Posts by inrainbows

67

Athiests please answer these questions

by Mrs Smith in

jw
friends

i'm not trying to pick a fight i was just sitting at my desk pondering on some threads on jwd and i would very much like this question answered.. why is it that athiest often (not always) direct their argument for athiesism towards christians?

why not direct your argument towards buddists or muslims or even new-agers?

i mean they also believe in a higher power so why is it that only christains seem to get knocked?

inrainbows

Why is it that athiest often (not always) direct their argument for athiesism towards Christians? Why not direct your argument towards Buddists or Muslims or even New-agers? I mean they also believe in a higher power so why is it that only Christains seem to get knocked? Is it because your only point of reference is JWs and the bible and therefore easier to reference?

As already discussed, most atheists are from Christian cultures, so they coment on the religous group they know the most about.

Christians are also far more likely to engage in missionary work, which means they are putting their message 'out there' and getting paid back in kind.

Likewise, Christian beliefs are more likely to mould political beliefs or moral stances in the West than other religiosu beliefs, again making Christianity more of a target than religous groups who don't try and maake their beliefs the touch-stone of society.

See the reaction Muslims get when they try and get their beliefs heard in society, from both atheists and Christians, and you can understand why secular people object to Christian beliefs being used to try and restrict what they feel are freedoms.

Of course, having said this, those Christians causing atheistic reaction are not representative of all Christians.

An atheist's reaction to a "well, the Bible is allegorical and evolution is obviously true but I believe in the value of the message credited to Jesus and in some kind of higher power" Christian is vastly different to their reaction to their reaction to a "you are godless scum and will burn in hell, you have no right to your body or sexuality and god made everything in 6 x 24 hour days" Christian.

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

inrainbows

burn

I never did apply the laws, if you read. I said that your statement was not too far from the truth.

My bad I got the wrong end of the stick.

You use that word, dogma, like its a bad thing. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Wiki: [Dogma} is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from

The 'not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from' mean by definiton it IS a bad thing. What did you think I though it meant? ;-)

These theories you mention, are thoroughly unprovable, and will remain so, since there can be no observation of the universe before the first Planck second. They are all on equal footing. Theories are testable. What do you call it when it can't be tested?

My phrasing (high priest of cosmology) etc., should make it clear I am aware of the degree of trust 99.99% of people have to put in such theories as they are incomprehensible to them.

And some of them can be tested given a big enough particle accelerator. A pocket Universe created within a lab would do quite well as proof. Maybe we are some kid's science project?

God will NEVER be testable as a theory, and that's rather the point, yet many people miss its existence or otherwise is not really that important, it's the IDEA of god that has most power. And to answer you, hypothesis.

21

Pick 'n' Mix Christianity

by nicolaou in

how can someone who calls themselves a christian reject those parts of the bible that do not sit comfortably with them?

without the bible there would be no christianity (now there's a thought) so surely it's a bit capricious to subjectively select doctrines you approve of and reject those you don't?.

for example, how can a christian possibly approve of homosexuality when the same bedrock of belief that gives you christ also condemns 'men who lie with men'?

inrainbows

I used to think the same and then realised I was making the mistake of taking things a little too literally.

'Christinity' can vary from the <drooling idiot god made it in seven days> level right through to the <oh deary me a personified creator entity is a silly idea, I just like the social aspects as typified by my local community and some of the stuff attributed to pseduo-historic characeters> level.

To say one is wrong is almost to say the other is right, and thus to make the same mistake you are implicitly accusing others of either making or not making.

In any case, Christianity is a smorgasboard of what we have got through history, to pretend otherwise is crazy.

Because we were influenced by a 'it says this so this is' school of thought we are programmed to reject those who aren't as idiotically literal as we have a residual belief that literalness is somehow good or right or free from error.

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

inrainbows

BurnTheShips

It would seem that at its most fundamental state matter exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed.

You cannot apply quantum laws to non-quantum objects. Not even if it is convenient to support your religious beliefs.

We are made up of quantum objects but are not in ourselves quantum.

I am in no way a wave function, nor do I have spin UNLESS I am in the sea or on skates.

lovelylil

Everything that has a beginning needs a "first cause".

No it doesn't, at least not according to the High Priests of Cosmology. They at least have theories (check the definiton please) as distinct from their rivals in mumbo-jumbo, the other types of Priests, who only have DOGMA.

God does not have a beginning and thus needs no cause. (Alpha and Omega, he IS the beginning and the end) What this exactly means, we really do not know because no one can fully understand God.

You can believe this if you like but it is an unproven presupposition. You can't even prove that this statement applies to any form of god that may actually exist. As this is essentailly you saying 'it is so 'cause I think it so', you are excluding yourself from serious debate unless you restrict yourself to debate with those who have identical presuppostions.

But the universe definately had a beginning and that is as per science of our day. They also admit they do not know what the "cause" of the universe was. But it certainly had to be "something" or "someone" not subject to our rules of space and time. Peace, Lilly.

Lilly, you are wrong about cosmology. Doesn't mean they are right, but it does mean you are wrong.

The monotheism belief is what set Judaism apart from all the other religions of the time.

Actually monotheism was a DEVELOPMENT or transition of Judaism, not its original state. Elohim is plural. YHWH was just another tribal diety with a female counterpart whose followers were rather better at killing the surrounding tribes than average. Don't suppose for one minute the 700BC (or so) revsion of events we have in the Bible was what actually happened back in the period 2,000BC-1,000BC.

Unless insisting that some things just aredespite the fact you have no proof makes you feel secure, in which case, please do. We all have to believe something that makes our lives 'work', and as long as it doesn't harm others it doesn't matter what that is.

And this belief in one single God, creator of all things, is what is still held as true by Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Except for the fact many Christians believe in a god which is indistinguishable in concept from other triune dieties as belived in by polytheists and would be seen by such polytheists as polytheists.

130

"Real one" threatens athiests with Jugement Day! Why do Christians do this?

by Witness 007 in

"real one" is a christian on this site and gets involved in many debates with athiests.

on my thread "jesus was just a man" he said:"non-beleivers will see jesus one day and you will not be happy.

" on my trinity thread:".....oh his {gods} existence is established.

inrainbows

junction guy

Well, actually I don't normally call myself a Christian so can quite happily analyse real one by my interpretation of his Holy Book and not be bitten on the ass by the same book as I don't believe in it, he does.

Of course, the fact that there is a plurality of interpretation amongst Christians indicates that any claims that x people don't meet y standard are meanless, as everything is down to interpretation.

Doing good is far more useful than labelling good, as I am sure you agree.

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

inrainbows

Why are we debating the cosmological argument for god's existence (i.e. first cause), when it is utter bunk?

One can only argue it if one presupposes god doesn't need a first cause, which is illogical. Now, fine, if you want to base your support for god's existence on illogicity, good for you, I am genuinely happy you find comfort in that belief, but don't expect to have your arguments taken as being that reliable or of value for anyone other than someone holding the same unprovable presuppostions.

And just to be clear, saying 'god doesn't need a first cause as he exists out of time' and varients on that theme is a presupposition and not a way of making the cosmological argument in anyway valid.

God however finds a comeback as follows: For matter to exist at all (in a manner that can interact and produce not only Big Bang chemistry and physics but ultimately planets and physical life) we are left with the unsettling conclusion that there must be an observer to collapse the universe else it would simply exist as unorganised potential - in effect life cannot proceeed from disordered potential, life can only proceed from conscious observation. Consciousness must preceed matter not vice versa. God must observe but in order for the resultant creation to have free will any God must then cease observing:

Eh? Come on Qc!! That is like the old and extremely dull thought experiment about trees falling in forests with no one there to hear them. Of course they make a sound, as sound is vibrational mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. You don't need a sense of hearing to be present have sound; any deaf person arguing otherwise would be considered a little off base.

You do not need an observer present to have a Universe, and no amount of dressing it up in cod-physics will change that.

Rather than recycling centuries old bad arguments I find thinking outside of the box man's arrogance has crammed god into rather interesting.

If 'god' is not the first cause, does this mean the idea of 'god' is less important?

130

"Real one" threatens athiests with Jugement Day! Why do Christians do this?

by Witness 007 in

"real one" is a christian on this site and gets involved in many debates with athiests.

on my thread "jesus was just a man" he said:"non-beleivers will see jesus one day and you will not be happy.

" on my trinity thread:".....oh his {gods} existence is established.

inrainbows

Many people would hold that, by definition, anyone doing that would NOT be a Christian.

15

Major JW flaw in reasoning?

by Satans Son in

they sell the idea of living forever with an all-knowing god as something to look forward to.. yet, that means no privicy, and they cannot hide anything, including their personal thoughts and desires... have they not considered this point?..

.

inrainbows

JWs and Reasoning is oxymoronic, like Australian and Culture or Millitary and Intelligence

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

inrainbows

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but before you start asking for evidence of god isn't it a good idea to define god?

I know my definition of 'god' exists, but I can also describe myself as an atheist for a given value of 'theos' - not my 'value of theos', but certainly one many would ascribe to.

Many theists would be thought of as atheists by any right-thinking polytheist, or as close to being an atheist as makes no difference.

After all, isn't a theist just a sloppy atheist (i.e. someone who has concluded all but one god doesn't exist?).

Without defining your parameters debates like this start of meaningless and get worse.

26

Yet more proofs of God's nonexistence- When will the believers get it?

by BurnTheShips in

jw
friends

hundreds of irrefutable proofs for god's nonexistence.... http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html.

inrainbows

Shawn

Well exactly, anyone claiming they can disprove god is in the same catagory as someone claiming that there are no transitional fossils. Both claims are hugely ridiculous to anyone who is remotely informed about the subject, and act as a red flag if you're hoping to have a worthwhile conversation.

My personal positon is that the 'is there a god' debate is normally hampered by the people taking part in it not actually defining 'god' before the discussion. Without a clear idea of what you are arguing for the existence of (or against), you're just wearing out your keyboard.