The evidence is here, now you decide....

[cardgame]

nice one Mr. Dictator

@ Celtic homophobia is a perfectly apt word to describe those people, it is only overused in the sense that too many people are homophobic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar, please make sure you call the topic, the rapture, if you ever bring this up again (in case this topic dies). Do not call it evidence, because it is all speculation. The reason why I reacted strongly against this topic was because of that first quote I took in my first post on this thread. Honestly, why would you call that evidence? Not only that, there's no hard evidence for each event in that made-up timeline. So I fail to see how you can promote a discussion on clear speculation.

Other than the rapture, you are right.

Thank you for your advice.

The OP clearly linked to what the believers see as evidence for the correctness of their belief. Your unwillingness to accept their biblical time line is a personal issue probably rooted in how you define evidence.

I can easily promote discussions on pure speculation. Such topics can be fun, interesting and challenging. Had you been here in 2005-2006 you might have enjoyed the three 1000 posts threads entitled: Prove God Exists. Good times were had by all.

 

[sendos]

The OP clearly linked to what the believers see as evidence for the correctness of their belief. Your unwillingness to accept their biblical time line is a personal issue probably rooted in how you define evidence.

The bible is circumstantial/2nd hand evidence attempting to prove that god exists. There's no first-hand evidence whatsoever. Secondly, belief is subjective. How can you be objective with religion? You just can't.

I can easily promote discussions on pure speculation. Such topics can be fun, interesting and challenging. Had you been here in 2005-2006 you might have enjoyed the three 1000 posts threads entitled: Prove God Exists. Good times were had by all.

(in green) True, but tangible topics are far better because anyone can discuss about them with actual evidence to back up what they're saying. Concerning your last sentence, we need to consider how civil court cases work: the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, therefore the burden of proof falls on the positive side of a debate. If you're introducing an idea or opinion, the burden of proof will always lie on you, not the other side. So In fact, I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist because there hasn't been any first hand evidence of God's existence to rebut. And remember, I mean hard evidence, not a book filled with 2nd hand stories, and about a guy who can heal people. Suure, and like that happened...

Random, I am trying to be objective because I've already provided examples which you have rebutted poorly without a reason. However, I agree that god might be fundamentally loving, but I find christianity inconsistent because firstly, you go to church to gain "god's grace" and gain forgiveness, ironically, only to lose it again at some point, because we might commit a basic sin on the same day. Secondly, there's a harsh judgemental side of god in the old testament, so we don't know whether he will actually forgive us or not.

I was once an agnostic at primary school, but due to numerous religious fanatics, I now see religion like an unstable compound that must be avoided. You don't need religion to find meaning in life. Experiencing life itself will do that for you, not quoting the bible, not trying to prove whether God exists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Homophobia is an overused word that is used to not only describe those who violently oppose the gay agenda, but those who peacefully do so.

The manner with which "the gay agenda" (Dun dun dun) is opposed is implicative but not indicative whether homophobia is in play. You can be homophobic and never say a word or get involved in the gay rights issue.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The bible is circumstantial/2nd hand evidence attempting to prove that god exists. There's no first-hand evidence whatsoever. Secondly, belief is subjective. How can you be objective with religion? You just can't.

(in green) True, but tangible topics are far better because anyone can discuss about them with actual evidence to back up what they're saying. Concerning your last sentence, we need to consider how civil court cases work: the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, therefore the burden of proof falls on the positive side of a debate. If you're introducing an idea or opinion, the burden of proof will always lie on you, not the other side. So In fact, I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist because there hasn't been any first hand evidence of God's existence to rebut. And remember, I mean hard evidence, not a book filled with 2nd hand stories, and about a guy who can heal people. Suure, and like that happened...

What if I reject the court/evidence model you propose? That is one model, but clearly a biased one. I would prefer an experienced, rather than an evidence based discussion. All those who have experience of the divine could contribute how such experiences have affected them and their lives. That seems like a much more suitable way to discuss the existence of god.

Random, I am trying to be objective because I've already provided examples which you have rebutted poorly without a reason. However, I agree that god might be fundamentally loving, but I find christianity inconsistent because firstly, you go to church to gain "god's grace" and gain forgiveness, ironically, only to lose it again at some point, because we might commit a basic sin on the same day. Secondly, there's a harsh judgemental side of god in the old testament, so we don't know whether he will actually forgive us or not.

I was once an agnostic at primary school, but due to numerous religious fanatics, I now see religion like an unstable compound that must be avoided. You don't need religion to find meaning in life. Experiencing life itself will do that for you, not quoting the bible, not trying to prove whether God exists.

I am not here to defend Christianity or its beliefs. It is what it is and people do take it seriously enough that it changes their lives. Finding fault with religion (or other cultural practices) is really pretty easy and takes little talent. It is particularly easy when the standard used is evidence based. Evidenced based inquiry is self limiting and cannot encompass much of the human experience that people find most important. Trying to force evaluation of all human experience into the evidence based model is forcing many different shaped pegs into square holes.

 

[timtofly]

I am not here to defend Christianity or its beliefs. It is what it is and people do take it seriously enough that it changes their lives. Finding fault with religion (or other cultural practices) is really pretty easy and takes little talent. It is particularly easy when the standard used is evidence based. Evidenced based inquiry is self limiting and cannot encompass much of the human experience that people find most important. Trying to force evaluation of all human experience into the evidence based model is forcing many different shaped pegs into square holes.

If anything, the prophet in this case, allows for athiest to be comfortable. They will just cease to exist. They will not have to suffer through eternity either good or bad.

 

[Rashiminos]

Ok. Just stop. The world has existed billions of years. And there's evidence to support that: fossils, old bones, you name it.

Those conclusions rest on calculations that have bias towards the present and recent past (known forms of decay).

Now let's think about God, even though I'm an atheist:
Firstly, if God wished to bring destruction on this world with a rapture, then all "good" values about God will be utterly false since he won't care anything he creates, he'll just wipe it off the map. Why would you construct a world that works perfectly, only then to destroy it with a rapture? Tell me that! Secondly, religions are supposed to encourage people to be "better" people. With christianity, all it does is provide impossible morals, such as no greed, no hate and giving away everything to the poor, to live by. And now God is "supposedly" going to destroy us for not following those rules. And you believe this, Birdjaguar? Lastly, why does this sort of nonsense have to be passed around? I can now understand why I hear the phrase "god-fearing" christians a lot. And then i say, "hang on a sec, I thought god was supposed to preach hope!"

Who said the world was perfect? Who said it should be? If imperfections were found, how should they be handled?

Why are those morals impossible, as opposed to difficult or challenging?

I think you're bringing some beliefs of your own into this discussion, whether you are cognizant of them or not.

The "Poof, God did it" argument is a good way to kill a discussion. Makes sense for you probably, but frustrating for the rest of us

Link to video.

So if there used to be a lot of ice where is that water.

It's still around.

Those whose names are written in the Book of Life, both Jews and Gentiles.

Those names probably are not written yet.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If anything, the prophet in this case, allows for athiest to be comfortable. They will just cease to exist. They will not have to suffer through eternity either good or bad.

That sounds compassionate.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Even though I don't wish to be annihilated, I'd say it's the best choice given the other two options.

 

[warpus]

What if I reject the court/evidence model you propose? That is one model, but clearly a biased one. I would prefer an experienced, rather than an evidence based discussion. All those who have experience of the divine could contribute how such experiences have affected them and their lives. That seems like a much more suitable way to discuss the existence of god.

How is it biased and how is what you propose suitable? It's suitable for discussion about God, not an honest discussion about God's existence. Anecdotes are never good for that.

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you determine if you've (or someone else) has experienced the divine?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

How do you determine if you've (or someone else) has experienced the divine?

I'd chime in by saying that the first is a subjective question. The divine can mean a lot to different people. The second though I'd say is completely unprovable, though.

For instance, I've had brushes with the divine when I go somewhere that makes me feel tiny. The whole, "there's something bigger than you" feeling is true, in my eyes. Of course, this doesn't mean that its a personal god, just...well, it.

Some people have to believe that the "it" is relative to them, so they imprint on it all kinds of their own personal traits. God is a man, heaven is the best parts of this world without the bad, etc.

Others can see the divine as the set of rules that govern our universe.

So basically: "Opinions! Here are mine!"

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I have no doubt that it's unprovable )), but that's okay. All of cognitive neuroscience is founded on the unprovable, because they also use self-report as a main source of data.

But you'd still need a metric to figure out if someone was experiencing the divine. Some type of checkbox that figures out whether their self-report qualifies.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh please. The world already ended when the first guy who predicted it would end said it would. It was then instantly replaced by an identical world a fraction of a second later, when someone else predicted the world would end once more, and it did. Everyone who has ever predicted the end of the world has been right. New ones merely take their place. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.

I know that this is true, and just because it sounds preposterous, you should respect my beliefs because having a belief entitles me to some kind of respect not reserved for those people who have yet to be convinced. Those people will burn in hell, and they deserve it for being so ignorant.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How is it biased and how is what you propose suitable? It's suitable for discussion about God, not an honest discussion about God's existence. Anecdotes are never good for that.

It is biased because it calls for evidence that does not exist in the form required. It sets rules and says if you cannot follow the rules, we will ignore you. Such systems do specific things very well, but outside of those preset boundaries they do less well or fail completely.

How do you determine if you've (or someone else) has experienced the divine?

Personal decision. Groups with similar experiences will reinforce those decisions. Time and unbelievers will weaken them. many acid heads in the sixties experienced "god". Not all of them retain those feeling today.

So how can we be sure of such claims? You can't unless it happens to you.
Why should we trust that those who clam to experience god? You shouldn't.

You have to keep in mind that my answers are rooted in the assumption that "god alone is". Such an assumption allows for everyone to experience god in some fashion and those experiences need not be uniform.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

If I ever had such an experience, I would assume it was a delusion rather than divine. I'm wary of living my life based on the tricks that my mind can play on me. Skepticism will save you a lot of time and energy.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If I ever had such an experience, I would assume it was a delusion rather than divine. I'm wary of living my life based on the tricks that my mind can play on me. Skepticism will save you a lot of time and energy.

Your mind is playing tricks on you all the time. The brain edits your experiences continuously.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Right, but that's a bit irrelevant. I am speaking about any experience far removed from the ordinary.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Right, but that's a bit irrelevant. I am speaking about any experience far removed from the ordinary.

"Ordinary" is relative to the person. What if those daily deceptions are what keep you from experiencing what is rare and extraordinary?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

In that case, how would I know anyway? Why assume that anything has a supernatural cause?