Posts by Love

JWs are a cult. Absolutely. By any definition I have ever seen. If you check the web, you'll find many lists of cult behaviors- and the JWs match all or the vast majority of each list.

Love_Truth- believes all religions are cults, some more than others.

16

Can a Skeptic believe in God?

by Beans in

recently i got the winter edition magazine of the ontario skeptic news and found a great six page article on "can a skeptic believe in god?

and what a great read it was, some of the points were well versed.

it went into some detail of believers and non believers arguing about god, what i found interesting was how at the end of the argument both sides would have felt they had won the argument.

Love_Truth

Sure, I'm a skeptic and believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Now, if one carries skepticism or cynicism so far that they refuse to be objective, they will probably never be very convinced of anything.

Love_Truth- Theist and "Healthy Skeptic".

33

Do you really know what you believe?

by Leolaia in

there is a thought-provoking article on religion in the latest issue of skeptical inquirer.

i thought i'd share this quote which bears on jw issues in an interesting way:.

"do people know what their religious concepts are?

Love_Truth

Lots of ways to answer that.

First, is it possible to know anything? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the answer is yes.

Then I hold beliefs I know to be true, (yes)

and,

I hold beliefs I think to be true, a conclusion based on observable evidence, leading to knowledge, or "knowing". (another yes)

Second, do I know what I believe, in the sense that I have knowledge of my beliefs to the extent that I am currently convinced of them? (Still another yes.)

Third, if we assume that all knowledge is opinion, or conclusions based on observable (and non-observable) evidence, leading to a philosophy, or understanding of the "way things are", then we have knowledge, and in that sense we "know".

That's why I often state that we all believe, or have faith, in something(s), whether we be theist or atheist. In the general terms, all belief systems are "religions". Everyone has a belief system, or philosophy, and places a certain amount of faith in that philosophy.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Good afternoon Abaddon,

I see you?re your usual cranky self this morning! I?m not going to debate endlessly with you what your opinion is verses what my opinion is. The subject of this thread is God does exist. IMO, you have said enough in this thread and in others for me to come to my conclusion that you will always find a way to explain away God, even if he appeared to you. You said as much yourself with your reference to hallucination. The cynic and skeptic in you requires nothing short of a 2 x 4 upside your head, just to get your attention, Afterwards, given time to heal, you would convince yourself it never happened, that it was a figment of your imagination. So, maybe for your sake, God will grant your wish and present you with a ?flaming daffodil?, lol, to get your attention. I can only hope you wouldn?t explain it away as a figment of your imagination. Remember, God might not allow the video recorder, as it requires faith to please him well.

Well, actually you tend to equate people who don't share your beliefs with moral derrangement of some sort, and imply that those who don't share yuour beliefs had better watch out when the end comes, so there is a difference; I don't equate your unsubstansiated beliefs with your individual morality.

I willl concede that I do believe there are things necessary for salvation, yet, it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us as individuals.

I assert there is no proof (of an objective nature) that god exists. This is a pretty widely accepted fact.

And I assert there is proof of an objective nature (Creation and physical laws) that God exists. This is also a pretty widely accepted fact.

It all boils down to this- you take a view based on your ?choice? evidence and conclusions available today. So do I- yet I include the knowledge that nearly all sciences and beliefs have been proven in error, to one degree or another, as time marches on.

What, you mean, like religion? Of course, you include natural philosophy with science, and I don't, and I have never argued that science is without error. All I point out is that it is less liable to error than belief systems which are as provable as something someone makes up.

Belief in Creation, IMO, is more provable based on observable evidence than evolution theory is. However, even if the gaping holes in evolution theory were filed in, it would not negate Creation- it would simply explain a different view of how creation was accomplished, not disprove Creation.

You seem to assert you have the correct understanding of the Bible and that there is only one way to god and those not following that way will suffer adverse consequences. Seems the Universe, in your head, is whirling around you.

Wrong. I assert what I believe to be the ?correct? understanding of the Bible. Should I not believe what I assert? I have not said there is only one way to God- in fact, in recent thread started by Sirona, I stated that I believe that following Jesus Christ?s teachings is more likely to provide salvation than not following Him. Again, I believe it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us as individuals.

God still is the best explanation we have. (We obviously define ?we? differently). There are no ?better ones? just different ones, all requiring ? an impossible amount of explaining, rather than actually being a solution?.

Obviously 'we' disagree. I can show theories that explain how the Univese came to be, and how it developed from that point. Many of these are experimentally verifiable or well attested to in nature. You, on the other hand, waze a historically inaccurate book about, say its god's word, and say that your interpretation is the right one, without being ablke to prove it. In what distorted Universe do those two stances qualify as equally valid explanations? That is a rhetorical question, shall I post the definition for that too?

That?s not a rhetorical question, as it begs an answer. The same theories you can show (or other generally accepted ones) that are verifiable and well attested to can be used to verify Creation, which in turn, supports, nay, proves, the existence of God,. That you choose to believe the evolution theory conclusion is your prerogative; that I choose to believe the Creation conclusion, based on the same evidence, is my prerogative. Again, I must remind you that the two, in any case, are not mutually exclusive. Next, you talk about a theoretically ?historically inaccurate book?, the Bible. It has not been proven historically inaccurate. That you choose to accept only that conclusion is telling, in light of the fact that there are alternate conclusions that support the Bible?s historical record. Therefore, yes, I do say it?s God?s word. As for my ?interpretation? that?s actually a misnomer, since I believe anything in the Bible that requires interpretation is not necessary for salvation. That?s not to say I don?t interpret parts of the Bible, just that I don?t get dogmatic about my interpretation, because no interpretation can be proven until after that which requires interpretation has been fulfilled. So, because the ?two stances? you alluded to are not my stance, but only you hypothetical stances, the ?distorted universe? is one of your own imagination.

Evolutionists, physicists, chronologists, archaeologists, etc can?t agree amongst themselves, why hold theists to a different standard?

There is a difference, and jokes about your lack of wit (all definitions) aside, you're probably intelligent enough to realise that the methods of determining facts and formulating theories are the same amongst some you mention, and that whilst there may be disputations of detail, the general theory of evolution is not generally disputed...

The general theory of evolution is disputed. Millions dispute it. ?The Devil is in the details?, and those details are at the heart of the disputes. There is no proof of one species becoming another; the fossil record does not show incremental, slow change in organisms of any type. Rather, the fossil record shows a sudden jump from one genetic organism, species, or type, to an appreciably different one.

there is total agreement about all aspects of physics we can test experimentaly, and wide argeement about the theory that we can't test. No one's saying the Univese flew out of someone's arse. Dating is an increasingly precise art... archaeology is more open to disputation by its very nature, but the fact is that theists are held to a different standard as their experimental foundation is non-existant, so your above comparison is a bad one.

Wrong again. Quark theory is one area, as an example, where there is much disagreement. The ?Big Bang? theory is yet another. Dating is an increasingly precise art? Not so. There is so much work to be done in that area that any presumption of accuracy, as to whether it is accurate, not accurate, whether it?s getting more or less accurate, is all subject to much speculation. That is a science truly in it?s infancy. Theists ?experimental foundation? is the same as atheists. I look at the same studies and research that is available to everyone else.

And ?some nutter? kills both ?in the name of God? and for many other reasons.

Yours is a specious argument if there ever were one.

If it's so specious, how come you are incapable of demonstrating how it is not fair, sound or true? Your assertions are worthless, back them up.

I did so, perhaps you missed it. Analyzing violent crime, the majority of those were not perpetrated by someone who claimed ?God made him do it?. Google it yourself. Or was your point something other than that?

More of Abaddon?s game playing. Neither can you irrefutably prove your views.

So I have ?tired old excuses? and you have ?new excuses?. Give me a break! You are a broken record!

The ones I assert are irrefutable (like 'no objective proof of god') are irrefutable.

I?ve already refuted that statement numerous times in this post (above).

Others are opinions, but they are opinions backed by facts, not opinions backed by opinions based on some book that can't even get a Global Flood right.

Likewise. Mine are opinions based on the same facts; different conclusions based on the same evidence. The Global flood has been disputed, true, but it has not been dis-proven. Numerous cultures tell of a Global Flood, and the geological evidence of a Great flood is overwhelming.

And you still haven't answered, how come if you are right ,

why is your arguement indestinguishable from many religionists now and before you?

OK. My argument is very distinguishable from others, perhaps you?re jumping to your desired conclusion- open your eyes and mind. I am not a ?religionist?, unless you consider my individually following the teachings of Jesus Christ as being one. I think of myself as a non-denomonational Christian.

why god is something it is even possible to have an arguement about the existance of and how this status quo is fair or logical if god is benevolent?

Big question, there Abaddon. Here?s my answer in a nutshell (I?m sure you?ll ?require? more, but this post is rather lengthy already). The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence. Now, on to the tough part- the ?status quo? is fair as explained in the Bible. Adam, being perfect, forsook perfection, and passed it on to his offspring (us). God so loved us, He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us by way of his sacrifice. He taught us what is necessary for salvation, and recorded it in the Bible, his written word. The troubles we see around us are symptomatic of mankind?s imperfection, not caused by God. The time will come (or happens at Death, depending on interpretation) when God will judge us each as individuals, and reward or punish us based on his judgment. Now, back to interpretation. If our judgment happens at Death, then our reward (or punishment) may take place anywhere, anytime- it could be a parallel universe, a future time, a sprit world, etc, etc, etc. On the other hand, if the day of judgment is at a future appointed time, then the same possibilities exist, though in the future, not at Death (or at Death, as is the case with us, that our Death is in the future). As for ?logical? and ?benevolent?, I trust that we are imperfect, and He is perfect, therefore, our logic is imperfect, and His perfect. So his benevolence is certain.

When God is ready, he will undeniably reveal himself to all.

That's a prophecy! If it isn't, what is it, cottage cheese?

OK, you got me there (savor the flavor). I have faith, I believe, that he will reveal Himself to all.

The Bible is accurate.

Accurate as in 'asserts certain events happened in a time frame that there is no evidence for them happening in'? That sort of accurate?

Ah, but there is evidence, just as I pointed out earlier. Same evidence, yet different conclusions.

Creation is not a myth.

Oh, well that settles it... NOT ; my point is (as I think you know) is that rather obviously the account in Genesis is a mythic account of Creation, not an accurate description of Creation. If you dispute that line up with the YEC's and the appearance of age posse in the queue for a clue.

It?s not ?rather obvious?, Abaddon. I (and many others) don?t take the ?Creative Days? literally, as a 24-hour period (how could anyone, in light of the evidence?), rather, each Creative Day was an undetermined period of time. I see absolutely nothing ?mythical? in the Genesis account of Creation.

My conviction stems from evidence as well.

Evidence that is objective, demonstrable, reliable, verifiable and repeatable? Okay, please provide evidence the Flood happened when it said it did... you do after all hold the Bible to be accurate , and I can post the definiton of this word if you like. Of course, we know you can't, as it's a myth, but it'll be fun you trying!!

Yes, evidence that is demonstrable, reliable, verifiable and repeatable. The same evidence your pet conclusion is based on. Same evidence, different conclusions.

?Choose Wisely? is not a threat. Since when is it?

I disagree; you say choose wisely as you believe if I don't I will suffer adverse consequences. You might not deliver the adverse consequences but you pointing them out is still a threat.

I say ?choose wisely? as much to myself as to everyone else. To regularly question or choices is wise, IMO. There is always a threat of adverse consequences, or beneficial ones, based on our choices.

?I had a factual example and you don't doesn't actually work... I can no longer be bothered to carry on typing...

Your examples have been no more or less factual than mine, Abaddon. We use the same evidence, yet come to different conclusions.

Oh, come on Loves_Truth, you know I'm utterly unbothered by your behaviour, I don't respect your opinions enough to care about them, as they are poorly founded in other areas and are no less likely to be equally poorly founded when it applies to me. Insult away, your philosophy of ashes is really not that scarey.

Clearly not the case, Abaddon- you?re in denial. I?ll be the first here to try and keep things civil between us. Is that sio much to ask? You are as much to blame as I am for spirited discussions- I don?t mind them, but it seems to stir up the others here, so I?ll do my best to keep the sarcasm and wit to a simmer. I trust you?ll do likewise (really, I expect that you?ll be an @!#&^%*#@!!! again, but here?s to hoping!)

You wouldn?t be having these lengthy conversations with me if you didn?t care about the substance of my arguments or opinions, Abaddon. Be honest, you enjoy a good debate as much as I do.

Anyhow, as you observed in another thread, I can say the same of you- I?m sure we?d be like old pals over a beer or spliff, or better yet, both. I hold no animosity or resentment towards anyone here. There are some things, like facial expression, body language, vocal inflections, laughter, etc, that are challenging to express and observe readily in such a forum as this.

Bottom line, Abaddon- you?re not so bad for an atheist.

Love_truth- extends hand, not for handshake, but to pass the ?peace pipe?.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

LittleToe:

I?ll start off by saying I respect your opinions and your ability to express yourself while causing much less of a stir than me (though it?s only these sorts of threads that cause said ?stir?). You?re a good man, IMO.

You beat me to the punch, because I intended making mention of the fact that you probably find my posting style equally unsettling. Alas, I had to go out. I said I take "issue" with, not that I'm offended, coz I'm not. It's a shame that you find me "offensive" to you, because of assumed Political Correctness. I'm not PC (my theology leans towards Calvinism, much to Abaddon's chagrin - LOL), but suspect that I'm a darned sight more tactful.

Yes, I do find some of the statements you make ?unsettling? (not offensive, I mis-spoke). But that?s your right to do so, and I don?t make an issue of it. Yes, you indeed may be more tactful, and probably are. This is the first board I?ve posted on that (how do I say this?) has such a high level of sensitivity, IMO, towards Christians (and conservatives), and at the same time, the usual standards of conduct for others. But then, as I?ve mentioned previously, I?ve only posted on MSN?s Fray (politics, and religion as it pertains to politics) boards before, so my experiences are limited to those and JWD. So, I?m learning what causes a stir here, (albeit slowly, so please continue to be patient with me).

Regarding your definitions of "faith", I suspect that they are inadequate. "4" might be the nearest to the mark, for me, but still doesn't cut it, IMHO.

Thanks for that comment/clarification. I?ve already used that as an example of the fact that in order to explain our individual belief and faith in God, we can?t be pigeonholed into just one definition (or set of definitions) as to how we have faith and belief that God does exist.

Christianity is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It?s about telling it like it is.

Oh? And here I was thinking it was all about Jesus. The "way" is not supposed to be a cause of offense for the sake of causing offense. Is it not, rather, the message that often causes offense?

Why wrap up "grace" in a 10 megaton warhead? Just so you can say that you disturbed and offended people, when there was no need?

It is about Jesus, and following his example. Correct. If I cause offense, it is not intentionally, I assure you. I agree that it is the message that causes many to be offended. For instance, 1 Cor 6:9,10 causes many to be offended these days, but we, as Christians, must not hold back from teaching truth. My intent is never to start a ?war? (your reference to ?warhead?), nor is it to disturb, but rather, to point out what Jesus and his Apostles taught.

The JW's historically attempted to bring persecution on themselves, so that they could point to it and say they were "God's people". Were they correct?

Nope. They were not persecuted for His name?s sake.

I am not a troll.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I made no such statement. Quite the contrary.

I know that. I was clarifying the fact for others, who you say were questioning whether I was.

What ?folks bring into question? is their inability to listen to a differing viewpoint without being offended by it

On the contrary, they bring into question your ability to deliver your viewpoint in an inoffensive manner.(Col.4:6)

I feel that offense has been taken, on occasion, to what I have written for both reasons- sometimes, because of the way I expressed myself (and I?ll get better at that here); other times, because of the Scriptural content or my belief in said content.

Nonetheless... every blessing, in Christ,
Ross.

Right back at you, Ross! Again, I truly respect your style, and even where I disagree with your interpretation, I don?t take issue with interpretations. After all, as I?ve said so many times before, the things necessary for salvation don?t need interpretation, IMHO.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Rem,

Yes, perhaps we?ll all get together over a few brews or something to meet one of these days. That would be great!

The first fallacy reference (appeal to authority) was a joke?.

OK, fine. I meant the ?appeal to authority? in a broad sense. I don?t usually bring up ?expert opinions? unless someone else brings them up first. But you are correct- the instance you referred to (regarding my post) was not technically an appeal to authority. (It flirts with such an appeal, however, IMO).

The second fallacy reference (red herring) was not a joke ?Your argument is a red herring because you brought in an irrelevant definition of faith that no one else was discussing. *Your* faith may be defined as numbers one through 6 (incidentally exempting 3 & 5 - do only you get to pick and choose?), but that's not the point. The point is that the rest of us were using the word "faith" in a narrowly defined sense, that of definition #2.

Again, that?s not the case- it was not irrelevant, and there are others discussing and defining their faith per the definitions I posted. (One example: ? Regarding your definitions of "faith", I suspect that they are inadequate. "4" might be the nearest to the mark, for me, but still doesn't cut it, IMHO.? -LittleToe ). As for how I define my faith, yes, I do get to pick and choose how I define it, and so do you, and everyone else, as individuals. That is exactly the point. You are presuming to speak for everyone else on this thread, and limit how they define faith. Definition #2 doesn?t cut it, and here?s just one reason why- ? Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.? My faith, as well as many (most?) others is based on logical proof or material evidence- the Creation, the physical Laws, the answered prayers (yes, to believers, answered prayers can result in material evidence, if only to the individual), etc. I will perhaps expand on this in a later post.

To make the claim that an atheist also has faith based on other definitions of the word is irrelevant (red herring) and I thought my "Bastard" reference made that clear.

Wrong, as discussed above. I?m not blaming you, but you may not realize that you are attempting to pigeonhole the discussion into boundaries that you feel comfortable within, without consideration for fellow posters on this thread who don?t share your single definition of faith.

In English words can have multiple meanings, so it is important to keep our definitions clear if we are going to have a productive discussion. Just to make it clear, when we talk about "faith" we are talking about belief without evidence.

Again, ?we?, meaning all of us on this thread, are free to define faith as we experience it. This thread is about belief in God, therefore, those of us who do believe in Him must do so within the context of how we came to have faith, not how you came to not have faith in God.

This is not something that can be applied to an atheist regarding non-belief in god because faith in this sense requires a positive belief. Otherwise you'd have to say that I have to have faith to not believe in the invisible pink unicorns in your basement. I find that type of reasoning stretching the term past the limits of nearly universal use of the word.

Wrong. You are attempting to pigeonhole the meaning of faith, as I?ve pointed out. My argument for faith and belief in God is not that you have to prove he does not exist (I?ve seen other posters ask that, but that is not my reason for belief in Him). So I?ll let you slide on that one (putting words in my mouth- you know that?s a fallacy, right?)

I trust that now you can see how, in discussing the existence of God, one must be able to argue for His existence within the frame that they themselves have come to believe in Him. In my case, I believe in Creation, and I look out my window and believe, and have faith in Him. So, for me, my belief in Him comes down to observing His Creation, His fixed physical laws, His answers to prayers, His gift of sending his Son as a Ransom sacrifice, His inspiration of His word, the Bible, as His written communication to us. I can only speak for myself, others may have other reasons for faith and belief in Him.

By the way, thanks for keeping it civil.

Regards,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

rem ,

Your dictionary games (appeal to authority? lol) are tiresome. Where did you learn this technique? Sixth grade?
All this time we have been discussing "faith" we've been using the word as described in definition number two. The fact that the word "faith" has multiple definitions does not give you license to go off on a red herring and apply an alternate definition of the word to atheists. I hope you don't think yourself overly clever, you little bastard.

My faith (and many others) is based on definitions 1,2,4 & 6, not just # 2:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

So your attempt to dismiss the meaning(s) of the word ?faith? is disingenuous and not pertinent to the argument at hand.

Now, as for this:

bas·tard
n.

1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable.

Note that I used "bastard" as described in definition #3. I hope (gasp, have faith?) you won't object on grounds that you weren't born out of wedlock. (I don't really think you are a bastard... at least I'd never call you that to your face. You look like you could beat my ass) :)

My Mom and Dad were married a few weeks before my birth, so I?m technically not a bastard, but I?m not easily offended by that term (I nearly am one). http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/66430/1033409/post.ashx#1033409 I would never willfully fight anyone except in self-defense (though sometimes my quick temper causes me to do things I later regret). Believe me, I?m a pussycat over a few beers Just don?t get me started on politics or religion.

Note, that I have no problem applying the word "faith" to myself as it stands in definitions 1 and 6. But that's not what we've been discussing this whole time, is it. Again, I disagree. I define my faith by definitions 1,2,4 & 6, and there are many others (most?) who feel likewise.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

P.S.- Incidentally, neither of my statements you pointed to are fallacies (neither red herring nor appeal to authority). For a good discussion, with examples, of commmon logical fallacies, go here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Bebu,

No problem with any thing you wrote. I am not implying I am any better than anyone else, just that we all have our own plus-es and minus-es that we must struggle to either foster or overcome. I realize I have a temper (the Irish in me, I'm told?), and do my best to keep it to a simmer. It's a life-long issue I've had, and I have no problem admitting to it.

Good points, all of yours.

Cheers,

Love_Truth.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Abaddon,

I'm glad you agree my opinion?.

I never agreed with your opinion, nor is your conclusion evident. You know what I was getting at, and. I won?t repeat myself. ?Nuff said.

Obviously if I had god 'sat' in front of me in conversation, I wouldn't dispute whether he existed? I would, however, in such a circumstance make a mental inventory of any substances I had recently ingested that might give rise to hallucinations.

It?s not the point whether you would dispute God to his face, it?s that afterwards, IMO, you would rationalize in your mind that it must have been a hallucination, or some other way to ?explain away? God.

Again we see the utter vacuum ... You haven't proved god exists, yet ask me whether I have forgotten what he has done, when I don't believe in him and you've not proved him?.

You?re playing games, Abaddon. We?ve been to this movie before, and I?ve already stated many of my reasons for believing. You feel it is your duty to dispute others beliefs? Fine, go ahead and dispute- neither can you prove your beliefs are any more trustworthy. I don?t expect that I?ll change your mind- it is too convinced of it?s superiority. Incidentally, the hypothetical situation I raised was just that- hypothetical. It all boils down to this- you take a view based on your ?choice? evidence and conclusions available today. So do I- yet I include the knowledge that nearly all sciences and beliefs have been proven in error, to one degree or another, as time marches on. Your dogmatic views remind me of those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, simply because that was the popularly held belief at the time. You, Abaddon, may think yourself the heart of the universe, but there are many who would disagree with you for good reason. Simply because your belief system hasn?t been proven wrong doesn?t make it any more ?right? than mine. Neither can be irrefutably proven. But I repeat myself?

God used to be the best explanation we had. We now have better ones, and god has become something that requires an impossible amount of explaning, rather than actually being a solution. Yet, some people with their paradigms in the last millenia persist in 'godism' and even can't agree amongst themselves who god is and what he wants, which normally ends up with some nutter killing someone in the name of god...

God still is the best explanation we have . (We obviously define ?we? differently). There are no ?better ones? just different ones, all requiring ? an impossible amount of explaining, rather than actually being a solution?. Evolutionists, physicists, chronologists, archaeologists, etc can?t agree amongst themselves, why hold theists to a different standard? And ?some nutter? kills both ?in the name of God? and for many other reasons. Yours is a specious argument if there ever were one.

Oh, please talk sense, you're easy enough without tripping yourself up on your own syntax. Wrong... you elevate wrongness to an art... it's not about me, its about whether god exists (which can't be proved) and the logical arguments against god existing and not makiing this something that cam be proved. What rubbish. In days past, after a few days all you would have would be stories. Now, if god did prove himself, there would be reliable documentary evidence that no one could reasonably deny. This is a good reason why (e.g.) Jesus (or Muhamed) logically should have come now rather than then, and the reasons that god doesn't prove himself or Jesus et. al. doesn't come now are just the same tired old excuses that have been trotted out for centuries, exactly the same excuses that would be made up if it was all made up.

More of Abaddon?s game playing. Neither can you irrefutably prove your views. So I have ?tired old excuses? and you have ?new excuses?. Give me a break! You are a broken record!

When God is ready, he will undeniably reveal himself to all. Will that be judgement day? Perhaps. Or will it be a time He chooses to reveal Himself to each of us personally? Perhaps. Or in some other way or other time? Perhaps.

Yes, proving you exists just before destroying someone for not believing you existed as there was no proof is always a sign of a loving creator... and you're making a prohecy here, which reveals exactly the type of person you are...

Note to Abaddon- grasp your ears firmly and pull head out of your arse. Perhaps means I do not know, it?s hypothetical, period. No prophecy whatsoever. Re-read as necessary.

Wrong. The Bible actually being accurate would. The creation myth could easily have been couched in terms incomprehensible ? we have something that is exactly as one would expect it to be if written in the period by a man making up stories about the start of time.

The Bible is accurate. Creation is not a myth. You have doubts that you adopt and put forth as facts. You have proven nothing other than that you have an opinion.

Most beliefs stem from faith. Atheism is no different. We all individually put faith in something(s).

No, you put your faith in nothing other than an idea. I am convinced there is no god in the manner you describe, unless it's a monster, and my conviction stems from evidence, not faith.

My conviction stems from evidence as well. And, like you and everyone else on this planet, I put faith in something(s).

Choose wisely.

Oh, more threats... keep it up Loves_Truth, the way you give god a bad name only serves to make my point...

?Choose Wisely? is not a threat. Since when is it? Are you paranoid or just delusional?

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you, you self righteous, atheist blowhard. You remind me of another poster named ?Abandoned?. I'm not saying you are him mind you, I just find it funny how two such similar people can actually come across as normal and likable (on other threads) once they stop talking about their hatred of God and religion! That's a compliment by the way...

Editors note: lest the casual observer think my language here harsh: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/68203/1066241/post.ashx#1066241

Love_Truth

Posts by Love_Truth