha 'Ropanaakaasu dhadhmasi' Pooshne Namaha (Pushan mystic

 

fire which gives)

 

 

 

 

 

7. Slowly raise the head, bend backward as much as

 

possible, hands straight, in the cobra pose.

 

Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hraam 'Atho Haaridraveshu May' Hiranyagarbhaya Namaha

 

(hiranyagarbha golden colored)

 

 

 

 

 

8. Parvathasan same as Step 5. Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hreem 'Harimaanannidhadhmasi' Marichaye Namaha (Marichi Ray of

 

light)

 

 

 

 

 

9. Same as Step 4 with the difference that the right

 

leg is brought forward. Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hruum 'Udagaadhayamaadithyah' Adityaya Namaha (Aditya Sun,

 

aspect of Vishnu, Son of Aditi.

 

 

 

 

10. Same as Step 3 Breathing: Exhale

 

* Om Hraim 'Vishwena Sahasaa Saha' Savitre Namaha (Savitru Light of

 

enlightenment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Same as Step 2 Breathing: Inhale

 

* Om Hroum 'Dwishantham Mama Randhayann' Arkaya Namaha (Arkah a ray

 

of light, a flash of lightning, Sun)

 

 

 

 

 

12. Same as Step 1 Breathing: Exhale, Inhale and

 

Exhale.

 

* Om Hraha 'Mo Aham dwishatho Rattham' Bhaskaraya Namaha (Bhaskara

 

Shining Light)

 

( Caution: This exercise has to be performed under the guidance of a master I am not responsible for any side effects on your body if you do not do it correctly and approach it with egoistic mind and the verses given in asterisk should be silently uttered in mind while one is performing the exercise and this has to performed two times in a day morning and evening)

 

 

"You don't deserve such knowledge from god if you think he doesn't deserve to be worshipped of and if you won't dedicate your life and surrender yourself to him."

 

Why should anyone "surrender" to a god with no prior knowledge of him? Respect is mutual and earned.

 

You do not know me, would you surrender yourself to me in return for promises of eternal life? Even without knowing if I would keep my promises?

 

I have the advantage over a god, in that, you know that I exist so I don't even require you to make the leap of faith required for that

 

Yes no one would believe in it blindly and I'm not fooling around here, this method has a history of 5000 years and there are genuine information available about it. You can research on it and decide for yourself whether he deserves to be worshipped or not and again faith is a gift and I can not give you that but I can provide information about it History, Surya Namaskara and its Origins.

 

 

"Science can not show me God, religion can."

 

I suspect there's a good reason science can't show you god, science can't show me unicorns - LSD could. Is that a reason to take it?

 

Google "god spot" research is being done to "show" you god

http://www.google.co...biw=747&bih=420

 

Yes in my OP I had mentioned about the work of Dr.Presinger, I am quite aware of this research and it was this research which forced me to start this thread. The point is if neurologists can show a personal god at request in a lab then this belief system will be destroyed and we can say religious experiences are nothing more than hallucinations happening in the temporal lobe of the brain. This is the challenge.

 

"Science doesn't seem like disproving the existence of god with its current attitude where as religion can prove his existence for the theists atleast...."

 

Define "prove" - This falls short in my opinion

 

"....if it can not prove it universally since not everyone seems to have the gift of faith."

 

So, it can only be proved if you already believe? Again, not really proof.

 

Once again, theists are not stupid and have had a long time to think this through. If religion was in anyway provable it would fall down.

 

Any evidence or proof can be said to be "gods will" or "a test of your faith"

 

 

A thing is a proof if it works always and not for some instances only.

 

God should always appear if we perform the method with the right frame of mind believing in him and surrendering yourself to him because God himself had said that I will always appear to those people who study the "Isopanishad" scripture and understand the truth behind it. So he has to appear to keep up his words.

Edited January 13, 2012 by immortal

[iNow]

a creator is on the same caliber as any other explanation

Actually, no it's really not, but okay. We've digressed to a point in this thread where somehow making up any damned thing you want is being presented as equivalent to truth, where completely childish nonsense fictions with absolutely zero evidence or reason to accept them are being conflated with "answers," and where otherwise intelligent people have completely abandoned all rationality and reason.

 

Really, what's the point of carrying on the conversation? I'm talking to children who think Puff the Magic dragon is a fucking historical creature that actually existed, and that anyone who claims otherwise just hasn't "surrendered" enough or is being rude for not accepting that this is a different "magisteria" equally worthy of respect.

Edited January 13, 2012 by iNow

[Tres Juicy]

A thing is a proof if it works always and not for some instances only.

 

So by your own definition this is not proof, since it only works if you believe it's going to work.

 

What you're describing is the placebo effect.

 

 

Caution: This exercise has to be performed under the guidance of a master I am not responsible for any side effects on your body if you do not do it correctly and approach it with egoistic mind

 

Also, it's very "convenient" that what appear to be simple movements coupled with breathing (something I do very well) can only be done under the supervision of a "master", if thats the case, how did the "master" learn them??

 

Likely a "get out clause" in the event that I try it and fail to reproduce any effect

Edited January 13, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[immortal]

So by your own definition this is not proof, since it only works if you believe it's going to work.

 

What you're describing is the placebo effect.

 

 

The proof works quite fine for a theist who believes in it and you don't have to believe in it if you think it doesn't deserve such respect, you can believe and take it seriously once a theist gains some knowledge and brings such phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry. In this way it works for all instances even if you don't believe in it.

 

Also, it's very "convenient" that what appear to be simple movements coupled with breathing (something I do very well) can only be done under the supervision of a "master", if thats the case, how did the "master" learn them??

 

Likely a "get out clause" in the event that I try it and fail to reproduce any effect

 

 

The master learned from his master and he learned from his master in this way this knowledge has been passed on for thousands of years and forms a huge collection of data which needs to be investigated, this was just a small step which I showed, the giant leap is yet to come by doing further research. That knowledge came from god because the upanishads and vedas have no author. In other words the God guided their intellect to write such verses.

[Appolinaria]

1326471040[/url]' post='650890']

Actually, no it's really not, but okay. We've digressed to a point in this thread where somehow making up any damned thing you want is being presented as equivalent to truth, where completely childish nonsense fictions with absolutely zero evidence or reason to accept them are being conflated with "answers," and where otherwise intelligent people have completely abandoned all rationality and reason.

 

Really, what's the point of carrying on the conversation? I'm talking to children who think Puff the Magic dragon is a fucking historical creature that actually existed, and that anyone who claims otherwise just hasn't "surrendered" enough or is being rude for not accepting that this is a different "magisteria" equally worthy of respect.

 

Can you tell me why we exist? What's beyond the universe? Why there was a Big Bang?

Until then belief in a creator or puff the magic dragon are equally feasible. Until you can give me evidence supporting the contrary for any of these concepts you have no right to consider any of them less rational than the other. Your argument is based on biased opinion just as much as a theistic approach is, so you arent any more intellectually honest than any theist. There is a difference between saying "I dont know" and saying "your beliefs are childish and intellectually dishonest". Any concept is fair game until scientific answers are given. Respect, tolerance, and an open mind should be exercised until then.

[JustinW]

What I was asking had nothing to do with that, it's Jesus's support of slavery and his assertions about the old laws like stoning unruly children and his many referrals to the old testament in some of these he claims Genesis is true, this kills any possible divinity for Jesus, he supported slavery, one of the most immoral practices humans have ever come up with. He was in a unique position to do something about slavery but he didn't he supported it. He does make those claims, that ties him in with the OT, no way around it, he supported the same morality of the OLD testament.

 

Are you really shocked that Jesus supported the Old Testament Moontanman? Have you forgotten that He was a Jew? Also what makes you think that slaves were thought of to be morally wrong in those times. As far as I know the question of morallity when it came to slavery only came into play in the last several hundred years. Unless there was a debate about it before then that I have missed.

 

Science may not be able to provide answers that satisfy you but there are answers to those questions, they just don't involve a god.

Science can provide the answer to the reason we are here? I'm not so sure. Science may provide an answer as to how we have come to be here, but I don't think it will tell us WHY we are here. That is a question that is left to a creator. If there is no creator then the simple answer would be that there isn't a reason or meaning to our existance.

[A Tripolation]

I'm talking to children who think Puff the Magic dragon is a fucking historical creature that actually existed

 

I would love to see the records that state that Puff the Magic dragon existed in reality.

 

If you really are not aware of the roman records pertaining to Jesus, I suggest you read up on them before dismissing the existence of a highly political and influential human such as Jesus Christ.

[iNow]

Yes, because THAT's my biggest challenge of abrahamic religion... I don't think that there was a dude named jesus. I've clearly just been checked and mated.

[Moontanman]

I would love to see the records that state that Puff the Magic dragon existed in reality.

 

If you really are not aware of the roman records pertaining to Jesus, I suggest you read up on them before dismissing the existence of a highly political and influential human such as Jesus Christ.

 

 

Trip, I doubt the existence of any historical figure would have been given any credence with as little evidence as there is for Christ, his place in the Christian religion assures this. One thing is for certain there is very little evidence for his historical existence and all of that dates from after he was dead and relies on second or third hand reports at best and none of them verify him being a deity.

[phantom]

"Science can't show you unicorns because science never looked for one."

 

You should be able to figure out what is a unicorn from the following description of a unicorn's horn:

 

"The Unicorns horn is sometimes eight foot and more in length, others of a smaller size; they are very sharp pointed, running taper all along, and twisted of the colour of Ivory, and very white within, they are not of a four leg'd Creature, like to a horse, but come from a Fish, and therefore a Sea-Unicorn; they are brought from the Straits Davids, near the North Passage." - Berlu, John Jacob, The treasury of drugs unlock'd, or, A full and true description of all sorts of drugs and chymical preparations sold by druggists ...., 1690.

 

Do you still think you need LSD?

 

"Google "god spot" research is being done to "show" you god"

 

Did Moses have one of these God Helmets or did his wife explain to him the meaning of G Spot?

[qsa]

I would love to see the records that state that Puff the Magic dragon existed in reality.

 

If you really are not aware of the roman records pertaining to Jesus, I suggest you read up on them before dismissing the existence of a highly political and influential human such as Jesus Christ.

 

let me ask you a hypothetical question. If in ten or twenty years time a theory is found that reality is a very natural process and does not need any creator and becomes the mainstream. Will you concede, or will you still believe in God b/c that is your choice no matter.

[iNow]

Any concept is fair game until scientific answers are given. Respect, tolerance, and an open mind should be exercised until then.

It's a bit sad that I have to recycle this point so many times, but here it is yet again.

 

I DON'T have to respect everyones opinion. I don't respect people who have the opinion that having sex with animals is okay. I don't respect people who have the opinion that all women want to be raped. I don't respect people who have the opinion that people with darker skin are inferior, and I don't respect people who have the opinion that putting cats into microwaves is a fun way to spend a Saturday.

 

I don't have to respect your beliefs. If you believed that murdering infants would end global warming, must I respect that? If you believed that raping 12 year old boys would end poverty, must I respect that? If you believed that burning puppies alive would result in world peace, must I respect that?

 

No. We shouldn't respect other peoples beliefs, especially when they're ridiculous (like belief in god, or those just mentioned above).

 

What I do respect is your RIGHT to believe whatever you want. That is fine. That is your freedom. That is your choice. Your beliefs belong to you, and I respect that, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. Do you agree with this, or do you think I am mistaken? Should I respect the beliefs of a person who thinks that pouring acid on a young girls face is the correct path to purity and piety? I suspect you understand what I'm getting at here, and I hope you realize that the same approach applies to people's beliefs in deities.

 

The beliefs themselves are often quite silly and deserving of no respect whatsoever. I will defend to my death your freedom to believe whatever you want, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves... and let's state the obvious here... I DON'T respect beliefs about a magic sky dictator who says we're born evil and must worship him like a bully would... beliefs which are held purely based on fantasy and no evidence whatsoever.

 

No, when people hold that opinion, I don't respect that opinion, nor do I respect the other opinions I listed above. I guess that's where we differ.

 

Sure... By all means, let's be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out and we stop using them.

 

Religion doesn't give answers either. It has no mechanism by which to come by the answers! Giving a response and giving an answer are not the same thing. Science saying "I don't know" is intellectually honest. Religion pretending like it has an answer when it doesn't know either is not. It's perfectly fine to say "I have no idea and there's currently no way to find out, so I'll believe x, y, and z", but to pretend "x, y, and z" are actual answers is not. To say that religion (which is no better suited to answer the questions than science) is the answer to the question because it doesn't have to check its answers with reality is not ok.

 

So, science has to check its answers. It goes to its axioms and justifies them. Like you said, it is dependent on facts. Science gives us a method of finding truth.

 

Religion gives us no such method. How is religion a better answer than just making stuff up yourself? Science might not be able to answer a question, but that doesn't mean religion can despite it pretending to.

This was an excellent post. I'm sorry nobody seems to have taken notice.

[A Tripolation]

Trip, I doubt the existence of any historical figure would have been given any credence with as little evidence as there is for Christ, his place in the Christian religion assures this. One thing is for certain there is very little evidence for his historical existence and all of that dates from after he was dead and relies on second or third hand reports at best and none of them verify him being a deity.

 

I'm sorry. I don't understand this post at all.