Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[webby234]

if its invisible how can it be pink??

Don't question the power of the invisible pink unicorn to transcend logic. :uhhuh: (if it's omnipotent, how can it be omniscient?)

oh and sorry for stealing your usual argument enteebee.

 

[inasero]

that's her point

 

[inasero]

you just dont get it...

you haven't provided a rebuttal to my explanation

 

[inasero]

No evidence against 'christianity' ?

a) There is no more evidence for the christian god than there is magical pixies making people fall in love with one another, it is good enough for me to discount magical pixies on this basis (as i'm sure it is for you also) and thus is good enough for me to equally discount the personal christian god.

a2) There is equal evidence for any other religion.

b) There is plenty of rational logic which goes against the concept of a personal god, as well as scientific notions which would need to be broken/bent in some way to allow for a personal god.

c) There is a lot of evidence for the claims of the christian bible being wrong.

d) There is evidence that the bible is indeed very much so a product of man, while this doesn't mean it couldn't still be true, it makes it seem very similar to all the other myths which exist/have existed in our world.

Supposing you're right and the Bible is a myth, then what do you make of the fact that this "myth" is the only one out there in which the protagonist claimed to actually BE God and offer eternal salvation?

 

[Enteebee]

It's completely different, because the Christian isn't saying that their faith is dependent on the lack of evidence, but rather that it holds valid in itself just as rationalists use scientific reason. A very important distinction.

"holds valid in its self" i.e. is true just because it is?

It is true that there are some things i.e. fundamental mathematics which we, in the end, have no way of validating. However, I feel the difference between accepting these and accepting a christian god is a) the simplicity of these fundamental truths and b) the consistency in their application (we don't pick and choose when feeling/response/observation X = Y, it does).

I.e. Christians upon accepting the christian myth and rejecting all others (which have equal evidence) are abandoning their rationality which they hold true in other facets of their life, you can't pick and choose when to apply your logic... it should be holistically true.

Supposing you're right and the Bible is a myth, then what do you make of the fact that this "myth" is the only one out there in which the protagonist claimed to actually BE God and offer eternal salvation?

a) A good number of people (muslims/jews) don't believe that jesus ever claimed to be god, they probably have decent reasons for believing so, so it's possible this whole idea that he even claimed to be god is a part of the myth. (this is because I'm assuming your 'gotcha' will be something about how someone couldn't possibly claim to be god without being adequately tested by the people of the time... which would ignorant because there are many people alive today that people believe to be a god/godman)

b) Plenty of people even these days claim to be god, I don't know enough about ancient history to claim there has been people in the past claiming to be god... but I imagine there definitely have - I definitely do doubt the myth of jesus is the only one of a person who claims to be god/offers salvation. edit: webby posted up a link to one, good on him for being less lazy than me to do some quick googling lol

c) What does it matter if it is the only myth where someone claimed to be god/offer salvation anyway? Buddhism might be the only myth where it is claimed through a lack of desire you can reach nirvana... so what?

 

[webby234]

Supposing you're right and the Bible is a myth, then what do you make of the fact that this "myth" is the only one out there in which the protagonist claimed to actually BE God and offer eternal salvation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis

According to Herodotus, at one point Zalmoxis traveled to Egypt and brought the people mystic knowledge about the immortality of the soul, teaching them that they would pass at death to a certain place where they would enjoy all possible blessings for all eternity.

Zalmoxis then had a subterranean chamber constructed (other accounts say that it was a natural cave) on the holy mountain of Kogaion, to which he withdrew for three years (some other accounts considered he actually lived in Hades for these three years).

After his disappearance, he was considered dead and mourned by his people, but after three years he showed himself once more to the Getae, who were thus convinced about his teachings: an episode that some considered to be a resurrection (Thus he can be seen a life-death-rebirth deity, parallel to Tammuz or Jesus.)

And what, outside the bible, suggests that jesus did ever claim to be god?

EDIT: I could find more similar myths - that's just one example.

 

[inasero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis


And what, outside the bible, suggests that jesus did ever claim to be god?

EDIT: I could find more similar myths - that's just one example.

You mean historical sources of Jesus' claims to divinity? I posted that like 100 pages ago- there are plenty of 'secular' sources.

 

[webby234]

You mean historical sources of Jesus' claims to divinity? I posted that like 100 pages ago- there are plenty of 'secular' sources.

Sorry, i missed that. Which secular sources?

 

[KFunk]

if a conspiracy was acknowledged it wouldn't be a conspiracy then would it? in any case no one's been promoting any conspiracy theories here...unless you go with the theory that Christianity is a tool to control the masses, in which case the burden of proof is on you

That's not the point - it's about the rough structure of the cultural 'meme'. In particular, some religious beliefs protect themselves by stating that we should expect not to find evidence, or that we should expect to find disconfirming evidence (which is just there to trick us!). This creates a situation in which the belief insulates itself from potentially disconfirming evidence. It simply absconds from the game of empirical confirmation/disconfirmation. This is bad intellectual practice.

I think such features should make us wary of such beliefs from the start (as in the case of conspiracy theories).

Note, though, that I am not saying this is the structure of all religious belief, merely that people often construe religious claims in such a manner (as in the case of *true*).

 

[Enteebee]

You mean historical sources of Jesus' claims to divinity? I posted that like 100 pages ago- there are plenty of 'secular' sources.

Meh muslim/jewish scholars would obviously disagree with them and offer up their own evidence... I also know there is secular evidence that 'jesus' may not have even existed (at the very least in the form christians imagine). I personally care little either way.

 

[inasero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis


And what, outside the bible, suggests that jesus did ever claim to be god?

EDIT: I could find more similar myths - that's just one example.

Zalmoxis was an obscure figure and few historical sources were found. The source on which your comparison was based made a wild misinterpretation of vague historical accounts.

http://tektonics.org/copycat/zalmoxis.html

Next myth please.

 

[beentherdunthat]

Meh muslim/jewish scholars would obviously disagree with them and offer up their own evidence... I also know there is secular evidence that 'jesus' may not have even existed (at the very least in the form christians imagine).

Islams believe jesus is a prophet. =]

but jesus DID exist. just not as a god, or a trinity, or a son of god... ( just religion don't attack me)

Jesus will return and set this battle straight, once and for all anyway. We will know. Or our future generations will know. I'll leave a letter with 'I told you so' on my grave. ;P

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Islams believe jesus is a prophet. =]

but jesus DID exist. just not as a god, or a trinity, or a son of god... ( just religion don't attack me)

Jesus will return and set this battle straight, once and for all anyway. We will know. Or our future generations will know. I'll leave a letter with 'I told you so' on my grave. ;P

Wait, if you believe Jesus existed but that he had no holy qualities what makes you think he's going to return? He's dead. You can't believe he'll 'return' if you don't think he had any of the powers which would allow him to do so...?

 

[inasero]

That's not the point - it's about the rough structure of the cultural 'meme'. In particular, some religious beliefs protect themselves by stating that we should expect not to find evidence, or that we should expect to find disconfirming evidence (which is just there to trick us!). This creates a situation in which the belief insulates itself from potentially disconfirming evidence. It simply absconds from the game of empirical confirmation/disconfirmation. This is bad intellectual practice.

I think such features should make us wary of such beliefs from the start (as in the case of conspiracy theories).

Note, though, that I am not saying this is the structure of all religious belief, merely that people often construe religious claims in such a manner (as in the case of *true*).

The Bible never made claims that "disconfirming" evidence is there to "trick" us, only that confirming evidence had been provided in abundance in times past and would no longer be provided not because there wasn't any, but because people wouldn't believe it anyway (I mean being resurrected after three days, c'mon) and it would contravene God's requirement that we come to Him by faith.

 

[inasero]

Wait, if you believe Jesus existed but that he had no holy qualities what makes you think he's going to return? He's dead. You can't believe he'll 'return' if you don't think he had any of the powers which would allow him to do so...?

she's muslim..

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

she's muslim..

I know. She also said Jesus would return and I want to know why.

 

[inasero]

because Muslims believe that Jesus will return, that's why.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

because Muslims believe that Jesus will return, that's why.

Yes... I'm just asking how it's logical to believe that Jesus can return when you don't believe he's the son of god. Because if he's not, and he's just a person who was around at the time, there's no way he can return. Because he's dead and dead people do not just come back when they feel like it unless they are supernatural which she just said he isn't.

 

[inasero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus

edit: But I agree with you, I don't see why Jesus should come back if he was only a prophet, or a man. Why not Muhammad (pbuh) or any other prophet?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Ok. That's all I was after. thanks