# If it got really, really bad.....



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2017)

Atheists and Agnostics,

If it got really, really bad would you appeal to God just in case?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2017)

I hope not. I would hope I would use my wits to more fruitful means.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2017)

I cant say that I know exactly why I do it. I can't say that I am talking to anyone specific. It may be just a leftover ritual from my religious days that I still do for no other reason than I feel that I owe it to the animals.....but...
When I hunt, I always say a speech/prayer/reminder to myself /thoughts to whoever or whatever may be listening: 
" keep my family and friends safe, and if a shot should present itself may it be accurate and deadly and may death be swift. Not to look like a hot-shot to anyone but because I owe that to anything that I am going attempt to kill. "

I think it is more of a reminder to myself and a tribute to all the hunters that have hunted before me and to the animals I have harvested and about to harvest.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 31, 2017)

Which one?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 31, 2017)

I haven't yet.....


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Which one?



Any.

I've thrown up prayers to Satan, Odin, Zeus (quite often), Jesus, Ganesh, Crom....Mostly in jest but sometimes there was an element of "What can it hurt?".  I spit on fishing lures and blow on dice, too.  I know it doesn't do anything but it feels good sometimes.

I'm thinking of the final scene of _The Grey_.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Any.
> 
> I've thrown up prayers to Satan, Odin, Zeus (quite often), Jesus, Ganesh, Crom....Mostly in jest but sometimes there was an element of "What can it hurt?".  I spit on fishing lures and blow on dice, too.  I know it doesn't do anything but it feels good sometimes.
> 
> I'm thinking of the final scene of _The Grey_.


Yeah, mostly self reassurance, superstition, following a routine that "worked" before.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, mostly self reassurance, superstition, following a routine that "worked" before.



I've prayed to Porter Cable, too.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 31, 2017)

Tsulkulu' the slant-eyed giant works better for me. The Thunder Beings are pretty impressive, also.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Tsulkulu' the slant-eyed giant works better for me. The Thunder Beings are pretty impressive, also.



Sounds hard to say when you waffle yer thumb with a framing hammer.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Oct 31, 2017)

It is bad luck to be superstitious.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> It is bad luck to be superstitious.



That should be in a fortune cookie....or a misfortune cookie


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Oct 31, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Tsulkulu' the slant-eyed giant works better for me. The Thunder Beings are pretty impressive, also.



NCHillbilly, are you an atheist?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Sounds hard to say when you waffle yer thumb with a framing hammer.







Mexican Squealer said:


> NCHillbilly, are you an atheist?



I don't know what I am. I was raised by a Baptist preacher. It didn't take me very long to see the contradictions and flaws in that and cease to have faith in it. I generally believe that there is a higher power out there, but I don't think it really much resembles the Christian, Muslim, or other mainstream religions' version of an old guy sitting on a cloud spending all his time worrying about every detail of what we do every day for purposes of reward or punishment. 

Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything that exists. That is probably the closest thing to my current belief, after half a century of having one religion shoved down my throat, and perusing and studying the rest of them. Maybe, I don't know. I think that if God exists, I doubt if any of us could actually logically presume to understand it , analyze it, and/or know what it wants, as so many folks seem to take for granted. 

Maybe all the various religions are seeing one aspect of of a bigger, more complicated God, like the blind men feeling of different parts of an elephant-even though I firmly believe that most organized religions were founded mainly for the purpose of controlling the people. Or maybe, there is no God. I don't know. I intuitively feel that there is something bigger than us out there, but I don't presume to know for sure, to understand it, or to have a personal relationship with it.

So, what does that make me (besides Hades-bound at a high rate of speed?)


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Nov 1, 2017)

Sound explanation, was just curious. Thank you.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 1, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't know what I am. I was raised by a Baptist preacher. It didn't take me very long to see the contradictions and flaws in that and cease to have faith in it. I generally believe that there is a higher power out there, but I don't think it really much resembles the Christian, Muslim, or other mainstream religions' version of an old guy sitting on a cloud spending all his time worrying about every detail of what we do every day for purposes of reward or punishment.
> 
> Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything that exists. That is probably the closest thing to my current belief, after half a century of having one religion shoved down my throat, and perusing and studying the rest of them. Maybe, I don't know. I think that if God exists, I doubt if any of us could actually logically presume to understand it , analyze it, and/or know what it wants, as so many folks seem to take for granted.
> 
> ...



Agnostic Deist?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Atheists and Agnostics,
> 
> If it got really, really bad would you appeal to God just in case?


"Appeal to"?.
That's different than pray to so I couldn't rule out a "hey if any of you dudes or dudettes (which would include "God") are up there.... I could use a break here" type of thing.
But I think to "pray to", one would actually have to believe in who/what they were praying to.
And that might be my own definition so don't ask me to back it up


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 1, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't know what I am. I was raised by a Baptist preacher. It didn't take me very long to see the contradictions and flaws in that and cease to have faith in it. I generally believe that there is a higher power out there, but I don't think it really much resembles the Christian, Muslim, or other mainstream religions' version of an old guy sitting on a cloud spending all his time worrying about every detail of what we do every day for purposes of reward or punishment.
> 
> Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything that exists. That is probably the closest thing to my current belief, after half a century of having one religion shoved down my throat, and perusing and studying the rest of them. Maybe, I don't know. I think that if God exists, I doubt if any of us could actually logically presume to understand it , analyze it, and/or know what it wants, as so many folks seem to take for granted.
> 
> ...


I have to twist your question around a bit here but -
I think it makes you .... sitting pretty much exactly where one would have to sit if you were to consider ALL the evidence, from ALL the sides, from ALL the points of view, and considering ALL of what we "know".
There seems to be "something" - 





> Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything


Don't have a clue what that something is. That something might even be just an aspect of "us" that we don't fully understand yet...


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 1, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't know what I am. I was raised by a Baptist preacher. It didn't take me very long to see the contradictions and flaws in that and cease to have faith in it. I generally believe that there is a higher power out there, but I don't think it really much resembles the Christian, Muslim, or other mainstream religions' version of an old guy sitting on a cloud spending all his time worrying about every detail of what we do every day for purposes of reward or punishment.
> 
> Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything that exists. That is probably the closest thing to my current belief, after half a century of having one religion shoved down my throat, and perusing and studying the rest of them. Maybe, I don't know. I think that if God exists, I doubt if any of us could actually logically presume to understand it , analyze it, and/or know what it wants, as so many folks seem to take for granted.
> 
> ...





WaltL1 said:


> I have to twist your question around a bit here but -
> I think it makes you .... sitting pretty much exactly where one would have to sit if you were to consider ALL the evidence, from ALL the sides, from ALL the points of view, and considering ALL of what we "know".
> There seems to be "something" -
> Don't have a clue what that something is. That something might even be just an aspect of "us" that we don't fully understand yet...



Can you guys give me an example of how the "something" manifests itself to you?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Can you guys give me an example of how the "something" manifests itself to you?



I have never had anything manifest itself to me in a definable manner. I guess it's just the way that everything fits together and works together. I don't know what causes me to believe this, but it's also an old core principle of a lot of pagan-type religions, such as some of the Native American and Celtic ones.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

How many of y'all signed insurance contracts where certain things are not covered......such as "Acts of God"? Science seems to be the only area with so much disdain and denial.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> How many of y'all signed insurance contracts where certain things are not covered......such as "Acts of God"? Science seems to be the only area with so much disdain and denial.



What god does your ins co specify?

You are REALLY reaching for examples. I have never seen so many believers have to scrap and scrape for such poor examples to use as "proof" for something they tout as  being everywhere at all times.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> How many of y'all signed insurance contracts where certain things are not covered......such as "Acts of God"? Science seems to be the only area with so much disdain and denial.



Are you telling us that the god you worship is responsible for tornadoes, hurricanes, lightening strikes?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Are you telling us that the god you worship is responsible for tornadoes, hurricanes, lightening strikes?



You were once "in church". You know the story of Job. You know that God can allow things to happen. You know that God can prevent things from happening.  No where is anyone ever told or led to believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them because they serve God. Your lack of belief doesn't mean anything except.......your lack of belief.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Can you guys give me an example of how the "something" manifests itself to you?



An old guy I know in SC who is very similar to useles Billy was visited by a Manifestation many years ago. 

He was walking home down a dirt road one dark night after enjoying some untaxed alcoholic products with his cousins. The batteries had went dead in his flashlight, so he could barely see his hand in front of himself. This feller, (let's just call him "Jerry," because that's actually his name,) didn't like walking in the dark much anyway.

As he was walking down the road, trying to stay in the road, he observed a spectral white thing floating in the air in front of him. He stopped. The thing got closer.

He hollered at the apparition and asked it who/what it was. It paused briefly, then came closer.

He backed up. It followed.

He told the apparition that if it didn't say something, he was gonna shoot it. It didn't say anything.

He raised up his .22 that he was toting and squeezed off a shot at the floating spectral white thing. He heard a loud moan, and the apparition hit the ground. 

Jerry ran back to his cousins' house and told them that he had shot a ghost. They didn't believe him, but they loaded up in the truck and went to see.

There in the headlights, lay a dead cow. It was black as coal all over, except for its face and head, which were ghostly white.

They hooked a chain to it, drug it back to the house, skinned it, cut it up, and put it in the freezer. 

True story-one day late for Halloween.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> What god does your ins co specify?
> 
> You are REALLY reaching for examples. I have never seen so many believers have to scrap and scrape for such poor examples to use as "proof" for something they tout as  being everywhere at all times.



That was no intention what so ever to "prove" that God exist. It's a just a statement to say that only science shows so much disdain and denial in "something that's not there". 

I don't believe in Santa Clause but I don't need scientific evidence to prove it and I don't get my panties in a wad if I'm given a gift that's from "Santa Clause"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You were once "in church". You know the story of Job. You know that God can allow things to happen. You know that God can prevent things from happening.  No where is anyone ever told or led to believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them because they serve God. Your lack of belief doesn't mean anything except.......your lack of belief.



I know lots of stories.
My bull snort detector is eerily able to pick out which ones are truthful and should be believed and the stories that are folklore, fables and fiction that while enjoyable and often can learn things from, the stories are untruthful and not to be taken literally as if they actually happened.
I literally do not know a single thing about any god. I know what a gods fans tell, but I simply do not believe them because they just cannot back up their claims with truthful genuine evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> That was no intention what so ever to "prove" that God exist. It's a just a statement to say that only science shows so much disdain and denial in "something that's not there".
> 
> I don't believe in Santa Clause but I don't need scientific evidence to prove it and I don't get my panties in a wad if I'm given a gift that's from "Santa Clause"



I agree. Your god and Santa are on the same level. 
Both are in the "it's the thought that counts" category. In both cases neither exist without people doing the work for them.
I appreciate any gift from anyone but I have never received a gift from a god/believer in god that was an actual spiritual gift.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> An old guy I know in SC who is very similar to useles Billy was visited by a Manifestation many years ago.
> 
> He was walking home down a dirt road one dark night after enjoying some untaxed alcoholic products with his cousins. The batteries had went dead in his flashlight, so he could barely see his hand in front of himself. This feller, (let's just call him "Jerry," because that's actually his name,) didn't like walking in the dark much anyway.
> 
> ...



Awesome story.
The mind is a powerful thing.

Some minds would argue that their god sent that cow to the man so he can eat. Powerful.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> An old guy I know in SC who is very similar to useles Billy was visited by a Manifestation many years ago.
> 
> He was walking home down a dirt road one dark night after enjoying some untaxed alcoholic products with his cousins. The batteries had went dead in his flashlight, so he could barely see his hand in front of himself. This feller, (let's just call him "Jerry," because that's actually his name,) didn't like walking in the dark much anyway.
> 
> ...



Cool story Hillbilly but I have been informed by the aaa's on here that personal testimony is not factual and is not to be believed. Even though it is allowed as evidence in a court of law.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I know lots of stories.
> My bull snort detector is eerily able to pick out which ones are truthful and should be believed and the stories that are folklore, fables and fiction that while enjoyable and often can learn things from, the stories are untruthful and not to be taken literally as if they actually happened.
> I literally do not know a single thing about any god. I know what a gods fans tell, but I simply do not believe them because they just cannot back up their claims with truthful genuine evidence.


Because you simply do not believe. 


bullethead said:


> I agree. Your god and Santa are on the same level.
> Both are in the "it's the thought that counts" category. In both cases neither exist without people doing the work for them.
> I appreciate any gift from anyone but I have never received a gift from a god/believer in god that was an actual spiritual gift.


You'd be wrong in your comparison. And, you probably won't since you do not believe. But I can live with it if you can.


----------



## Spineyman (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Are you telling us that the god you worship is responsible for tornadoes, hurricanes, lightening strikes?



You betcha!


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> That was no intention what so ever to "prove" that God exist. It's a just a statement to say that only science shows so much disdain and denial in "something that's not there".
> 
> I don't believe in Santa Clause but I don't need scientific evidence to prove it and I don't get my panties in a wad if I'm given a gift that's from "Santa Clause"





> It's a just a statement to say that only science shows so much disdain and denial in "something that's not there".


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


>



An indication that your mind is blank


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Cool story Hillbilly but I have been informed by the aaa's on here that personal testimony is not factual and is not to be believed. Even though it is allowed as evidence in a court of law.



You may want to look up the definition of personal testimony.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Because you simply do not believe.
> 
> You'd be wrong in your comparison. And, you probably won't since you do not believe. But I can live with it if you can.



1. What was your first clue?
2. You offer nothing to prove that i am wrong.
3. I probably wont what?
4. Since we both seem to be doing quite well at living, you are again stating the obvious.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You may want to look up the definition of personal testimony.



Hearsay testimony is not admissible in court. 
Eyewitness testimony is admissible.

Richie, have you seen something that you could present as evidence under oath?


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Hearsay testimony is not admissible in court.
> Eyewitness testimony is admissible.
> 
> Richie, have you seen something that you could present as evidence under oath?



Absolutely. I have experienced and witnessed things in my life that have left no doubt. Hand on the Bible under oath.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

You have to seek the lord and the facts if you really want to find out. Sitting in you chair in front of a computer with a closed mind will not get it done.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> 1. What was your first clue?
> 2. You offer nothing to prove that i am wrong.
> 3. I probably wont what?
> 4. Since we both seem to be doing quite well at living, you are again stating the obvious.



1. You said you didn't believe
2. Other than believing in other folks work that align with your views, you have nothing to prove that you are right  
3. Receive a gift from God......other than life. 
4. Agreed


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> You have to seek the lord and the facts if you really want to find out. Sitting in you chair in front of a computer with a closed mind will not get it done.



There is some irony in here, I can't quite put my finger on it........


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You may want to look up the definition of personal testimony.



There are multiple definitions. I just depends on were you are looking.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Absolutely. I have experienced and witnessed things in my life that have left no doubt. Hand on the Bible under oath.



Would your testimony about what you experienced and witnessed have convinced 12 impartial jurors?


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> There is some irony in here, I can't quite put my finger on it........



There are many thing in life that are ironic as well as sarcastic. By the way I like your new avatar way better than the old one.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Would your testimony about what you experienced and witnessed have convinced 12 impartial jurors?



Hard to say depends on the jurors I guess. Point being the testimony would not be dismissed.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Hard to say depends on the jurors I guess. Point being the testimony would not be dismissed.



Sorry,
the possibility that it would be admissible under the rules of evidence has nothing to do with the probability that it would be dismissed by 12 impartial jurors.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 1, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Sorry,
> the possibility that it would be admissible under the rules of evidence has nothing to do with the probability that it would be dismissed by 12 impartial jurors.


You obviously don't understand probability. Obviously if it was inadmissible the probability would be zero and if admissible would have a higher percentage of probability.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> You obviously don't understand probability. Obviously if it was inadmissible the probability would be zero and if admissible would have a higher percentage of probability.



And you obviously don’t understand court procedures and the rules of evidence.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Nov 2, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't know what I am. I was raised by a Baptist preacher. It didn't take me very long to see the contradictions and flaws in that and cease to have faith in it. I generally believe that there is a higher power out there, but I don't think it really much resembles the Christian, Muslim, or other mainstream religions' version of an old guy sitting on a cloud spending all his time worrying about every detail of what we do every day for purposes of reward or punishment.
> 
> Maybe more like a power, energy, or "spirit" that infuses everything that exists. That is probably the closest thing to my current belief, after half a century of having one religion shoved down my throat, and perusing and studying the rest of them. Maybe, I don't know. I think that if God exists, I doubt if any of us could actually logically presume to understand it , analyze it, and/or know what it wants, as so many folks seem to take for granted.
> 
> ...



That's as good of an answer as I've seen to describe the way I feel. 

I've had a few experiences in life that make me believe we're all interconnected in some fashion.

Just a couple:

I woke up in the wee hours of the night once, knowing something was not "wrong", but not normal. I couldn't go back to sleep and eventually started my day and went on to work, but couldn't shake the feeling that something was, again, not "wrong", but.. different. All morning long I had that same feeling, until about 11:00 when I got a call telling me my grandmother (who I wasn't all that close to) had died during the night. Suddenly it was like a weight had been lifted. 

I was visiting a friend that had two young daughters and an older outside dog that was dying. I'd get up extra early to make sure that if the dog had died it wasn't lying on the doorstep or something like that. I'd made my checks one morning and her four year old daughter was standing in the front door and asked me what I was doing. "Oh, just looking for Sadie" I replied. She looked at me and said "Sadie dead". I asked her what she meant and she said "Sadie came to me last night and said she couldn't come see me anymore because she was dead". I asked if she meant the dog came inside into her room and she said "No, she came to me in a dream." We found the dog dead later that morning. 

The girl would be 14 now and I've lost touch with the family over the years but I'd love to ask her if she remembers that and exactly what happened. I didn't press the issue at the time because she was so young but I've always wondered, I had something similar happen with a pet when I was a little older than her. 

Something that connects everything in the Universe sort of thing I'm a lot more inclined to believe in than a traditional go-church-worship-me-or-I-will-smite-you kind of deity.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm not religious in the least, but I've prayed with friends in hospitals, said Grace for meals in friend's houses and even done prayers at a funeral or two. I was raised Presbyterian, and more importantly, to be a southern boy with manners and to be a gracious guest.  

I know the Lord's prayer and a great many others, and I'm probably more well-versed in the bible than many who profess to believe, though I happen not to.

When called upon in times of need or just a family dinner at a friend's house, it's about them and what they need, not what I believe. It doesn't hurt me one way or another to support them and their beliefs. I probably wouldn't be the best guy to ask to preach a sermon, though.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 2, 2017)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I'm not religious in the least, but I've prayed with friends in hospitals, said Grace for meals in friend's houses and even done prayers at a funeral or two. I was raised Presbyterian, and more importantly, to be a southern boy with manners and to be a gracious guest.
> 
> I know the Lord's prayer and a great many others, and I'm probably more well-versed in the bible than many who profess to believe, though I happen not to.
> 
> When called upon in times of need or just a family dinner at a friend's house, it's about them and what they need, not what I believe. It doesn't hurt me one way or another to support them and their beliefs. I probably wouldn't be the best guy to ask to preach a sermon, though.



Yes. This is me as well.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 2, 2017)

I had probably the closest brush with death in my lifetime recently when my appendix ruptured. In the hours leading up to the surgery I didn't feel any need to pray, but the fear of leaving my wife and young son behind if anything were to go wrong was intense. I spent those moments telling them how much I loved them.

Interestingly in the days of recovery after the surgery the pastor of my childhood church came to visit. He asked if he could pray and I hesitated briefly before saying sure. It was slightly awkward given that he probably knows at this point that I am not religious, but I try to appreciate it when others wish me well in their own way even if it seems a silly way to me.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Nov 2, 2017)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I had probably the closest brush with death in my lifetime recently when my appendix ruptured. In the hours leading up to the surgery I didn't feel any need to pray, but the fear of leaving my wife and young son behind if anything were to go wrong was intense. I spent those moments telling them how much I loved them.
> 
> Interestingly in the days of recovery after the surgery the pastor of my childhood church came to visit. He asked if he could pray and I hesitated briefly before saying sure. It was slightly awkward given that he probably knows at this point that I am not religious, but I try to appreciate it when others wish me well in their own way even if it seems a silly way to me.



Why would you have of fear of leaving them behind? Your Federal Government would have taken care of them..


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 2, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Even though it is allowed as evidence in a court of law.



An evil of necessity. Eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable in part because we do not recall the facts of situations nearly as well as we think we do. Unfortunately much of the time it is the only source of evidence we have.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 2, 2017)

Browning Slayer said:


> Why would you have of fear of leaving them behind? Your Federal Government would have taken care of them..



Don't you have a bridge to guard over on pol?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 2, 2017)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I'm not religious in the least, but I've prayed with friends in hospitals, said Grace for meals in friend's houses and even done prayers at a funeral or two. I was raised Presbyterian, and more importantly, to be a southern boy with manners and to be a gracious guest.
> 
> I know the Lord's prayer and a great many others, and I'm probably more well-versed in the bible than many who profess to believe, though I happen not to.
> 
> When called upon in times of need or just a family dinner at a friend's house, it's about them and what they need, not what I believe. It doesn't hurt me one way or another to support them and their beliefs. I probably wouldn't be the best guy to ask to preach a sermon, though.



Replace "Presbyterian" with "Baptist," and that pretty much describes me, also.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 2, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> You have to seek the lord and the facts if you really want to find out.



Been there, done that. Nothing showed. 
Like NCHillbilly's story, upon further investigation, it was "a cow with a white face".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> 1. You said you didn't believe
> 2. Other than believing in other folks work that align with your views, you have nothing to prove that you are right
> 3. Receive a gift from God......other than life.
> 4. Agreed



Re:
1. Why restate what I have already established?
2. I have called upon your god to take the witness stand multiple times. Perennial No-Show.
I do not pick out anyone to align with my views. I reaearch Pro and Con and based off of the available evidence I make an informed decision on what is more likely than not to be true. 
3. Sounds like yet another baseless claim. But my name is Matthew, so the gift of god thing  is for your benefit.
4. -----


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I have called upon your god to take the witness stand multiple times. Perennial No-Show.
> --




whatever you were looking for that didn't happen does not constitute any factual evidence that God isn't real......

I've had what I thought to be "unanswered prayers"........but later realized they were actually answered, just not the way I demanded.

And if you really know the Bible like you claim, you'd know that there are things we can do that will hinder our prayers. That seems to be the common denominator in most fall outs people blame God for.......they want to sit in their chair as is and make their demands and if God doesn't answer.....he doesn't exist.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Nov 2, 2017)

Bullethead, you have lost the argument. He has used arguments number 8 and number 29 for the existence of God.
Better luck next time...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> Bullethead, you have lost the argument. He has used arguments number 8 and number 29 for the existence of God.
> Better luck next time...



Actually.....I have my own reasons And I'm not interested in winning an argument.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> whatever you were looking for that didn't happen does not constitute any factual evidence that God isn't real......
> 
> I've had what I thought to be "unanswered prayers"........but later realized they were actually answered, just not the way I demanded.
> 
> And if you really know the Bible like you claim, you'd know that there are things we can do that will hinder our prayers. That seems to be the common denominator in most fall outs people blame God for.......they want to sit in their chair as is and make their demands and if God doesn't answer.....he doesn't exist.



Transversely, if you do an experiment already totally convinced of outcome x, you will find a way to interpret all your findings as supporting outcome x, regardless of whether they actually do or not.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Actually.....I have my own reasons And I'm not interested in winning an argument.



My highest commendations for a very good answer...

This leads me to my next honest question:
Can a Believer have true Faith even though he can find no proof?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> Can a Believer have true Faith even though he can find no proof?



No faith is required if you have proof. 

Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the convictions of things not seen".


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> Transversely, if you do an experiment already totally convinced of outcome x, you will find a way to interpret all your findings as supporting outcome x, regardless of whether they actually do or not.



True, and that works for the believers and the non believers.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> whatever you were looking for that didn't happen does not constitute any factual evidence that God isn't real......
> 
> I've had what I thought to be "unanswered prayers"........but later realized they were actually answered, just not the way I demanded.
> 
> And if you really know the Bible like you claim, you'd know that there are things we can do that will hinder our prayers. That seems to be the common denominator in most fall outs people blame God for.......they want to sit in their chair as is and make their demands and if God doesn't answer.....he doesn't exist.


I know lots of literature and fictional works and I rely on their contents when conversing about the fictional characters within also.
Please do not pretend that I take the bible literally and seriously but choose to ignore it.
I have stated many times all of the faults and errors within the bible and why I accept it for what it is. Ancient writings by mostly anonymous authors that were assembled over thousands of years while others writings were purposely left out and destroyed because they told of conflicting stories.
The characters within the pages of those writings is as real to me as Santa,  Darth Vader, Bigfoot, Foghorn Leghorn and every other god that you reject because of the absurdity associated with them.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> My highest commendations for a very good answer...
> 
> This leads me to my next honest question:
> Can a Believer have true Faith even though he can find no proof?


 Depends on what you call "proof". My faith is believing that God can heal me after a over a year of trying medical options. My proof is my complete healing a week prior to surgery, surgery was cancelled. People can have true faith knowing that God can heal them as well. At the same time, no faith is required if you can come up with a medical explanation, which in my case, there were none. Degenerative disk and out place. Have none now.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I know lots of literature and fictional works and I rely on their contents when conversing about the fictional characters within also.
> Please do not pretend that I take the bible literally and seriously but choose to ignore it.
> I have stated many times all of the faults and errors within the bible and why I accept it for what it is. Ancient writings by mostly anonymous authors that were assembled over thousands of years while others writings were purposely left out and destroyed because they told of conflicting stories.
> The characters within the pages of those writings is as real to me as Santa,  Darth Vader, Bigfoot, Foghorn Leghorn and every other god that you reject because of the absurdity associated with them.



Now you understand why God isn't real to you?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Now you understand why God isn't real to you?



Yes.
The evidence for a god does not support the claims.

Your bible is no more accurate or true than any other man written religious bible type handbook.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2017)

1eyefishing said:


> Bullethead, you have lost the argument. He has used arguments number 8 and number 29 for the existence of God.
> Better luck next time...



http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Very enlightening; especially when you go with the link to "real proofs of the nonexistence of any god" and the opening paragraph includes that Believers are stupid.

I sure opened my eyes.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
> 
> Very enlightening; especially when you go with the link to "real proofs of the nonexistence of any god" and the opening paragraph includes that Believers are stupid.
> 
> I sure opened my eyes.


gullable would be more accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

From nobeliefs website

Today we still have dozens of Bible translation versions, with Bible scholars still arguing over the meaning and proper translations of words and phrases. The following shows just a few of the most popular versions:

King James Version (KJV)Censored
The New King James Version (NKJV)Censored
Modern King James Version [Green's Translation] (MKJV)Censored
Literal Translation Version [Green] (LITV)Censored
International Standard Version (ISV)Censored
The New International Version (NIV)Censored
English Standard Version (ESV)Censored
New English Bible (NEB)Censored
American Standard Version (ASV)Censored
New American Standard Bible (NASB)Censored
Revised Standard Version (RSV)Censored
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Contemporary English Version (CEV)Censored
Today's English Version (TEV)Censored
The Living Bible (LB)Censored
New Century Version (NC)Censored
New Life Version (NLV)Censored
New Living Translation (NLT)Censored
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)Censored
Revised Young's Literal Translation (RYLT)Censored
John Darby's New TranslationCensored
Weymouth New Testament TranslationCensored
Rotherham'sCensored

(One might wonder what will happen to the "new" revisions a few hundred years from now. Nevertheless, the King James Version still remains the most used Bible in the world today and it will probably continue its popularity long into the future.)

No doubt that future versions of Bibles will surface in the future: revisions of previously revised Bibles and newer revisions of new versions. The history of the many versions of the Bible stories, from the ancient Mesopotamian myths to the varied interpretations, interpolations, and versions of the Bible speaks volumes about the reliability of their interpretations and the alleged "truth" they claim the Bible holds, because it shows that the Bible comes not from supernatural agents but rather from human imagination. We have not one shred of evidence for the supernatural influence on human written works (and mostly from unknown authors), but we do have an abundance of evidence for human recorded beliefs and myths. This shows a marked difference between those of scientific works and those deriving from religious minds. For example, Euclid's Elements written around 300 B.C.E. has changed little since its inception. Scientists don't argue and debate about its meaning because they know it doesn't represent an absolute or fixed work. It only provides a step in the understanding of geometry. Most Christian apologists, on the other hand, view the Bible as fixed and absolute, if only they could only just get the interpretation correct. But regardless of how much they want the Bible to reflect their particular beliefs, they can never dislodge the violence and atrocities described and condoned by their God in the stories in the Old Testament. Nor can they dismiss the even more horrific result of the horrors of H3ll as amplified by the words of the alleged Jesus in the New Testament where almost everyone on earth dies in eternal fire. In short, Bible belief influences horror, not by the majority but by the few that actually believe in its macabre prophecy and have the power to force their beliefs onto the majority.

We have little reason to think that violence inspired by Bibles and other religious texts will ever cease. One only has to look at the religious wars around the world to see belief's everlasting destructive potential. One only has to look at the Protestant-Catholic uprising in Ireland, the conflicts in the middle east with Jews fighting Moslems & Christians, the Gulf war, Sudan's civil war between Christians and Islamics, the Bosnia conflicts, and the war in Iraq. The desperate acts of fanatical individuals who have killed for their beliefs of Jesus, Mohammed, God or Satan would create a death list unmatched by any other method in history. The "Holy" Bible supports the notion of war and destruction, not only as a prophesy but as a moral necessity. If we wish to become a peaceful species, it may well serve us to understand the forces of belief that keep us in continual conflict and why the Bible has such a stronghold on the minds of people around the world.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> The evidence for a god does not support the claims.
> 
> Your bible is no more accurate or true than any other man written religious bible type handbook.



 metanoia for, or against is self inflicted.......


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> metanoia for, or against is self inflicted.......



Absolutely.  When there is only one individual involved it HAS to be self inflicted.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely.  When there is only one individual involved it HAS to be self inflicted.



You know one time there was this blind man that tried to convince me that the red light wasn't there. And one time a deaf man tried to tell me that music had no sound. And one time..........

Only if they could see and hear.....


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> From nobeliefs website
> 
> Today we still have dozens of Bible translation versions, with Bible scholars still arguing over the meaning and proper translations of words and phrases. The following shows just a few of the most popular versions:
> 
> ...


This is like communism trying to explain freedom. Loster than a ball in high weeds


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> True, and that works for the believers and the non believers.



The difference is in the standard of proof. If I see God come down from the heavens and stand astride my valley with one foot on top of Mt. Sterling and the other atop Cold Mountain, with thunderstorms orbiting his head and he says, "behold me and believe," that there is proof. If my dog runs away and I pray for him to come back and he does; he may have come back because God made him, or he could have just got hungry and lonely.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> The difference is in the standard of proof. If I see God come down from the heavens and stand astride my valley with one foot on top of Mt. Sterling and the other atop Cold Mountain, with thunderstorms orbiting his head and he says, "behold me and believe," that there is proof. If my dog runs away and I pray for him to come back and he does; he may have come back because God made him, or he could have just got hungry and lonely.


Surely you of all people understand the difference in physical and spiritual??

And God may have came to your holler while you were out looking for your dog.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You know one time there was this blind man that tried to convince me that the red light wasn't there. And one time a deaf man tried to tell me that music had no sound. And one time..........
> 
> Only if they could see and hear.....



How does that differ from any other believer in any other religion?

They say you are blind and deaf to their "truth".

You have not offered a single thing to help your god stand out.  Text and minds is where it exists, and while there is nothing wrong with that, it is no more special than all the rest.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> This is like communism trying to explain freedom. Loster than a ball in high weeds



Break it down, refute it with facts.
You have lots of claims.  It is time to start backing them up.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> How does that differ from any other believer in any other religion?
> 
> They say you are blind and deaf to their "truth".
> 
> You have not offered a single thing to help your god stand out.  Text and minds is where it exists, and while there is nothing wrong with that, it is no more special than all the rest.


Sure I, we, they have. But you are convinced it is not there. What are the odds of changing your mind after you've repeatedly made your stance?   


bullethead said:


> Break it down, refute it with facts.
> You have lots of claims.  It is time to start backing them up.


When a man has already convinced himself that the sky is falling...........all you can really do is throw him a helmet.

And, the watch is on my hand, not yours, so when the time right for a person that is receptive, I will oblige.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Sure I, we, they have. But you are convinced it is not there. What are the odds of changing your mind after you've repeatedly made your stance?
> 
> When a man has already convinced himself that the sky is falling...........all you can really do is throw him a helmet.
> 
> And, the watch is on my hand, not yours, so when the time right for a person that is receptive, I will oblige.


Like I've said repeatedly. You literally have got nothing but empty claims and diversion to try to deflect that fact you cannot produce.

I am open and waiting for you or any believer in any relgion to actually take the next step and back up the claims.
I cannot convince myself to jump from rational to make believe on baseless claims. You want me pretend to see things that are just not there. 

I have no more faith in you telling me about your god than I do you telling to step off a cliff.
I am asking you to step off the cliff and show me that your god has your back. 
You can choose the literal cliff, or since you are so tight with your god, you can ask it to come visit me. I'll be honest and tell everyone here what exactly happens.
But when you show me nothing and then tell me I cannot see you are proving my point not yours.

I am not claiming something IS happening like the sky falling. I am standing outside and looking at a fine sky. YOU are telling me that there is something different that I am not seeing. I am asking you to show me. Take your helmet off and show me.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Like I've said repeatedly. You literally have got nothing but empty claims and diversion to try to deflect that fact you cannot produce.
> 
> I am open and waiting for you or any believer in any relgion to actually take the next step and back up the claims.
> I cannot convince myself to jump from rational to make believe on baseless claims. You want me pretend to see things that are just not there.
> ...


 I told you to begin with that I do not debate my belief. I will tell you what I believe and I've done that multiple times over the last few weeks. But I don't feel that I owe you or anyone else any hard physical facts that you so desire. Why do I need to convince you of what I believe? I take my faith seriously and do not care to lay it out there to be trampled on and disrespected. I've told you before that only God can reveal himself to only those that are willing, why on earth you keep searching for someone to prove something outside of that is beyond me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I told you to begin with that I do not debate my belief. I will tell you what I believe and I've done that multiple times over the last few weeks. But I don't feel that I owe you or anyone else any hard physical facts that you so desire. Why do I need to convince you of what I believe? I take my faith seriously and do not care to lay it out there to be trampled on and disrespected. I've told you before that only God can reveal himself to only those that are willing, why on earth you keep searching for someone to prove something outside of that is beyond me.


I don't care what you believe or why you believe it. I didnt come knocking on your door demanding that you explain yourself to me.

Once you come in here and start making claims about your beliefs and include me in them, Yeah, Im going to ask you to put up or shut up.
You are telling me that your god must reveal himself. Well, prove to us that is the case.
You are telling me that I cannot see evidence of your god. Show me the evidence.

You go around making claims, cant back them up,and then expect not to be held accountable. 

You seem to get through life just fine as you are and that is of no concern to me. I also live just fine. When you make it a point to include me in your world by telling me that I am missing out on something or that I am somehow missing something because I am not religious I am certainly going to expect you to be able to back that up.

So far, and dont feel bad because you are in great company, you are right in the mix of believers of all gods who are long on claims and short on proof backing those claims up.

What is your point of being in here if not to try to show someone else that your god exists?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

And for the record, I am not implying that you are unwelcomed here...that is not for me to decide...I am wondering what is it that you want to bring up and talk about that leads you to this area of the forums?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I don't care what you believe or why you believe it. I didnt come knocking on your door demanding that you explain yourself to me.
> 
> Once you come in here and start making claims about your beliefs and include me in them, Yeah, Im going to ask you to put up or shut up.
> You are telling me that your god must reveal himself. Well, prove to us that is the case.
> ...



You don't feel that people can discuss or comment on things without a full debate?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> You don't feel that people can discuss or comment on things without a full debate?



So in your ideal thread you may start by saying

Jesus is lord.

And I could reply Allah is the one true god. 

And then what......? Start a new thread where you might say... God created the universe and I may reply.....Rah is the giver of life...

And off to another thread?

Whats the point?

What is discussion without debate, or how far can discussion go before someone calls horsehocky and wants to the other person to show their hand?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

You can only bluff so long before you are called out.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> How many of y'all signed insurance contracts where certain things are not covered......such as "Acts of God"? Science seems to be the only area with so much disdain and denial.





bullethead said:


> What god does your ins co specify?
> 
> You are REALLY reaching for examples. I have never seen so many believers have to scrap and scrape for such poor examples to use as "proof" for something they tout as  being everywhere at all times.





bullethead said:


> Once you come in here and start making claims about your beliefs and include me in them, Yeah, Im going to ask you to put up or shut up.



I believe you done got yourself all in a hissy fit there. Looks like you included yourself by quoting me. Dont grab a hold of an electric fence and pretend it's someone else's fault.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I believe you done got yourself all in a hissy fit there. Looks like you included yourself by quoting me. Dont grab a hold of an electric fence and pretend it's someone else's fault.



Explain how I got myself in a hissy fit.


Break down your analogy.
What fence did I grab? Who did I blame?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> So in your ideal thread you may start by saying
> 
> Jesus is lord.
> 
> ...



Debate can be fine, the problem here is the childish banter of insulting "Christians are the defected" etc. That's not debate, that's 2nd grade argument.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Explain how I got myself in a hissy fit.
> 
> 
> Break down your analogy.
> What fence did I grab? Who did I blame?



Good Lord are you really at a point in your life that you need an explanation to open a candy bar? Back up a few post to where you are setting me straight about including you in my beliefs. Take a deep breath and go hunting or something


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Debate can be fine, the problem here is the childish banter of insulting "Christians are the defected" etc. That's not debate, that's 2nd grade argument.



Many 2nd graders have invisible friends too.

Who said Christians are the defected?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Good Lord are you really at a point in your life that you need an explanation to open a candy bar? Back up a few post to where you are setting me straight about including you in my beliefs. Take a deep breath and go hunting or something



No, see this is the perfect example of your style.
You bring something up and are unable to back it up.
If you make claims why shouldn't you be prepared and expected to back them up?
You are relying on one instance where i quoted and answered a question that you directed towards someone else and ignore the dozens of direct questions that I asked you that require an honest answer.

You have included me in your beliefs. You tell me why or why not your god is or is not in my life. I tend to want to know more.

I have been assembling ammo for family,  friends and myself. I stayed home from a deer hunting trip so I can get my mother to and from her doctor appointments. I am well satisfied winding down in here.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> No, see this is the perfect example of your style.
> You bring something up and are unable to back it up.
> If you make claims why shouldn't you be prepared and expected to back them up?
> You are relying on one instance where i quoted and answered a question that you directed towards someone else and ignore the dozens of direct questions that I asked you that require an honest answer.
> ...



Bullet here's the deal, the topic of this thread is about if it got really bad.......given the responses that some are still not going to believe, no matter how bad things got. Since some people are so adamant about staying out of anything that has God in it, I asked a question about "acts of God" in insurance and people signing those contracts. Had nothing to do with my beliefs. You felt the need to interject asking questions about who's God, and saying you're REALLY reaching to prove Gods existence, etc.

So I didn't bring anything up about my beliefs or attempt to prove the existence of God, I only tried to address your questions about what I believe. If you view my original question as an attempt to prove anything about my beliefs, you misunderstood the question.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet here's the deal, the topic of this thread is about if it got really bad.......given the responses that some are still not going to believe, no matter how bad things got. Since some people are so adamant about staying out of anything that has God in it, I asked a question about "acts of God" in insurance and people signing those contracts. Had nothing to do with my beliefs. You felt the need to interject asking questions about who's God, and saying you're REALLY reaching to prove Gods existence, etc.
> 
> So I didn't bring anything up about my beliefs or attempt to prove the existence of God, I only tried to address your questions about what I believe. If you view my original question as an attempt to prove anything about my beliefs, you misunderstood the question.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet here's the deal, the topic of this thread is about if it got really bad.......given the responses that some are still not going to believe, no matter how bad things got. Since some people are so adamant about staying out of anything that has God in it, I asked a question about "acts of God" in insurance and people signing those contracts. Had nothing to do with my beliefs. You felt the need to interject asking questions about who's God, and saying you're REALLY reaching to prove Gods existence, etc.
> 
> So I didn't bring anything up about my beliefs or attempt to prove the existence of God, I only tried to address your questions about what I believe. If you view my original question as an attempt to prove anything about my beliefs, you misunderstood the question.





> I asked a question about "acts of God" in insurance and people signing those contracts


It is immediately translated into what it means -


> An act of God is a legal term for events outside human control, such as sudden natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible. In the law of contracts, an act of God may be interpreted as an implied defense under the rule of impossibility or impracticability.


And not given another thought


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Bullet here's the deal, the topic of this thread is about if it got really bad.......given the responses that some are still not going to believe, no matter how bad things got. Since some people are so adamant about staying out of anything that has God in it, I asked a question about "acts of God" in insurance and people signing those contracts. Had nothing to do with my beliefs. You felt the need to interject asking questions about who's God, and saying you're REALLY reaching to prove Gods existence, etc.
> 
> So I didn't bring anything up about my beliefs or attempt to prove the existence of God, I only tried to address your questions about what I believe. If you view my original question as an attempt to prove anything about my beliefs, you misunderstood the question.


So what was your point for asking someone about an Ins claim where "act of god" is involved and then you go on to mention science etc etc?

It was your first contribution to the thread and you seem to know what the thread was about.

Are you implying that Ins Co's recognize God, and all other businesses do except ones that deal in science?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> It is immediately translated into what it means -
> 
> And not given another thought


That's because questions about proving Gods existence started. 


bullethead said:


> So what was your point for asking someone about an Ins claim where "act of god" is involved and then you go on to mention science etc etc?
> 
> It was your first contribution to the thread and you seem to know what the thread was about.
> 
> Are you implying that Ins Co's recognize God, and all other businesses do except ones that deal in science?


You can usually tell what a thread is about based on its title????? Because most here resort to something scientific as their reasoning for non belief. I figured it fit the majority of those that would absolutely refuse to take part of anything God.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> That's because questions about proving Gods existence started.
> 
> You can usually tell what a thread is about based on its title????? Because most here resort to something scientific as their reasoning for non belief. I figured it fit the majority of those that would absolutely refuse to take part of anything God.


Did you know the definition of "act of god" as used by the insurance companies before you made the post?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Did you know the definition of "act of god" as used by the insurance companies before you made the post?



In a nutshell, Acts of God for insurance purposes are "natural causes" not human caused.

If I give any God any credit, lets say, causing a storm, calming a storm, protecting my home during a tornado, etc., I have an "invisible friend " that had nothing to do with some natural event?.........But you don't have an issue with insurance companies defining a natural cause - tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc., as an "Act of God"......... or any god or anything that you say doesn't exist? That was actually the intent of my question.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2017)

Ambush, this is your thread, at least by inception. If I am posting out of place let me know as the first post says "atheists and agnostics". (And though I am also not really not an apologist at all either, some of you have shown grace in responding to me over the years without ever resorting to threat of "banishment") So, if the easy receipt of that grace is presumed upon as license to speak where a more clear restriction has been established, let me know and I will delete. But, I do like grace.

I don't know but that a reduction of argument (or debate, or discussion) from these forms of clay in arena is ever more than "reality is limited" vs "reality is unlimited". 

And each, it would appear, regardless, has already circumscribed in mind, in apprehension, in imagination, even by use of word as such, what _reality _"is". We do seem to start from limit of language. 

What may call itself "unbeliever" in opposition to "believer" must still (even _if _self proclaimed unbeliever) submit to a restriction of its understanding of limit. If one says "all that is is material (in whatever form), and completely (eventually) knowable" (and therefore subject to manipulation, or at least "handling by the mind" in apprehension) there remains the clear, if unstated truth "but we do _not yet_ know the all of the all that there is".

The_ believer_, though _in seeming opposition_ has in some form said "the system is completely open, even if material limit can be imagined (or even found), there remains the complete and unfettered will of a consciousness "above it all" to which it is subject....open, unhindered, un (itself) subject.

But both believer and unbeliever alike share this, "we don't know the end (on the one hand "of the material") nor on the other (of what could be said to be) of the eternal. In particular the "Christ" believer knows this as firmly enunciated (if he believes the scriptures) "it does not _yet appear_ what we shall be".

So, till then we all are, as we deal with one another, finding some constraint in the relative. We both seem to deal with absolutes, but always, at least with one another, in terms of the relative.

And so, with your question is also that understanding.  "If it got really really bad...?" Bad becomes a relative thing, despite insertion of the "really really"...and we all then invite by imagination the concept of what that might look like. And we place ourselves there in imagination, and from there...come to some sort of surmise. But, I can't say more for now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> In a nutshell, Acts of God for insurance purposes are "natural causes" not human caused.
> 
> If I give any God any credit, lets say, causing a storm, calming a storm, protecting my home during a tornado, etc., I have an "invisible friend " that had nothing to do with some natural event?.........But you don't have an issue with insurance companies defining a natural cause - tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc., as an "Act of God"......... or any god or anything that you say doesn't exist? That was actually the intent of my question.



I do not have an issue with insurance Companies  using the term "act of god" because they are not using it to give credit to a specific diety but use it to describe events that are unpredictable and beyon human control.

From Duhaims Law Dictionary:


Act of God Definition:An event which is caused solely by the effect of nature or natural causes and without any interference by humans whatsoever.

Related Terms:Accident,God,Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam

An event which is caused solely by the effect of nature or natural causes and without any interference by humans whatsoever.

"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."



Although there are several examples of good judicial definitions, the 1922 USA case of Woodruff v Oleite Corporation 192 NYS 189 is often cited:

"omething which operates without any aid or interference of man, and when the loss occasioned is the result in any degree of human aid or interference, or if an act of human negligence contributed to the injury or, though the injury proceed directly from natural causes, if it might have been avoided by human prudence and foresight, it cannot be considered the act of God.


For non-lawyers, and for the judiciary, the word has caused problems, as well described in the American case Goldberg v R. Grier Miller & Sons 408 PA 1 (1962):

*TAKE SPECIAL NOTE HERE SPOTLITE*

"Judges and lawyers know that the phrase is not intended in its literal sense. (J)urors do not know this and when judges charge that a reputed accident may have been an act of God, there are many jurors who may be so awestricken by the concept of a divine manifestation that they cannot give to the facts the down-to-earth, tangible, mathematical analysis and deliberation which is required for a secular verdict.

"There are people who believe that every happening in the world is dictated by the Supreme Being and that therefore what is, is, and could not ever have been otherwise. There are sects so imbued with this concept ... that their members refuse even to summon a doctor when ill."

"Man in his finite mind cannot pass upon the wisdom of the Infinite. There is something shocking in attributing any tragedy or holocaust to God. The ways of the Deity so surpass the understanding of man that it is not the province of man to pass judgment upon what may be beyond human comprehension. There are many manifestations of nature which science has not yet been able to analyze, much less cope with.

"In any event no person called into court to answer for a tort may find exoneration from the act of negligence charged to him by asserting that it was not he but the Supreme Being which inflicted the wound and the hurts of which the plaintiff complains.

"To instruct a jury to distinguish between what is commanded by the Lord and what is the result of man's carelessness is to intermingle religious loyalties with earthly considerations in such a manner as to produce results which may satisfy neither Church nor State.

"The phrase act of God, in the sense in which it is interpreted in the legal and commercial world, did not have its genesis in the law. It emerged from the chrysalis of the primitive mind groping for comprehension in the primordial misty days when man sought to adjust to the universe and he craved explanation of what to him was unexplainable. In this failure to understand, innate intelligence was supplanted by superstition which proceeded to attribute to the heavens all that could not be spelled out in the blundering, amorphous language of the age. Thus, when the thunder blasted and the horizon cavernously echoed; when the lightning severed the skies in zigzag tumult, man said that God was angry and then if, in the accompanying electric storm, a tree crashed to the ground, man said that the Supreme Ruler had targeted it with a bolt of wrath.

"As time passed, persons with cunning and cupidity sought to avail themselves of this superstition in order to avoid a responsibility which was the result of their own failings and neglect. If, for instance, a proprietor neglected to properly maintain a strong bridge over a stream on his land and the bridge broke, drowning a traveler, the proprietor would respond to charges of negligence by stating that rains had swollen the stream and since the rains were caused by God, the proprietor could not be held liable for what God had done.

"But the fact is that heavy rains are not so unusual that one cannot anticipate them and prepare against the damage they can wreak. Whether the land-owner makes adequate preparation against a predictable heavy storm is always a question of ascertainable fact. The same is true when heavy snows intervene. The person who builds a house in the North Temperate Zone with a roof so feebly constructed and so loosely moored that it will give way beneath the weight of a seasonable accumulation of frozen precipitation, injuring or killing his guest, cannot blame the fall of his roof on Providence and say that the collapse of his house was anCensoredact of God.

"Nor can he say that since the snow is a fact and the disaster is a fact, this collaboration speaks of what it was beyond his human power to avert.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 3, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> In a nutshell, Acts of God for insurance purposes are "natural causes" not human caused.
> 
> If I give any God any credit, lets say, causing a storm, calming a storm, protecting my home during a tornado, etc., I have an "invisible friend " that had nothing to do with some natural event?.........But you don't have an issue with insurance companies defining a natural cause - tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc., as an "Act of God"......... or any god or anything that you say doesn't exist? That was actually the intent of my question.


We were and are a Christian dominated society. Its a phrase that describes a situation that the vast majority would understand the concept of.
Its on the forms. You need the forms. So you sign the forms. I would imagine most A/As don't even pause when reading it or give it a thought before signing other than how it effects them legally.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 3, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I do not have an issue with insurance Companies  using the term "act of god" because they are not using it to give credit to a specific diety but use it to describe events that are unpredictable and beyon human control.
> 
> From Duhaims Law Dictionary:
> 
> ...


 Without all of the examples, the point here is that the industry neither denies or claims a deity with their phrase. Most examples are saying the same, human is not liable. The bottom line is they are not human caused, they're natural. Whatever caused that natural event is not in question. Why would they refer to it as acts of God instead of "acts of nature"? Again, this is not an attempt to use this as proof or disproof of the existence of God. It's why isn't there so much heart burn and disgust from the atheist over this? This seems to be a common acceptance. But, if things got really really bad, still want no part or even consider anything "God".



WaltL1 said:


> We were and are a Christian dominated society. Its a phrase that describes a situation that the vast majority would understand the concept of.
> Its on the forms. You need the forms. So you sign the forms. I would imagine most A/As don't even pause when reading it or give it a thought before signing other than how it effects them legally.



This, I would agree with.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Without all of the examples, the point here is that the industry neither denies or claims a deity with their phrase. Most examples are saying the same, human is not liable. The bottom line is they are not human caused, they're natural. Whatever caused that natural event is not in question. Why would they refer to it as acts of God instead of "acts of nature"? Again, this is not an attempt to use this as proof or disproof of the existence of God. It's why isn't there so much heart burn and disgust from the atheist over this? This seems to be a common acceptance. But, if things got really really bad, still want no part or even consider anything "God".
> 
> 
> 
> This, I would agree with.



The included text explained why they used "god", and why the legal system does not acknowledge an actual god.
You actually have to read it.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2017)

Bullet, I'm not sure that's true.
And Bullet, I am convinced that's true.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 4, 2017)

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/ActofGod.aspx
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1962409408pa11409


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/ActofGod.aspx
> https://www.leagle.com/decision/1962409408pa11409



Same article twice which makes three times counting the one that I originally posted.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 4, 2017)

Having attempted to un-edit the edit of an edit, it is the “opinion” of this Believer that a Nonbelieving lawyer availed himself of the opportunity to express his “opinion”, while writing an article for a legal dictionary, by exhibiting the “opinion” of a Nonbelieving judge who, while writing an “opinion” in a case, came across a precedent which seemed to assume the existence of God, and availed himself of the opportunity to insert his "opinion" that God does not exist.  It is also interesting that he (the judge) seems to have been so carried away by his opportunity that he could not seem to resist inserting his “opinion” on the philosophical/theological question of determinism vs. free-will.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Having attempted to un-edit the edit of an edit, it is the “opinion” of this Believer that a Nonbelieving lawyer availed himself of the opportunity to express his “opinion”, while writing an article for a legal dictionary, by exhibiting the “opinion” of a Nonbelieving judge who, while writing an “opinion” in a case, came across a precedent which seemed to assume the existence of God, and availed himself of the opportunity to insert his "opinion" that God does not exist.  It is also interesting that he (the judge) seems to have been so carried away by his opportunity that he could not seem to resist inserting his “opinion” on the philosophical/theological question of determinism vs. free-will.


The Law is the Law opinions be darned.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 4, 2017)

What we are left after all of the editing  is analogous to steam after it has exited a boiler by way of the pressure relief valve; it is noisy and highly visible, but useless.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> What we are left after all of the editing  is analogous to steam after it has exited a boiler by way of the pressure relief valve; it is noisy and highly visible, but useless.



No respect for the law.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2017)

When a "system" tries to adopt God to its legitimacy...wonderful and terrible things happen...depending upon view.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 4, 2017)

bullethead said:


> The included text explained why they used "god", and why the legal system does not acknowledge an actual god.
> You actually have to read it.


The "opinion" of Justice.........

Those articles reinforce what we already know; there is no liability to place on any human for damages or losses occurred by anything that is an "act of God" and there is no burden on a juror to establish or prove that it was an intervention by a supernatural.

Your entire mentality is built around "proving" or "disproving" the existence of God. That was not the objective of the question. 

Walt provided the best possible answer; "we were and are a Christian dominated society". I tend to agree, and based on that, it can be the "opinion" that the term Act of God has some Christian influence to its existence.

Although the "act" itself is referring to something naturally caused without human influence. The Christian believes that God controls everything, even nature.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> The "opinion" of Justice.........
> 
> Those articles reinforce what we already know; there is no liability to place on any human for damages or losses occurred by anything that is an "act of God" and there is no burden on a juror to establish or prove that it was an intervention by a supernatural.
> 
> ...


You just keep restating what has already been established many posts ago. 
I/we know the history of The United States and the influence that religion had and has on it.
We know that Christians believe in a god and give that god credit for everything. 
And we know that "act of God" is a term used to explain unnatural events in nature. The term is not "act of Jesus", not "act of Allah", nor is it "act of Buddah". It is a non specific term. It is a universally understood term. Believers in gods will automatically tend to think of their god when the term is used. That is the sort of comfort needed to be able to cope with disasterous events and probably why the term is used.
Someone loses everything they own in a natural disaster, insurance companies use god in the explanation, and now the person that is completelty wiped out of all possessions can either blame god or praise him for sparing their lives. The insurance company has a partner to pass the blame on.
Smart.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 4, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You just keep restating what has already been established many posts ago.



I think you missed the whole idea of what was discussed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You just keep restating what has already been established many posts ago.
> I/we know the history of The United States and the influence that religion had and has on it.
> We know that Christians believe in a god and give that god credit for everything.
> And we know that "act of God" is a term used to explain unnatural events in nature. The term is not "act of Jesus", not "act of Allah", nor is it "act of Buddah". It is a non specific term. It is a universally understood term. Believers in gods will automatically tend to think of their god when the term is used. That is the sort of comfort needed to be able to cope with disasterous events and probably why the term is used.
> ...





> It is a universally understood term.


That right there ^
Rgardless of the "god" you might apply to it, everybody understands and can apply that concept of "it was out of a humans hands."
Just like "lemon law". If I'm not mistaken that's actually a legal phrase too.
We just translate it into =protection from buying a piece of carp.
Dont actually give the lemon a whole lot of thought.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> That right there ^
> Rgardless of the "god" you might apply to it, everybody understands and can apply that concept of "it was out of a humans hands."
> Just like "lemon law". If I'm not mistaken that's actually a legal phrase too.
> We just translate it into =protection from buying a piece of carp.
> Dont actually give the lemon a whole lot of thought.


Spot on Walt


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Rgardless of the "god" you might apply to it, everybody understands and can apply that concept of "it was out of a humans hands."



And I would say correct. And as you previously stated about we being Christian dominated and most likely the origin of the phrase is from Christian believers..........some people would say they would not have anything to do with anything God what so over, no matter how bad it got, but as you referenced, they don't pay this much attention. It would make sense if the industry spoke up and said we are not giving any deity any credit, but they have not done that, so the door is still open. I am aware that there are "opinions" and writings based on what they believe and accept in court.....but they all point back to "out of human control"


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Just like "lemon law". If I'm not mistaken that's actually a legal phrase too.
> We just translate it into =protection from buying a piece of carp.
> Dont actually give the lemon a whole lot of thought.



Phrases derive from something relative to the phrase.

The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that there are several possible origins for ‘lemon’ being used to refer to an inferior product. One possibility is that it came from early 20th century American slang, where a ‘lemon’ referred to “a person who is a loser, a simpleton,” as a lemon. Another possibility is that the term originated from British pool hall slang, where a ‘lemon game’ was a game played by a hustler. It seems most likely that that the use of a ‘lemon’ as a bad car came from another British slang term from the early 1900’s in which “to hand someone a lemon” was “to pass off a sub-standard article as a good one.”

Regardless of the where they came from, the terms ‘lemon’ and ‘lemon laws‘ are now common in our modern vocabulary, and codified in our laws. In the context of and vehicles, most everyone agrees that buying a lemon new car, does leave one with a sour feeling.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> And I would say correct. And as you previously stated about we being Christian dominated and most likely the origin of the phrase is from Christian believers..........some people would say they would not have anything to do with anything God what so over, no matter how bad it got, but as you referenced, they don't pay this much attention. It would make sense if the industry spoke up and said we are not giving any deity any credit, but they have not done that, so the door is still open. I am aware that there are "opinions" and writings based on what they believe and accept in court.....but they all point back to "out of human control"





> most likely the origin of the phrase is from Christian believers


I cant find anything that says it isn't. I would be surprised if it wasn't.


> some people would say they would not have anything to do with anything God what so over, no matter how bad it got


Regardless of how bad it got, not you or anybody else can prove God/gods exist.
So its not a matter of "doesn't want anything to do with God".
A person would have to actually believe God/gods exists to "not want to have anything to do with them".

And what exactly do you believe "how bad it gets" has to do with believing in God?



> but as you referenced, they don't pay this much attention.


What are they supposed to do? Protest in the streets?
And anyway I would be willing to bet that if its not taking place already, but certainly in the future, the "standard language" in a contract will remove reference to God/god/any god.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Regardless of how bad it got, not you or anybody else can prove God/gods exist.?


I agree, I have stated that fact many times, only God can reveal himself and to only those that are willing. Just one of the many reasons that I don't debate it.



WaltL1 said:


> And what exactly do you believe "how bad it gets" has to do with believing in God?


The question below that ambush opened the thread with. 



ambush80 said:


> Atheists and Agnostics,
> 
> If it got really, really bad would you appeal to God just in case?






WaltL1 said:


> I would be willing to bet that if its not taking place already, but certainly in the future, the "standard language" in a contract will remove reference to God/god/any god.


 Most definitely.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Sure why not? Just don't forget to sacrifice a goat and sprinkle some birds blood around. Just in case....


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I agree, I have stated that fact many times, only God can reveal himself and to only those that are willing. Just one of the many reasons that I don't debate it.
> 
> 
> The question below that ambush opened the thread with.
> ...



If a lowly ape can reveal themself even to those that aren't willing I have no doubt an all powerful deity could do the same. The fact that they haven't indicates either they are unable, unwilling, or don't exist. The probabilities of those are no different for a deity than for any other mythical creature.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> If a lowly ape can reveal themself even to those that aren't willing I have no doubt an all powerful deity could do the same. The fact that they haven't indicates either they are unable, unwilling, or don't exist. The probabilities of those are no different for a deity than for any other mythical creature.



Right......you've got it all figured out


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Sure why not? Just don't forget to sacrifice a goat and sprinkle some birds blood around. Just in case....



One has to know and understand a subject with enough knowledge to either defend or condemn it.........it's more than obvious that you don't posses that when it comes to the Bible.

Carry on with your sarcasm.


----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> If a lowly ape can reveal themself even to those that aren't willing I have no doubt an all powerful deity could do the same. The fact that they haven't indicates either they are unable, unwilling, or don't exist. The probabilities of those are no different for a deity than for any other mythical creature.



The God I am coming to know is neither constrained by man's will nor willingness.

In truth, the man by whom a great deal of the new testament was penned has the testimony of a will to do as much harm to the name of Jesus Christ and His followers as probably anyone else who may have once derided the name.

Though it is not good to be willfully opposed, the better news is that it does not hinder God in the least.


There is nothing you can do, nothing I can do...in sacrifice to appease God. In this, you and I, are on quite equal ground.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Right......you've got it all figured out



Should I take more seriously your claim that this god of yours is not really omnipotent?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Israel said:


> The God I am coming to know is neither constrained by man's will nor willingness.
> 
> In truth, the man by whom a great deal of the new testament was penned has the testimony of a will to do as much harm to the name of Jesus Christ and His followers as probably anyone else who may have once derided the name.
> 
> ...



^If this is true...




Spotlite said:


> I agree, I have stated that fact many times, only God can reveal himself and to only those that are willing. Just one of the many reasons that I don't debate it.



^Then this is false. So which is it? And how is it that two people who are in direct communication with the same divine being come to two irreconcilable conclusions about the nature of the being you claim to have a relationship with? Maybe you boys should get together and at least reach a consensus on your baseless assertions. The contradictory claims make it look like you're deluded at best and lying at worst.


----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2017)

I am quite reconciled to both you and Spotlite.

And I am finding that out, too.

You are no more a hindrance to God, than I am His helper. 

In as many ways as that could be stated.

Not that any of us ever could be...either.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> ^If this is true...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will stand by my comment below. (I find where God will move on a man and draw him, I find where man will either accept or turn away, but I find nowhere that God wil force anyone unwilling to accept)


Spotlite said:


> One has to know and understand a subject with enough knowledge to either defend or condemn it.........it's more than obvious that you don't posses that when it comes to the Bible.
> 
> Carry on with your sarcasm.





atlashunter said:


> Should I take more seriously your claim that this god of yours is not really omnipotent?


I will stand by my comment above


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2017)

Israel said:


> I am quite reconciled to both you and Spotlite.
> 
> And I am finding that out, too.
> 
> ...



I'm His helper, too and so is Atlas.   He and I just don't know it yet.


----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm His helper, too and so is Atlas.   He and I just don't know it yet.



If the above is distilled to "I am what I do not know...yet" how together we _all are_. All, not God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 6, 2017)

Israel said:


> I am quite reconciled to both you and Spotlite.
> 
> And I am finding that out, too.
> 
> ...





ambush80 said:


> I'm His helper, too and so is Atlas.   He and I just don't know it yet.



Yes.

0 hindrance = 0 negative influence
0 help          = 0 positive influence
0 neg. infl. + 0 posi. infl. = 0 influence
People don't change God; God changes people.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2017)

Israel said:


> If the above is distilled to "I am what I do not know...yet" how together we _all are_. All, not God.



Every second, a limitless opportunity.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm His helper, too and so is Atlas.   He and I just don't know it yet.


Y'all need to stop playing around and pick up the slack 


atlashunter said:


> ^If this is true...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, actually it doesn't mean that all. To stay on topic, this has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God. There are plenty of folks that believe God exist, and they only believe in half the Bible, some don't even believe reading the Bible. All this means is a difference in interpretation.

That's the norm for being human. Look at the political and deer hunting forums, people have a difference in understanding about politics and hunting regs all the time.

Or better yet, see if both of your kids knew what you meant about taking out the trash, cut the grass, do homework, wash dishes, etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Y'all need to stop playing around and pick up the slack



I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to do.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No, actually it doesn't mean that all.



Yes, actually that is _exactly_ what it means. God either is or is not constrained by the will of man. You say he is. Israel says he is not. If one of you is correct then the other is RONG! So which one of you is it? 





Spotlite said:


> That's the norm for being human. Look at the political and deer hunting forums, people have a difference in understanding about politics and hunting regs all the time.
> 
> Or better yet, see if both of your kids knew what you meant about taking out the trash, cut the grass, do homework, wash dishes, etc.



Yeah people whose source of knowledge is their imperfect ape brain get that excuse. People whose source of knowledge is (supposedly) direct communication with an omnipotent/omniscient being don't.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yes, actually that is _exactly_ what it means. God either is or is not constrained by the will of man. You say he is. Israel says he is not. If one of you is correct then the other is RONG! So which one of you is it?
> .



His Will is not restrained, he will get that done with or without you or I. We can limit what he can do for us and exclude ourselves through our unwillingness. Even an ape brain gets that.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> His Will is not restrained, he will get that done with or without you or I. We can limit what he can do for us through our unwillingness. Even an ape brain gets that.



I always knew I had the real power.  I AM the burrito so hot that God can't eat it.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I always knew I had the real power.  I AM the burrito so hot that God can't eat it.



Well you know.........he did say he would spew you out of his mouth.......but I always thought that was just lukewarm


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Well you know.........he did say he would spew you out of his mouth.......but I always thought that was just lukewarm



And He told me I would be persecuted.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I always knew I had the real power.  I AM the burrito so hot that God can't eat it.



Even a gorilla at the local zoo can reveal himself to you against your will. What a weak sauce god.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Even a gorilla at the local zoo can reveal himself to you against your will. What a weak sauce god.



Maybe he tried but you were focused on the gorilla. That thing about having enough knowledge or understanding about a subject to be able to condemn it comes back to mind.........


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> His Will is not restrained, he will get that done with or without you or I. We can limit what he can do for us and exclude ourselves through our unwillingness. Even an ape brain gets that.



You said he CAN reveal himself only to those who are willing. That speaks to his ability not his will. A god that chooses to play hide and seek and then throws those that don't find him in a lake of fire to suffer for an eternity is not the kind of god any moral person should worship.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Maybe he tried but you were focused on the gorilla. That thing about having enough knowledge or understanding about a subject to be able to condemn it comes back to mind.........



This coming from someone who presumes not only to know that there is a creator but claims knowledge of the nature of this creator. 

You claim knowledge that you don't have which explains why you and your coreligionists contradict each other and change your stories any time it's convenient. Strikes me as rather dishonest.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> You said he CAN reveal himself only to those who are willing. That speaks to his ability not his will. A god that chooses to play hide and seek and then throws those that don't find him in a lake of fire to suffer for an eternity is not the kind of god any moral person should worship.


He can. But he won't force it. Not hiding. You can't find him because of your own doings, not his. Complicated to comprehend?


atlashunter said:


> This coming from someone who presumes not only to know that there is a creator but claims knowledge of the nature of this creator.
> 
> You claim knowledge that you don't have which explains why you and your coreligionists contradict each other and change your stories any time it's convenient. Strikes me as rather dishonest.


You don't have a clue of what you're spouting out.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> He can. But he won't force it. Not hiding. You can't find him because of your own doings, not his. Complicated to comprehend?
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you're spouting out.



Ah so he can but he chooses not to. Right. Just like fairies, leprechauns, elves, and hobgoblins. How convenient. If someone said one of those creatures had revealed them self to a seeker I think it would be reasonable to ask for evidence backing that claim. A picture perhaps? Absent that they are indistinguishable from every other nut in this world making absurd claims without a shred of evidence in their favor. So where is yours?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 6, 2017)

"He won't force it."

Yet the Bible is filled with stories of this god revealing himself to non believers. So those stories aren't true then?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Ah so he can but he chooses not to. Right. Just like fairies, leprechauns, elves, and hobgoblins. How convenient. If someone said one of those creatures had revealed them self to a seeker I think it would be reasonable to ask for evidence backing that claim. A picture perhaps? Absent that they are indistinguishable from every other nut in this world making absurd claims without a shred of evidence in their favor. So where is yours?


 Your lack of comprehension is really showing tonight; I don't know if you truly don't understand or just refuse out of pride. It's been mentioned more than once, he will reveal himself to anyone. He won't force anyone that is unwilling to accept him. Two totally separate aspects that most grasp. You have free will to walk away, as you did. Yet rather than humbling yourself and honestly seeking, you sarcastically make jokes and continuously degrade, but you expect a blue light to slap you in the head and say "Hey it's me, God"? What would you do if God did that? What are you going to say? 



atlashunter said:


> "He won't force it."
> 
> Yet the Bible is filled with stories of this god revealing himself to non believers. So those stories aren't true then?


You mean like these non believers that God revealed himself to?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

Or just the ones like yourself that continue to deny and unwilling to accept ??? Yet more evidence that you don't fully understand what you're condemning.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Now you're saying he reveals himself even to those who are not willing. Yet he hasn't done so. Not just to the unwilling. To all of humanity. The weight of evidence supporting Yahweh is exactly the same as for any other God. A big goose egg. If the stars rearranged themselves in the night sky to say "I am Zeus" then I would be convinced Zeus was real. So would most other people around the planet. Doesn't mean people would worship him necessarily. But it would be hard to deny his existence. You believe Yahweh could perform such a feat but chooses not to. That places him in the same category as every other God conjured by the mind of man. That's what the available evidence leads one to conclude, inconveniently for believers such as yourself. If the evidence changes then my view will change accordingly. Until then you're just another in the large crowd of religious knaves and fools making baseless assertions.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

I asked you before and I will ask again. Bring forth your evidence. And make it good. Evidence of the quality that would be sufficient for someone else to demonstrate to you that their god was real.


----------



## Israel (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yes, actually that is _exactly_ what it means. God either is or is not constrained by the will of man. You say he is. Israel says he is not. If one of you is correct then the other is RONG! So which one of you is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All I can say is I know it's not me who is right.

Jesus Christ is.

He's right about man and what he is, and he's right about God, and who He is.

"Knaves and fools" is a fair bait, it could easily hit an unprepared man in two strong pleasure centers, or scenters if you prefer. The knave part will appeal to his love of believing himself morally superior, a good man to his own accounting, and stimulate a response. The attempt at snatch and grab...only to find a hook there. To reach out and try to show he is the better, more moral, man.



The fool part makes its appeal to his intellect, and love to believe himself wise. Or smart. Yeah, it's a pretty deep enticement in a world that places greater reward on cleverness than truth. But cleverness also has its own hook within.

Me...I've sure fallen for both, or either...depending upon presentation. Yeah, my mouth's been ripped a buncha times. It's an exquisitely effective education.

What a man will _fall for_.

Man, the lover of his own goodness and cleverness.
Who continues to suffer in his own enticements rather than bear his own intellect and goodness impugned.

He even goes so far as to call himself "homo sapiens".

All of us, just a buncha wise guys.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yes, actually that is _exactly_ what it means. God either is or is not constrained by the will of man. You say he is. Israel says he is not. If one of you is correct then the other is RONG! So which one of you is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although written from a nonbelieving free-will perspective, this summary clearly shows that to ascribe a unique fault, resulting from the determined vs free discussion, to the believing community requires an exceedingly narrow, and unsustainable perspective; Incompatibilism being only one of many elements which are undetermined.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> All I can say is I know it's not me who is right.



Then why bother speaking what you know to be an untruth?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Now you're saying he reveals himself even to those who are not willing. Yet he hasn't done so. Not just to the unwilling. To all of humanity. The weight of evidence supporting Yahweh is exactly the same as for any other God. A big goose egg. If the stars rearranged themselves in the night sky to say "I am Zeus" then I would be convinced Zeus was real. So would most other people around the planet. Doesn't mean people would worship him necessarily. But it would be hard to deny his existence. You believe Yahweh could perform such a feat but chooses not to. That places him in the same category as every other God conjured by the mind of man. That's what the available evidence leads one to conclude, inconveniently for believers such as yourself. If the evidence changes then my view will change accordingly. Until then you're just another in the large crowd of religious knaves and fools making baseless assertions.


atlas....it is the same thing every time GOD WILL AND CAN REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE NON BELIEVER........IT IS UP TO THE NON BELIEVER TO ACCEPT OR DENY AND WALK AWAY.........HE FORCES NO ONE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE EXIST. I continue to stand by that statement every time. But if you are looking for him to reveal himself to you on your terms............maybe you understand why you cant find him. 


atlashunter said:


> I asked you before and I will ask again. Bring forth your evidence. And make it good. Evidence of the quality that would be sufficient for someone else to demonstrate to you that their god was real.



What is considered "evidence" to you? Turn this around......YOU demonstrate to me in YOUR own hard factual evidence that God didn't completely heal my back one week prior to surgery. You tell me what happened, because the doctors don't have a clue. I am talking about needing rods and pens. And not talking about something getting better over time..........this is here right now and gone instantly. Pain that I felt constantly right up to when I was prayed for......immediately gone. You tell me with hard factual evidence that I did not experience that pain for over a year and I did not experience instant relief. And when you get that one figured out with hard factual evidence, not what you think or what could possibly have happened, I will give you some more personal experiences. That is the one thing that you lack in your own disbelief, you don`t have anything that atlas has done or experienced to prove your own disbelief. Everything that you state or rely on are studies and research that "they proved" and it does nothing but align with your thoughts. It is easy to believe something is true if it aligns with your thinking. But when you experience something, no one can take that away from you.   

We are about to get rich here figuring out what the doctors cant.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

I have never understood why Christians spend so much time in their life trying to convince a Giraffe not to be a Giraffe, or a Hummingbird not to be a Hummingbird. 

The Commission was clear, spread the word, sow the seed. The rest is up to God. It is not necessary for us as Christians to expend so much energy in our oh so impatient Human trait in the need to see the change right before our eyes, as if somehow to fulfill our insatiable need for gratification. It is not ours to redeem. At some point we trample the very ground we have sown the seed on so much that it is too compacted for any germination to occur.

If your argument is for Baptism or Salvation, then when the Giraffe is ready, it will find this and it will happen. 

Sow the seed and move on, God will water the crop and harvest the crop and if a Giraffe insist on staying a Giraffe He will still use it to His benefit in His own way, in His own time.


----------



## Israel (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Then why bother speaking what you know to be an untruth?



You will find that not claiming to be right is simply that.
And that we all speak in the presence of One who is.
Leave lots of room to be wrong and you may find a relief from "having to be right" is something you could have never imagined.

Jesus Christ has taken the sting out of being the wrong man.


He was willing to look just like him.

Ecce homo.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> atlas....it is the same thing every time GOD WILL AND CAN REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE NON BELIEVER........IT IS UP TO THE NON BELIEVER TO ACCEPT OR DENY AND WALK AWAY.........HE FORCES NO ONE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE EXIST. I continue to stand by that statement every time. But if you are looking for him to reveal himself to you on your terms............maybe you understand why you cant find him.
> 
> 
> What is considered "evidence" to you? Turn this around......YOU demonstrate to me in YOUR own hard factual evidence that God didn't completely heal my back one week prior to surgery. You tell me what happened, because the doctors don't have a clue. I am talking about needing rods and pens. And not talking about something getting better over time..........this is here right now and gone instantly. Pain that I felt constantly right up to when I was prayed for......immediately gone. You tell me with hard factual evidence that I did not experience that pain for over a year and I did not experience instant relief. And when you get that one figured out with hard factual evidence, not what you think or what could possibly have happened, I will give you some more personal experiences. That is the one thing that you lack in your own disbelief, you don`t have anything that atlas has done or experienced to prove your own disbelief. Everything that you state or rely on are studies and research that "they proved" and it does nothing but align with your thoughts. It is easy to believe something is true if it aligns with your thinking. But when you experience something, no one can take that away from you.
> ...


Tell the Pharaoh in Exodus that god doesn't force himself upon a person.

By your logic,  every god that has ever been worshipped has had a hand in fixing your back. Prove that no other god but yours didnt fix your back.
Your logic is ridiculous.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I have never understood why Christians spend so much time in their life trying to convince a Giraffe not to be a Giraffe, or a Hummingbird not to be a Hummingbird.
> 
> The Commission was clear, spread the word, sow the seed. The rest is up to God. It is not necessary for us as Christians to expend so much energy in our oh so impatient Human trait in the need to see the change right before our eyes, as if somehow to fulfill our insatiable need for gratification. It is not ours to redeem. At some point we trample the very ground we have sown the seed on so much that it is too compacted for any germination to occur.
> 
> ...



With all due respect.........I agree and I don't spend anytime trying convince a giraffe to change Mostly "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" stuff.......kind of like in the PF forum between the democrats and conservatives  Not really trying to turn the left around, just revealing hypocrisy to one another


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> atlas....it is the same thing every time GOD WILL AND CAN REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE NON BELIEVER........IT IS UP TO THE NON BELIEVER TO ACCEPT OR DENY AND WALK AWAY.........HE FORCES NO ONE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE EXIST. I continue to stand by that statement every time. But if you are looking for him to reveal himself to you on your terms............maybe you understand why you cant find him.



That's a different tune from what you said earlier but let's go with that. He is able and willing and yet he hasn't. Same claim we get with any other god.




Spotlite said:


> What is considered "evidence" to you? Turn this around......YOU demonstrate to me in YOUR own hard factual evidence that God didn't completely heal my back one week prior to surgery. You tell me what happened, because the doctors don't have a clue. I am talking about needing rods and pens. And not talking about something getting better over time..........this is here right now and gone instantly. Pain that I felt constantly right up to when I was prayed for......immediately gone. You tell me with hard factual evidence that I did not experience that pain for over a year and I did not experience instant relief. And when you get that one figured out with hard factual evidence, not what you think or what could possibly have happened, I will give you some more personal experiences. That is the one thing that you lack in your own disbelief, you don`t have anything that atlas has done or experienced to prove your own disbelief. Everything that you state or rely on are studies and research that "they proved" and it does nothing but align with your thoughts. It is easy to believe something is true if it aligns with your thinking. But when you experience something, no one can take that away from you.
> 
> We are about to get rich here figuring out what the doctors cant.



That's easy.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=754174&highlight=

See post one. No Greek testimonial about their back being healed by Apollo would convince you that Apollo was real. So it isn't sufficient evidence for the preferred god of your own culture. Put all gods on an even playing field and show us how yours stacks up any better than the rest.

What evidence would convince you that Apollo or Poseidon were real? That is the same bar that Yahweh should be held to.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Tell the Pharaoh in Exodus that god doesn't force himself upon a person.
> 
> By your logic,  every god that has ever been worshipped has had a hand in fixing your back. Prove that no other god but yours didnt fix your back.
> Your logic is ridiculous.



Yea yea yea...same oleYour lack of understanding doesn't change the outcome.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> With all due respect.........I agree and I don't spend anytime trying convince a giraffe to change Mostly "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" stuff.......kind of like in the PF forum between the democrats and conservatives  Not really trying to turn the left around, just revealing hypocrisy to one another



So you're version of converting an atheist, sowing a seed, is by convincing the seed it is not really a seed?

Lay down the word and walk away, lest you trample and compact the ground so horribly that the seed can never germinate and grow? To assume the soil is not fertile simply because it doesn't look like the soil you are used to planting in is a mistake. These people are highly intelligent and capable of growth and understanding, but not if trampled into a medium equivalent to concrete.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Tell the Pharaoh in Exodus that god doesn't force himself upon a person.
> 
> By your logic,  every god that has ever been worshipped has had a hand in fixing your back. Prove that no other god but yours didnt fix your back.
> Your logic is ridiculous.



Exactly.

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Cannibalism


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> That's easy.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=754174&highlight=
> 
> ...



no no no, see the instructions were simple.........your thoughts and ideas are not evidence and getting off on a cow trail to avoid the question will not work. Lets start at first base. For my back, what experience have you performed and what was the outcome? What did you do to prove anything? What are the results of your test and work? Focus here pal, we are trying to figure out what happened to me, then we will venture out to all of these other places of distraction.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you're version of converting an atheist, sowing a seed, is by convincing the seed it is not really a seed?
> 
> Lay down the word and walk away, lest you trample and compact the ground so horribly that the seed can never germinate and grow? To assume the soil is not fertile simply because it doesn't look like the soil you are used to planting in is a mistake. These people are highly intelligent and capable of growth and understanding, but not if trampled into a medium equivalent to concrete.



These people also already got the t-shirt. Most atheists were believers at some point. Mistake on your part to assume the seed laid dormant.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Tell the Pharaoh in Exodus that god doesn't force himself upon a person.
> 
> By your logic,  every god that has ever been worshipped has had a hand in fixing your back. Prove that no other god but yours didnt fix your back.
> Your logic is ridiculous.



So you admit by some degree that divine intervention is possible, even if it was all Gods combined or just one of them?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you're version of converting an atheist, sowing a seed, is by convincing the seed it is not really a seed?
> 
> Lay down the word and walk away, lest you trample and compact the ground so horribly that the seed can never germinate and grow? To assume the soil is not fertile simply because it doesn't look like the soil you are used to planting in is a mistake. These people are highly intelligent and capable of growth and understanding, but not if trampled into a medium equivalent to concrete.



I don't believe I even made an attempt to convert anyone in this discussion? I appreciate your insight to this, but just because two people have a discussion about something does not mean that the ground will become concrete. This discussion is not about conversion.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> no no no, see the instructions were simple.........your thoughts and ideas are not evidence and getting off on a cow trail to avoid the question will not work. Lets start at first base. For my back, what experience have you performed and what was the outcome? What did you do to prove anything? What are the results of your test and work? Focus here pal, we are trying to figure out what happened to me, then we will venture out to all of these other places of distraction.



Same response you would give the believer in another god. When I was in Greece there was an ancient building constructed by a wealthy man whose blind wife recovered her vision. It was dedicated to one of the Greek gods who he was convinced had healed his wife. Was she really blind? Did she really recover her vision? Don't know. I don't rule out the possibility. Was a god or that god in particular responsible? That's a connection of the dots that cannot reasonably be made. Not for that god and not for yours. It's a connection that you would not make in favor of any other god. Yet you make a special exception, a lowering of the bar, for the god that you were most likely indoctrinated from childhood to believe in. Rather convenient isn't it? I'm not willing to make the same special exception. Not for your god or any other. You have a standard of evidence for other gods that you refuse to apply to your own. I think we both know why. It's not evidence that drew you to your conclusion. The conclusion was already made and you're clinging to flimsy evidence to support your preconception that you wouldn't consider sufficient justification for a belief in any other god. In other words you're just engaging in special pleading.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I don't believe I even made an attempt to convert anyone in this discussion? I appreciate your insight to this, but just because two people have a discussion about something does not mean that the ground will become concrete. This discussion is not about conversion.



Their responses indicate otherwise.


----------



## Israel (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> These people also already got the t-shirt. Most atheists were believers at some point. Mistake on your part to assume the seed laid dormant.


 

Perhaps this:

Others are like the seeds sown on rocky places. They hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But they themselves have no root, and they remain for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Still others are like the seeds sown among the thorns. They hear the word, but the cares of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.…

I am no different. I needed a brother to not weary in coming to me, regardless. In all my unfaithfulness, he remained faithful...and still does. I get rocky at times, and thorny, too. But, he remains.

God forbid any of us be found as this man:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age — and then have fallen away—to be restored again to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Yea yea yea...same oleYour lack of understanding doesn't change the outcome.



The outcome is your back got better.
I used YOUR logic and now you don't like it.
Explain to me why your logic works for your god but no others.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> Perhaps this:
> 
> Others are like the seeds sown on rocky places. They hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But they themselves have no root, and they remain for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Still others are like the seeds sown among the thorns. They hear the word, but the cares of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.…
> 
> ...



Or perhaps it wasn't trouble but knowledge that caused them to fall away.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Same response you would give the believer in another god. When I was in Greece there was an ancient building constructed by a wealthy man whose blind wife recovered her vision. It was dedicated to one of the Greek gods who he was convinced had healed his wife. Was she really blind? Did she really recover her vision? Don't know. I don't rule out the possibility. Was a god or that god in particular responsible? That's a connection of the dots that cannot reasonably be made. Not for that god and not for yours. It's a connection that you would not make in favor of any other god. Yet you make a special exception, a lowering of the bar, for the god that you were most likely indoctrinated from childhood to believe in. Rather convenient isn't it? I'm not willing to make the same special exception. Not for your god or any other. You have a standard of evidence for other gods that you refuse to apply to your own. I think we both know why. It's not evidence that drew you to your conclusion. The conclusion was already made and you're clinging to flimsy evidence to support your preconception that you wouldn't consider sufficient justification for a belief in any other god. In other words you're just engaging in special pleading.



I see your point..........but the point I was making is my own personal experience. That is my evidence for why I believe in what I do. It will not work to persuade you nor anyone else (unless you chose to and willingly accept that as testimony that God is real) All I can do is simply tell you about it and you have to decide if you believe it or not. This hard physical factual evidence that you seek is only going to be there if you put faith in it. That's why I kept saying that only God can reveal himself to you, not me or anyone else.  

I`m clinging to what I believe to be right because I have experienced those things that I have read. 

Now, for me to try to get into "convincing you" would be what Miguel has pointed out. I don't go there with it, not my place to convince you.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Their responses indicate otherwise.





Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you admit by some degree that divine intervention is possible, even if it was all Gods combined or just one of them?



Ok................point made...but it is easy to get lost in discussion


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I see your point..........but the point I was making is my own personal experience. That is my evidence for why I believe in what I do. It will not work to persuade you nor anyone else (unless you chose to and willingly accept that as testimony that God is real) All I can do is simply tell you about it and you have to decide if you believe it or not. This hard physical factual evidence that you seek is only going to be there if you put faith in it. That's why I kept saying that only God can reveal himself to you, not me or anyone else.
> 
> I`m clinging to what I believe to be right because I have experienced those things that I have read.
> 
> Now, for me to try to get into "convincing you" would be what Miguel has pointed out. I don't go there with it, not my place to convince you.



And therein lies the problem. Evidence which is observable and verifiable does not require faith at all. I can demonstrate gravity to you. No faith is required. The nature of observable facts is that you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can put it to the test with your own senses for yourself. It's verifiable and it's predictive. Faith is neither. Faith only enters the picture when the evidence is lacking.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you admit by some degree that divine intervention is possible, even if it was all Gods combined or just one of them?



Anything is possible. I am not informed enough to rule out even the most outlandish possibilities that may or may not exist in this Universe. I go with what evidence is available to me and from that evidence, what is more likely than not to be possible.
I used to believe in god/Jesus.
I dont believe that the bible is accurate. In fact all that I believe it is, is a gathering of ancient writings by mostly anonymous authors that are trying to tell the history of their culture in times when gods were the go to inspiration, explanation and excuse to things that were not understood. No different than many people still today, except the miracles that seemed to be routine thousands of years ago no longer exist since recording methods have gotten better. All that is left are testimonies from people who give credit to gods for events that are no longer witnessed by 500 or anyone, just events that are too complicated to understand to the go to choice is "god did it".

I am convinced that if an intelligent force is responsible for creation of the universe and everything within the universe, that it is nothing like portrayed in any book written by humans and more importantly whatever this force might be is beyond our capabilities of understanding and communicating with. I understand why believers try to tell me differently, I just do not believe them.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I see your point..........but the point I was making is my own personal experience. That is my evidence for why I believe in what I do. It will not work to persuade you nor anyone else (unless you chose to and willingly accept that as testimony that God is real) All I can do is simply tell you about it and you have to decide if you believe it or not. This hard physical factual evidence that you seek is only going to be there if you put faith in it. That's why I kept saying that only God can reveal himself to you, not me or anyone else.
> 
> I`m clinging to what I believe to be right because I have experienced those things that I have read.
> 
> Now, for me to try to get into "convincing you" would be what Miguel has pointed out. I don't go there with it, not my place to convince you.


Isnt it true that if I were to choose to accept Allah, only then could I know he is real? Or insert any other god in there..

You are in essence saying that someone has to want to allow a god to reach them. I kind of agree. It is out of need.
But that is not unique to any believer in any god. It does not point to one god specifically as there are people who will give the same testimony and credit to a different god.

Are you following what I am saying?

I understand why you believe your god is involved. Why would dismiss anyone else's testimony that says their back was cured by Allah, Ra, a Poster of Justin Bieber, or a shiny rock found in a mountain stream?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Basically Spotlite, what you are saying is that if you allow yourself to believe in God you will then believe in God.
Well, no kidding.
I believed in Santa one time too, until I didn't based on many reasons.
The same thing happened with God, for many of the same reasons.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Isnt it true that if I were to choose to accept Allah, only then could I know he is real? Or insert any other god in there..
> 
> You are in essence saying that someone has to want to allow a god to reach them. I kind of agree. It is out of need.
> But that is not unique to any believer in any god. It does not point to one god specifically as there are people who will give the same testimony and credit to a different god.
> ...


Yes because it's all faith based to begin with. Although people make gods out of anything they chose, I don't believe that Allah exist or any other god exist. I would be in same boat with them as you are with me on proving their god exist.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Basically Spotlite, what you are saying is that if you allow yourself to believe in God you will then believe in God.
> Well, no kidding.
> I believed in Santa one time too, until I didn't based on many reasons.
> The same thing happened with God, for many of the same reasons.



I would agree with ya on Santa, he let us all down. When I saw my daddy eating the cookies, I figured it all out. I don't know all of your circumstances on God, but he's still working for some of us. I haven't found anyone else messing with the cookies there.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Yes because it's all faith based to begin with. Although I don't believe that Allah exist or any other god exist. I would be in same boat with them as you are with me on proving their god exist.



According to the bible one should be able to expect more.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I see your point..........but the point I was making is my own personal experience. That is my evidence for why I believe in what I do. It will not work to persuade you nor anyone else (unless you chose to and willingly accept that as testimony that God is real) All I can do is simply tell you about it and you have to decide if you believe it or not. This hard physical factual evidence that you seek is only going to be there if you put faith in it. That's why I kept saying that only God can reveal himself to you, not me or anyone else.
> 
> I`m clinging to what I believe to be right because I have experienced those things that I have read.
> 
> Now, for me to try to get into "convincing you" would be what Miguel has pointed out. I don't go there with it, not my place to convince you.





> This hard physical factual evidence that you seek is only going to be there if you put faith in it.


That's sig line material right there


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> That's sig line material right there



Imagine if Einstein had used that one when he published his theory of relativity.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Yes because it's all faith based to begin with. Although people make gods out of anything they chose, I don't believe that Allah exist or any other god exist. I would be in same boat with them as you are with me on proving their god exist.



Exactly. 
Their evidence is not evidence at all to you.
If you cannot accept theirs you cannot expect many in here to accept yours as it is not really evidence.
It is personal explanations to explain events that are not explainable.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> Their evidence is not evidence at all to you.
> If you cannot accept theirs you cannot expect many in here to accept yours as it is not really evidence.
> It is personal explanations to explain events that are not explainable.



I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's not explainable. The body heals itself. That's nothing unique to believers in Jesus. Do they have greater success rates in healing than nonbelievers or believers in other faiths? Should be demonstrable if that were the case. Yet it's not. That _should_ give any believer pause.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree with ya on Santa, he let us all down. When I saw my daddy eating the cookies, I figured it all out. I don't know all of your circumstances on God, but he's still working for some of us. I haven't found anyone else messing with the cookies there.


You just take it one god farther than me.

What would you say to someone who just made the same post that you just did, but ended it with Zeus is still working in some of us and they have not found anyone else messing with those cookies?
Could you take them seriously? Would you be at all convinced that they not only know of a god named Zeus, but that they also have knowledge that Zeus IS working within them and others?

Or would you blow it off as this person is a little nutty?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's not explainable. The body heals itself. That's nothing unique to believers in Jesus. Do they have greater success rates in healing than nonbelievers or believers in other faiths? Should be demonstrable if that were the case. Yet it's not. That _should_ give any believer pause.


True. Understandable on an individual level may be more accurate.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> That's sig line material right there



Because you're trying to find something physically in something that's spiritual


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You just take it one god farther than me.
> 
> What would you say to someone who just made the same post that you just did, but ended it with Zeus is still working in some of us and they have not found anyone else messing with those cookies?
> Could you take them seriously? Would you be at all convinced that they not only know of a god named Zeus, but that they also have knowledge that Zeus IS working within them and others?
> ...


No I wouldn't blow them off as being nutty. I don't consider a person wacky due to their spiritual beliefs. I don't believe in Zeus so I'd be in the same boat as you are with me right now. The difference is, I realize we are taking about spiritual issues and not the physical. I wouldn't expect any physical evidence. I would either believe as they did or don't.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The body heals itself.



Very true, but the body is not designed to provide anything instant for healing. There's a process that involves time.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No I wouldn't blow them off as being nutty. I don't consider a person wacky due to their spiritual beliefs. I don't believe in Zeus so I'd be in the same boat as you are with me right now. The difference is, I realize we are taking about spiritual issues and not the physical. I wouldn't expect any physical evidence. I would either believe as they did or don't.



You already claimed a physical manifestation of the spiritual. So does the Bible. It's a bit late to be backtracking on that point.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> Their evidence is not evidence at all to you.
> If you cannot accept theirs you cannot expect many in here to accept yours as it is not really evidence.
> It is personal explanations to explain events that are not explainable.



And I would agree. I worked with an Indian that was full blown dream catcher and spirits........

I got to seem some interesting rituals that I respected and didn't make fun of him performing. 

So I've been in your seat. The only difference is I didn't need him to prove anything or didn't feel the need to be right. I just simply didn't share his beliefs. He tried many times to convert me, and I still didn't need facts. I just said I don't believe in all that. That's why I haven't attempted to convert you. You're no more interested in my religion than I was his.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> You already claimed a physical manifestation of the spiritual. So does the Bible. It's a bit late to be backtracking on that point.



No......what you're looking for is to watch an arm grow, or some majic trick. You're looking for wonders and signs. You did exactly what I said you would, provided an opinion about the body healing itself.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Very true, but the body is not designed to provide anything instant for healing. There's a process that involves time.



What you described was instant pain relief. That certainly can happen instantaneously especially considering there is a psychological component to pain perception. Why do you suppose these acts of faith healing are always made in ways and for ailments that can't be verified as miracles? Why are the faith healers not lining up at Walter Reed to restore the missing limbs of our veterans? Serious question. If I had or could conjure supernatural healing powers that would be on my list of places to visit.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No......what you're looking for is to watch an arm grow, or some majic trick. You're looking for wonders and signs. You did exactly what I said you would, provided an opinion about the body healing itself.



The body healing itself is a fact.

Yes why not expect an arm to regrow? Is spiritual healing constrained by nature? If not then this is a reasonable expectation. If it is then on what basis are you distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The body healing itself is a fact.
> 
> Yes why not expect an arm to regrow? Is spiritual healing constrained by nature? If not then this is a reasonable expectation. If it is then on what basis are you distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?



I think you're missing what I'm saying. Yes I know the body heals itself with time, I know an arm can regrow, but from you're perspective those are just natural events. What you're looking for in the physical is to watch that arm grow. I've never personally witnessed that, I've heard testimonies of bones immediately straightening out, etc. I've seen cat scans where tumors are gone from one doctor visit to the next. But you're looking for the tumor to disappear before your eyes. 

The body is not designed to instantly heal itself.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What you described was instant pain relief. That certainly can happen instantaneously especially considering there is a psychological component to pain perception. Why do you suppose these acts of faith healing are always made in ways and for ailments that can't be verified as miracles? Why are the faith healers not lining up at Walter Reed to restore the missing limbs of our veterans? Serious question. If I had or could conjure supernatural healing powers that would be on my list of places to visit.


 yes for me, it was instant relief. Physically you could see that I'm not limping in pain, or leaning to the left for relief, but there's no majic show to prove anything to you. . Im aware of the tv preachers. I'm also aware that if you stood up in a crowd of 200 and someone needs relief of headaches, you're going to get 25 folks to come forward. I'm not talking about the circus shows.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> And I would agree. I worked with an Indian that was full blown dream catcher and spirits........
> 
> I got to seem some interesting rituals that I respected and didn't make fun of him performing.
> 
> So I've been in your seat. The only difference is I didn't need him to prove anything or didn't feel the need to be right. I just simply didn't share his beliefs. He tried many times to convert me, and I still didn't need facts. I just said I don't believe in all that. That's why I haven't attempted to convert you. You're no more interested in my religion than I was his.


I don't ask every believer to convert.
I don't ask every believer to prove their beliefs.
What I do is when someone of any faith tells me what their god is capable of, or what their god thinks, or nore importantly what their god does...then I ask for proof.
If someone makes a claim I figure that they are either making it up, so I ask for proof OR they have witnessed it, so if it is something that can be witnessed then I ask for proof.
So far, in every case, it seems that people are making it up, even if they believe it, because there is no proof.
Then when someone claims that not only a god is responsible,  but a specific god, that is another claim that I think the person should be able to back up...as they are the one making the claim.
When their"proof" is no different than the same as believers in all gods use, I pass it off as someone who believes that what they have experienced is proof, but it is not real proof that they accept from anyone else so there is no reason for ne to accept theirs.

I am fascinated by religious rituals wether it is the different denominations or totally different religions.  I them for what they are.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I don't ask every believer to convert.
> I don't ask every believer to prove their beliefs.
> What I do is when someone of any faith tells me what their god is capable of, or what their god thinks, or nore importantly what their god does...then I ask for proof.
> If someone makes a claim I figure that they are either making it up, so I ask for proof OR they have witnessed it, so if it is something that can be witnessed then I ask for proof.
> ...


Nothing wrong with that if your goal is to prove people wrong. Just not my cup of tea. If I'm really honestly interesting in knowing more, I will ask. If I dont believe it, sort of dead in the water for me. But if one thinks the burden is on me to prove what I believe to them, they're sadly misguided by their own insecurities.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Anything is possible.



Yes it is. 




bullethead said:


> I am convinced that if an intelligent force is responsible for creation of the universe and everything within the universe, that it is nothing like portrayed in any book written by humans



It is all a matter of anthropological perspective. 
They interpreted what they saw at the time based on their limited understanding / skill set of knowledge at the time. Not that what the "humans" put in any book was wrong, it was merely a perspective the best they could wrap their minds around it then. 

Wouldn't you love to be here 2000 years from now to see what the opinions of what we thought we had figured out are?

Ex: Those stupid primitive humans actually thought they could solve the circumference of a circle using Pi... What an antiquated, contrived idea.


----------



## Israel (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Or perhaps it wasn't trouble but knowledge that caused them to fall away.



Perhaps.

 I have met many men that believe they _know better_ than Jesus Christ.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I honestly would love to see how we are viewed 2000 years from now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nothing wrong with that if your goal is to prove people wrong. Just not my cup of tea. If I'm really honestly interesting in knowing more, I will ask. If I dont believe it, sort of dead in the water for me. But if one thinks the burden is on me to prove what I believe to them, they're sadly misguided by their own insecurities.


I am not out to prove them wrong. 
I am more interested in them proving themselves right.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I honestly would love to see how we are viewed 2000 years from now.



I'm quite certain we'd learn we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I'm quite certain we'd learn we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.



It is almost unbelieveable at the advances we made in knowledge in just the last 100 years.

I cannot imagine what humans will know in just 100 more let alone 2000.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I think you're missing what I'm saying. Yes I know the body heals itself with time, I know an arm can regrow, but from you're perspective those are just natural events. What you're looking for in the physical is to watch that arm grow. I've never personally witnessed that, I've heard testimonies of bones immediately straightening out, etc. I've seen cat scans where tumors are gone from one doctor visit to the next. But you're looking for the tumor to disappear before your eyes.
> 
> The body is not designed to instantly heal itself.



To my knowledge an arm cannot regrow. If it could that would be great news to a lot of disabled veterans. You show me any amputee missing a limb that grows back after prayer (instantly or otherwise) and I'll readily concede that is a miracle. If you can do it repeatedly through prayer to your god and no other god then I'm prepared to acknowledge that prayer works. But you can't do that. You can't demonstrate it even once let alone on a reliable basis. Neither can any other christian. And this in spite of the scriptures in the bible citing Jesus making the claim that whatsoever you ask in prayer will be done. That's demonstrably false. This must be a mystery for someone that truly believes in the inerrancy of the bible and efficacy of prayer.

The more exchanges I read like this the more I tend to think you're just not very strong in critical thinking. I know that comes across as insulting but that is not my intent. It's just an observation. Let's talk about what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence.

Anything that is known to happen normally cannot be considered good evidence of supernatural intervention. For example if I pray to Jesus to get heads on a coin toss and I get heads that does not prove divine intervention. If you think otherwise then the same evidence serves to justify all manner of superstitious claims. The same holds true of people who recover from various ailments. If I can show you cases of people of other faiths or no faith recovering from cancer or any other ailment then those cannot be considered reliable evidence of your god operating in the physical world. You claim an experience of what you felt. Fine. That works for you. It's not good evidence. No better at least than any similar claim made attempting to support a different god. What would be good evidence? Something that is physically impossible except by calling on a particular deity. If your indian friend showed me that he could make people fly through the air by praying to his deity I would be a believer. So would you. If he tells you he found a missing wedding ring, help from a stranger in time of need, recovered from the flu, etc after praying to his god you and I both would be less inclined to attribute his stroke of luck to supernatural forces. It's been said before that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The bible promises extraordinary evidence but in reality it's nowhere to be found. Prayer studies have been done that show prayer across thousands of cases had no observable effect. That's not what should be expected if it actually worked. That's a problem for someone who believes it does work.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It is almost unbelieveable at the advances we made in knowledge in just the last 100 years.
> 
> I cannot imagine what humans will know in just 100 more let alone 2000.



Watched the movie "Arrival" the other night. It was predicated on our concept of time and how that restricted our behaviors as humans and our future. It was an interesting concept that I am sure has some merit.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It is almost unbelieveable at the advances we made in knowledge in just the last 100 years.
> 
> I cannot imagine what humans will know in just 100 more let alone 2000.



Have my doubts humans will still be around at the rate things are going but if they are I bet christianity isn't still around in any recognizable form.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Watched the movie "Arrival" the other night. It was predicated on our concept of time and how that restricted our behaviors as humans and our future. It was an interesting concept that I am sure has some merit.



I enjoy movies that get the brain working in overtime . I just watched Interstellar for the first time this weekend. I'll have to check out Arrival.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 7, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> To my knowledge an arm cannot regrow. If it could that would be great news to a lot of disabled veterans. You show me any amputee missing a limb that grows back after prayer (instantly or otherwise) and I'll readily concede that is a miracle. If you can do it repeatedly through prayer to your god and no other god then I'm prepared to acknowledge that prayer works. But you can't do that. You can't demonstrate it even once let alone on a reliable basis. Neither can any other christian. And this in spite of the scriptures in the bible citing Jesus making the claim that whatsoever you ask in prayer will be done. That's demonstrably false. This must be a mystery for someone that truly believes in the inerrancy of the bible and efficacy of prayer.
> 
> The more exchanges I read like this the more I tend to think you're just not very strong in critical thinking. I know that comes across as insulting but that is not my intent. It's just an observation. Let's talk about what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence.
> 
> Anything that is known to happen normally cannot be considered good evidence of supernatural intervention. For example if I pray to Jesus to get heads on a coin toss and I get heads that does not prove divine intervention. If you think otherwise then the same evidence serves to justify all manner of superstitious claims. The same holds true of people who recover from various ailments. If I can show you cases of people of other faiths or no faith recovering from cancer or any other ailment then those cannot be considered reliable evidence of your god operating in the physical world. You claim an experience of what you felt. Fine. That works for you. It's not good evidence. No better at least than any similar claim made attempting to support a different god. What would be good evidence? Something that is physically impossible except by calling on a particular deity. If your indian friend showed me that he could make people fly through the air by praying to his deity I would be a believer. So would you. If he tells you he found a missing wedding ring, help from a stranger in time of need, recovered from the flu, etc after praying to his god you and I both would be less inclined to attribute his stroke of luck to supernatural forces. It's been said before that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The bible promises extraordinary evidence but in reality it's nowhere to be found. Prayer studies have been done that show prayer across thousands of cases had no observable effect. That's not what should be expected if it actually worked. That's a problem for someone who believes it does work.



Why does it have to an amputee? See you're wanting God to work under your terms, doesn't work that way. He can replace an arm. Just because I haven't personally seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen. A lot of things that I haven't seen. I just know what he's done for me.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 7, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Why does it have to an amputee? See you're wanting God to work under your terms, doesn't work that way. He can replace an arm. Just because I haven't personally seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen. A lot of things that I haven't seen. I just know what he's done for me.



Doesn't have to be an amputee but an amputee would meet the criteria of good evidence. This is like asking "why can't it be the toss of the coin?" or "why can't it be me finding my lost wedding ring at the beach?". Because those things happen all the time anyway. An amputee regrowing a missing limb on the other hand...

My question for you is, why not an amputee? You're claiming supernatural intervention with unlimited power and the backing of scripture that says believers will be able to repeat Jesus' miracles and perform even greater ones. That's straight from his mouth according to your holy book. So why not regrow an amputated limb?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Nov 8, 2017)

People live and die within a finite span of history which influences their decisions, beliefs, and way of living. Within our 50-100 years on this Earth, we may live in periods of great change, great strife, or periods of relative calm.

What people often forget is that we aren't the first generation to have loves, thoughts, and ideals. People alive during the American Civil War were the same as us today - just living in a different time. The same with ancient Egypt and any other time period you wish to think of - people were people, the same as us today.

Personally, I believe that religion came out of a need to control masses of people and make them believe that something other than just random acts of nature or those contrived by man were responsible for the events that happened in their lives.

As a populace becomes more educated, we see  a retreat from religion, in any society through the ages. Religion becomes less of a way to control people and gives way to laws and financial systems.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 8, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I don't ask every believer to convert.
> I don't ask every believer to prove their beliefs.
> What I do is when someone of any faith tells me what their god is capable of, or what their god thinks, or nore importantly what their god does...then I ask for proof.
> If someone makes a claim I figure that they are either making it up, so I ask for proof OR they have witnessed it, so if it is something that can be witnessed then I ask for proof.
> ...



I know a man who once was a full blown Satan worshiper. There are credible witnesses that saw him make a toy airplane fly around his bedroom, and shoes to dance, and salt and pepper shakers to move on the table. Can you explain these things?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

welderguy said:


> I know a man who once was a full blown Satan worshiper. There are credible witnesses that saw him make a toy airplane fly around his bedroom, and shoes to dance, and salt and pepper shakers to move on the table. Can you explain these things?



Yeah that sounds credible.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 8, 2017)

welderguy said:


> I know a man who once was a full blown Satan worshiper. There are credible witnesses that saw him make a toy airplane fly around his bedroom, and shoes to dance, and salt and pepper shakers to move on the table. Can you explain these things?





atlashunter said:


> Yeah that sounds credible.



I once saw flying pink elephants but had one heck of a headache the next day.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 8, 2017)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> People live and die within a finite span of history which influences their decisions, beliefs, and way of living. Within our 50-100 years on this Earth, we may live in periods of great change, great strife, or periods of relative calm.
> 
> What people often forget is that we aren't the first generation to have loves, thoughts, and ideals. People alive during the American Civil War were the same as us today - just living in a different time. The same with ancient Egypt and any other time period you wish to think of - people were people, the same as us today.
> 
> ...



"Never judge a philosophy (love of wisdom) by it's abuse."
_a commonly used paraphrase of Augustine: Confessions, Book III, Ch. 3-6
_
illustrated here in the movie The Book of Eli
https://youtu.be/ar_s7w18Z_I
(Doesn't Oldman portray the ultimate "bad guy")


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I once saw flying pink elephants but had one heck of a headache the next day.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2017)

welderguy said:


> I know a man who once was a full blown Satan worshiper. There are credible witnesses that saw him make a toy airplane fly around his bedroom, and shoes to dance, and salt and pepper shakers to move on the table. Can you explain these things?



Nope, no more than I can explain any magic show act in Las Vegas, but people who have studied those things can. Paper airplanes are easy.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 8, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Nope, no more than I can explain any magic show act in Las Vegas, but people who have studied those things can. Paper airplanes are easy.



And to think that devil worshipper could have been a millionaire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Watched the movie "Arrival" the other night. It was predicated on our concept of time and how that restricted our behaviors as humans and our future. It was an interesting concept that I am sure has some merit.



Like the Matrix, Arrival is multilayered to say the least.

So is "Predestination" more than just a trippy look at a thing.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> And to think that devil worshipper could have been a millionaire.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge


Yeah, welder and his "credible "witnesses" must be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 9, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't have to be an amputee but an amputee would meet the criteria of good evidence. This is like asking "why can't it be the toss of the coin?" or "why can't it be me finding my lost wedding ring at the beach?". Because those things happen all the time anyway. An amputee regrowing a missing limb on the other hand...
> 
> My question for you is, why not an amputee? You're claiming supernatural intervention with unlimited power and the backing of scripture that says believers will be able to repeat Jesus' miracles and perform even greater ones. That's straight from his mouth according to your holy book. So why not regrow an amputated limb?



I think "miracles" are open to interpretation. Here's a real world example - the pastor of the church involved in the shooting was out of town at the time. Not knowing his schedule, but if he rarely misses a Sunday service then some would consider him not being there and getting shot would be a miracle - he very well might count that as a miracle. Others would say a lucky break. But nothing in his not being there defied the laws of physics. No "loaves & fishes feeding the multitudes" epic miracle here. If the shooters gun jammed & all his backup guns jammed too (if he had any) that would by golly be pretty close to a miracle, but sadly that didn't happen.  Back in the bible days the entire town would witness gods supernatural events - blind people seeing, dead people rising from the grave, the sea parting just long enough to swallow up an entire army, people turning into a pillar of salt, the length of a day extending to give gods people more daylight to slaughter the enemy, you name it. Any everybody (saint & sinner) went away seeing the exact same no doubt about it miracle. Faith apparently had nothing to do with it. Now we have zero events that are witnessed by everybody that cannot be explained, except those with the faith to interpret the event as a miracle. 

The bible says (paraphrasing here) that god is the same always. The god of the very beginning is the same god now, and always will be the same, nothing changes about his nature. 

Yet now gods functioning & interacting with the world is much more subtle it seems. It's kind of like an abstract painting - 100 people see 100 different things looking at the same painting. 

Not saying legitimate miracles and world changing interventions don't happen, but they are sure tucked away & hidden a lot better. For every child burning up in a car with the windows rolled up in the summer I would sure like to see a heavenly ice-cold air pocket surround the car, or even the parking lot would be fine by me. Or a flock of geese kamikaze into the car breaking the windows. Just sayin'. I don't need any huge miracles, just tiny ones where they matter.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think "miracles" are open to interpretation. Here's a real world example - the pastor of the church involved in the shooting was out of town at the time. Not knowing his schedule, but if he rarely misses a Sunday service then some would consider him not being there and getting shot would be a miracle - he very well might count that as a miracle. Others would say a lucky break. But nothing in his not being there defied the laws of physics. No "loaves & fishes feeding the multitudes" epic miracle here. If the shooters gun jammed & all his backup guns jammed too (if he had any) that would by golly be pretty close to a miracle, but sadly that didn't happen.  Back in the bible days the entire town would witness gods supernatural events - blind people seeing, dead people rising from the grave, the sea parting just long enough to swallow up an entire army, people turning into a pillar of salt, the length of a day extending to give gods people more daylight to slaughter the enemy, you name it. Any everybody (saint & sinner) went away seeing the exact same no doubt about it miracle. Faith apparently had nothing to do with it. Now we have zero events that are witnessed by everybody that cannot be explained, except those with the faith to interpret the event as a miracle.
> 
> The bible says (paraphrasing here) that god is the same always. The god of the very beginning is the same god now, and always will be the same, nothing changes about his nature.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 9, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think "miracles" are open to interpretation. Here's a real world example - the pastor of the church involved in the shooting was out of town at the time. Not knowing his schedule, but if he rarely misses a Sunday service then some would consider him not being there and getting shot would be a miracle - he very well might count that as a miracle. Others would say a lucky break. But nothing in his not being there defied the laws of physics. No "loaves & fishes feeding the multitudes" epic miracle here. If the shooters gun jammed & all his backup guns jammed too (if he had any) that would by golly be pretty close to a miracle, but sadly that didn't happen.  Back in the bible days the entire town would witness gods supernatural events - blind people seeing, dead people rising from the grave, the sea parting just long enough to swallow up an entire army, people turning into a pillar of salt, the length of a day extending to give gods people more daylight to slaughter the enemy, you name it. Any everybody (saint & sinner) went away seeing the exact same no doubt about it miracle. Faith apparently had nothing to do with it. Now we have zero events that are witnessed by everybody that cannot be explained, except those with the faith to interpret the event as a miracle.
> 
> The bible says (paraphrasing here) that god is the same always. The god of the very beginning is the same god now, and always will be the same, nothing changes about his nature.
> 
> ...



If we redefine the term miracle to include unlikely events which are possible under the known laws of nature then yes miracles happen all the time. As you point out the claims of the religious go far beyond that.

Last night I had dinner in a jazz lounge. Wonderful musician was at the piano. He asked the crowd "what would you like to hear?". I didn't say anything but for some reason "Tell it like it is" came to mind. It was a small crowd and he didn't get any suggestions. What did he start playing? The song I thought of. Wow! What are the odds of that? Have to be pretty low I'd say. Was I impressed? Sure was. Does it require a paranormal explanation? Nope. Incredibly unlikely events are incredibly common. They only seem miraculous when we disregard all the misses and only look at the hits.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 9, 2017)

Israel said:


> Like the Matrix, Arrival is multilayered to say the least.
> 
> So is "Predestination" more than just a trippy look at a thing.



Well they did leave it open for a sequel. 

"We will need your help in 1,000 years."


----------



## Browning Slayer (Nov 10, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Atheists and Agnostics,
> 
> If it got really, really bad would you appeal to God just in case?



It happens more times than not.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

They would all be on their knees asking for forgiveness. I'm glad its not up to me. I don't make the rules I try to follow them knowing I will fall short. Thank GOD for Grace. Definition for Bullethead and Atlas, the free and unmerited favor of God as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> They would all be on their knees asking for forgiveness. I'm glad its not up to me. I don't make the rules I try to follow them knowing I will fall short. Thank GOD for Grace. Definition for Bullethead and Atlas, the free and unmerited favor of God as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.


Easy to say, unable to prove.
Fantasy and fiction give you that luxury.

Men back up their claims


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 14, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Easy to say, unable to prove.
> Fantasy and fiction give you that luxury.
> 
> Men back up their claims



In your mind. Already been proven in mine.


----------

