# my experience in life



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

ok try to do this without insulting people!!!

it's ok to believe that this invisible,all knowing,all loving being took sand and made adam...then breathed in the air for life so he could have a soul...took a rib to make his sister,eve so they could populate the earth with their two sons able and cain ...

however,you actually see something in life at a young age(space craft) and study science about our existence that would be out of the realm of possibilities...you do however induct a lot of christian ways and the constitution into your way of living to try to be the best person you can your called crazy...you need to up your meds,christians tell you


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

original god --energy
evolution occurred
apes dna tweeked by aliens
we had humans

.i saw a space craft when i was 14...so that gave me the idea of other life out there....they can't find the missing link...i think aliens jump started humans...

if you figure how much more advanced they must be...we just figured out test tube babies a few years back... how we are doing it today,not to mention cloning...it would not be out of the realm to think that an alien life form jump started our existence,if you believe there is life out there...

the sun is the closest star to us ...do you see how many stars are in the sky at night ?i think we are a pearl on a never ending pearl necklace,with other pearls out there in the never ending universe...it's not like you go out there and some day hit a brick wall..

i never said i know it as fact!!!just what i think happened and i have no way of proving it....only way to do that is unlock the dna code of the human and find the alien dna inside as well,with the alien here too...we are 95% dna same as a chimp and bonobo

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...sequenced.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

Listen brother if any of us could prove without a doubt one belief was true there would be no debate.  The very best we can do is honestly search for the truth.  Personally I feel Christianity provides the most complete explanation to life in that with respect to origin, meaning, morality, destiny, aesthetics, and innate drives, the answers it provides both best corresponds to reality and also is the most comprehensive.  That being said, it cannot be 100% validated.  It's been said and I agree, God gave us enough evidence to make belief in him absolutely reasonable, but left enough out to give us a choice.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen brother if any of us could prove without a doubt one belief was true there would be no debate.  The very best we can do is honestly search for the truth.  Personally I feel Christianity provides the most complete explanation to life in that with respect to origin, meaning, morality, destiny, aesthetics, and innate drives, the answers it provides both best corresponds to reality and also is the most comprehensive.  That being said, it cannot be 100% validated.  It's been said and I agree, God gave us enough evidence to make belief in him absolutely reasonable, but left enough out to give us a choice.



where do you get reality out of an invisible being taking sand and making a man,then taking a rib to make a woman...explain please


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  It's perfectly rational if that is the case.  May I ask you a question?  Why do you find the case of God implausible but that of space aliens plausible?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  It's perfectly rational if that is the case.  May I ask you a question?  Why do you find the case of God implausible but that of space aliens plausible?



did you not read my post? reading comprehension.... i don't believe in an invisible (not tangible)being having super powers


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> did you not read my post? reading comprehension.... i don't believe in an invisible (not tangible)being having super powers



Given what we have seen in certain movies, the case could be made aliens are tangible, but how do you know they are?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Given what we have seen in certain movies, the case could be made aliens are tangible, but how do you know they are?



something with a brain  was flying that craft


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> something with a brain  was flying that craft



Intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something is tangible.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something is tangible.



Can you put that in english please?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> original god --energy
> evolution occurred
> apes dna tweeked by aliens
> we had humans
> ...



Have you been listening to the Joe Rogan Experience?


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Can you put that in english please?



Can you tell me what are you not understanding about the statement so I know what I need to express more clearly?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> have you been listening to the joe rogan experience?



no but i have heard about dmt


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

Ya'll are talking about humdaddy's sighting right?  He is saying something was flying the craft.  You said that intelligence doesn't have to be tangible.  I guess what I mean is what point are you driving at?  Am I missing an underlying conversation?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something is tangible.



what do you know as fact that is intelligent ,but not tangible?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> no but i have heard about dmt



Reason I ask is he talks about alien theory and bonobos and DMT with experts in the field of those studies.  Interesting listening material.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Reason I ask is he talks about alien theory and bonobos and DMT with experts in the field of those studies.  Interesting listening material.



i will have to listen to it


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy - could you describe what you saw? I am curious about the encounter. I won't call you crazy, or anything else. Heck, we Christians are the crazy ones. I am just curious about what you saw.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> did you not read my post? reading comprehension.... i don't believe in an invisible (not tangible)being having super powers



I thought I did.  I went back and re read it.  When you say spacecraft I guessing you mean as in UFO not Apollo 13 which is how I initially understood it....or am I still wrong?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 4, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> hummdaddy - could you describe what you saw? I am curious about the encounter. I won't call you crazy, or anything else. Heck, we Christians are the crazy ones. I am just curious about what you saw.



basic---saw craft hover over neighbors house for around a minute ,then it just zoomed out of sight into outer space


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

Day or night


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

semperfidawg said:


> day or night



night time 50 yards OR SO AWAY,with some kind of lights illuminating out of the bottom of it


----------



## stringmusic (May 5, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Ya'll are talking about humdaddy's sighting right?  He is saying something was flying the craft.  You said that intelligence doesn't have to be tangible.  I guess what I mean is what point are you driving at?  Am I missing an underlying conversation?



You're not missing anything, I probably should have just came out and said what I was thinking.

While it is entirely reasonable to think, in light of seeing a space craft, that there were in fact actual tangible beings flying it, how would a person know that the craft was not being controlled remotely, by an invisible alien?


----------



## stringmusic (May 5, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> what do you know as fact that is intelligent ,but not tangible?



Intelligence itself is not tangible.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Intelligence itself is not tangible.



i ask again what do you know that has intelligence that is not tangible and provide proof? dodge ,weave ,deflect all you want!!!


----------



## stringmusic (May 5, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> i ask again what do you know that has intelligence that is not tangible and provide proof?



On earth, nothing, but we're talking about space aliens.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> On earth, nothing, but we're talking about space aliens.



and i am saying space aliens are physical beings,unlike your claims of a higher power


----------



## stringmusic (May 5, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> and i am saying space aliens are physical beings,unlike your claims of a higher power



How do you know they are physical?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How do you know they are physical?



i know something physical is controlling them...it took arms,legs,brain,heart,(would bet lungs) to build it


----------



## atlashunter (May 5, 2013)

If Christianity didn't promise its followers eternal life it would have died out long ago.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

Crickets


----------



## ted_BSR (May 5, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> If Christianity didn't promise its followers eternal life it would have died out long ago.



Christianity says that all of us have eternal life, it is just a matter of the climate.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Christianity says that all of us have eternal life, it is just a matter of the climate.



when you die i think your body is worm bait ,and your spirit walks the earth...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> something with a brain  was flying that craft



Hummdaddy I have no doubt in what you saw, but my question to you, and I ask it in all seriousness is this, You saw something inexplicable above your neighbors house and logically thought "something with a brain was flying that."
Why when you look at something infinitely more inexplicable like the vastness of the heavens in the night sky, the unimaginable intricacy of something as simple as a leaf, or the innate love and trust a child has for their parents do you not think "Something with a brain is driving that."?


----------



## atlashunter (May 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Christianity says that all of us have eternal life, it is just a matter of the climate.



Which makes my point twice over. Its not just a carrot but a stick too.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hummdaddy I have no doubt in what you saw, but my question to you, and I ask it in all seriousness is this, You saw something inexplicable above your neighbors house and logically thought "something with a brain was flying that."
> Why when you look at something infinitely more inexplicable like the vastness of the heavens in the night sky, the unimaginable intricacy of something as simple as a leaf, or the innate love and trust a child has for their parents do you not think "Something with a brain is driving that."?



I GUESS I AM FROM THE SHOW ME STATE


----------



## stringmusic (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> I GUESS I AM FROM THE SHOW ME STATE



Did you see the brain of the aliens flying the space craft?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Did you see the brain of the aliens flying the space craft?



I saw the actual craft craft craft flying,so the rest is easy...what have you seen as proof of an intelligent,invisible being and proof,besides stories in a book


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

What makes you believe that it was an alien craft and not secret human technology?   Also a serious question -


----------



## Jeff Phillips (May 6, 2013)

OK, you saw a UFO. If it was piloted by aliens, how does that prove there is no God? 

Evolution is simply natural selection. Survival of the fittest and adaption exist, how does that prove there is no God?

Couldn't both of the above be strong evidence of inteligent design by the Creator?


----------



## stringmusic (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> I saw the actual craft craft craft flying,so the rest is easy...what have you seen as proof of an intelligent,invisible being and proof,besides stories in a book


Ok, I understand that you saw a space craft, but.....


stringmusic said:


> Did you see the brain of the aliens flying the space craft?



You're from the show me state, remember?


----------



## dawg2 (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> original god --energy
> evolution occurred
> apes dna tweeked by aliens
> we had humans
> ...


OK, so how were the aliens created?  They did not create themselves.


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> OK, so how were the aliens created?  They did not create themselves.



Did their creator inspire ANYONE to write down how it all took place? Who's image are they made in??
A supreme omniscient creator would have to know that eventually different life forms from different places would meet up. Why not tell us all about it in the "handbook"?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> I GUESS I AM FROM THE SHOW ME STATE



If that is true, I would suggest that if you put as much time into finding out for yourself if the claims of Christianity is true as you have invested in alien spacecraft you may be very surprised in what you discover.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


----------



## David Parker (May 6, 2013)

It's presumptuous to suggest either theory is factual or provable.  

Energy, whether tangible or not, intelligent or not, exists.  I am convinced that I exist as energy to some degree.  

That's all I've got so far.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did their creator inspire ANYONE to write down how it all took place? Who's image are they made in??



You're asking hypothetical questions you cannot feasibly answer even if they were valid.



bullethead said:


> A supreme omniscient creator would have to know that eventually different life forms from different places would meet up. Why not tell us all about it in the "handbook"?



Said being could know that we wouldn't be around long enough to meet on a formal basis so to speak, if such a hypothetical existed.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What makes you believe that it was an alien craft and not secret human technology?   Also a serious question -[/QUO
> 
> the way it went vertical from a standstill and disappeared into outer space on a clear night in the 1987


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did their creator inspire ANYONE to write down how it all took place? Who's image are they made in??
> A supreme omniscient creator would have to know that eventually different life forms from different places would meet up. Why not tell us all about it in the "handbook"?



He can't tell us all about anything in there. No one has understood this whatesoever from the bible though.. No one's interpretation leads to hinting at it.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> OK, so how were the aliens created?  They did not create themselves.



they must have evolved on another planet older than ours,or different than ours,beyond what the ape made it here...many pearls out there...


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If that is true, I would suggest that if you put as much time into finding out for yourself if the claims of Christianity is true as you have invested in alien spacecraft you may be very surprised in what you discover.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.



 you seem to think my study is in one field

how did adam get made from sand ,and his sister from a rib,then have 2 sons able and cain populate the world...sounds kind of twisted to me,yet impossible


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're asking hypothetical questions you cannot feasibly answer even if they were valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Said being could know that we wouldn't be around long enough to meet on a formal basis so to speak, if such a hypothetical existed.



dodge,deflect,ignore


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're asking hypothetical questions you cannot feasibly answer even if they were valid.



And how does that differ when a hypothetical "god" is introduced?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, I understand that you saw a space craft, but.....
> 
> 
> You're from the show me state, remember?



reading comprehension is not your strong point huh


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> TripleXBullies said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you believe that it was an alien craft and not secret human technology?   Also a serious question -[/QUO
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


>


Do you remember the first sentence in your OP? If not, here it is again....


hummdaddy said:


> ok try to do this without insulting people!!!


And then this....


hummdaddy said:


> reading comprehension is not your strong point huh



How about you show the same respect you want to others, especially if you want to continue to have a conversation. 

If you want to turn this into schoolyard play time, just let me know.


----------



## stringmusic (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> reading comprehension is not your strong point huh



I can read and comprehend just fine.

Now, are you going to 





hummdaddy said:


> dodge,deflect,ignore



....or are you going to answer the question?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I can read and comprehend just fine.
> 
> Now, are you going to
> 
> ....or are you going to answer the question?



you have to have hands,arms,legs,heart,brain,and i bet lungs to build the craft to begin with...weather someone was remotely driving it or not there was a tangible being operating it....no such thing as invisible magical beings


----------



## stringmusic (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> you have to have hands,arms,legs,heart,brain,and i bet lungs to build the craft to begin with...weather someone was remotely driving it or not there was a tangible being operating it....no such thing as invisible magical beings



You're making an assumption. I'm not even saying the assumption isn't rational, but you're the one saying you don't believe in God based on the fact that you can't see Him all the while believing in space aliens which you haven't seen either.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

I can make one point from you String... that is plausible... Humm... those alien beings that were controlling that space ship... MAY in fact be invisible beings...


----------



## David Parker (May 6, 2013)

Alot of conjecture.



Existence precedes essence.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're making an assumption. I'm not even saying the assumption isn't rational, but you're the one saying you don't believe in God based on the fact that you can't see Him all the while believing in space aliens which you haven't seen either.



I have seen space craft which. Leads me to believe what i believe...it is way more than your invisible god has shown me and dont say i never looked or believed


----------



## Jeff Phillips (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> I have seen space craft which. Leads me to believe what i believe...it is way more than your invisible god has shown me and dont say i never looked or believed



Look out the window. God is visible everywhere.

If you choose not to see him it is your choice. God gave us free will to accept or reject him.


----------



## Paymaster (May 6, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Christianity says that all of us have eternal life, it is just a matter of the climate.



Indeed sir!


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Look out the window. God is visible everywhere.
> 
> If you choose not to see him it is your choice. God gave us free will to accept or reject him.



Now that is a stretch. One can no more see "god" than any other make believe entity that each individual chooses to insert where they deem necessary.

Looking out a window does not magically make some sort of conjured up deity appear. If that is how you say it works then you have a lot of different gods getting credit for the visions seen across this planet.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Look out the window. God is visible everywhere.
> 
> If you choose not to see him it is your choice. God gave us free will to accept or reject him.



Energy is god


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Look out the window. God is visible everywhere.
> 
> If you choose not to see him it is your choice. God gave us free will to accept or reject him.





hummdaddy said:


> Energy is god



Energy created all this i believe


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> you have to have hands,arms,legs,heart,brain,and i bet lungs to build the craft to begin with...weather someone was remotely driving it or not there was a tangible being operating it....no such thing as invisible magical beings



You didn't see anyone operating it, you are only assuming someone was.  Based on the fact that you obviously refuse to believe only what you can see, and again you saw no one, then by reason you must only believe in spacecraft and not aliens.  It goes back to my first point.  If its a fairytale believe in God because you can't see him then, it is a fairy tale to believe in aliens you have not seen so you're left worshiping, if you will, a UFO.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You didn't see anyone operating it, you are only assuming someone was.  Based on the fact that you obviously refuse to believe only what you can see, and again you saw no one, then by reason you must only believe in spacecraft and not aliens.  It goes back to my first point.  If its a fairytale believe in God because you can't see him then, it is a fairy tale to believe in aliens you have not seen so you're left worshiping, if you will, a UFO.



i am not worshiping anything


----------



## Jeff Phillips (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now that is a stretch. One can no more see "god" than any other make believe entity that each individual chooses to insert where they deem necessary.
> 
> Looking out a window does not magically make some sort of conjured up deity appear. If that is how you say it works then you have a lot of different gods getting credit for the visions seen across this planet.



OK, guess it depends on what you are looking for.

How does seeing a UFO at 14 prove there is no God?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

Jeff Phillips said:


> OK, guess it depends on what you are looking for.
> 
> How does seeing a UFO at 14 prove there is no God?



where do you get reality out of an invisible being taking sand and making a man,then taking a rib to make a woman his sister,then having two sons to populate the earth...explain please

i saw mine to have something to go with the rest of my theory...how do you explain yours?i also don't claim mine as fact,and worship it!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And how does that differ when a hypothetical "god" is introduced?



You say God is hypothetical.  Prove it.  It's that simple.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> i am not worshiping anything



I know.  That was said tongue in cheek.  You do however BELIEVE, by your own admission,  that aliens 'tweaked' the DNA of apes based on the fact you saw a UFO.  That's a pretty big jump logically.  You must realize that if in fact logic and reason were truly solid ground we Christians would be the frogs on the bank staring out at you on your lillypad.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I know.  That was said tongue in cheek.  You do however BELIEVE, by your own admission,  that aliens 'tweaked' the DNA of apes based on the fact you saw a UFO.  That's a pretty big jump logically.  You must realize that if in fact logic and reason were truly solid ground we Christians would be the frogs on the bank staring out at you on your lillypad.



even bigger leap that ya'll make No No:


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> where do you get reality out of an invisible being taking sand and making a man,then taking a rib to make a woman his sister,then having two sons to populate the earth...explain please
> 
> i saw mine to have something to go with the rest of my theory...how do you explain yours?i also don't claim mine as fact,and worship it!!!



nobody has answered these logical questions


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> Energy is god



If this is true Einstein is gonna be upset


----------



## hummdaddy (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is true Einstein is gonna be upset



explain please


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You say God is hypothetical.  Prove it.  It's that simple.



I cannot prove something that does not exist. I thought you might have been intuitive enough to see that it is one of the reasons I do not believe.

By your standards, We can go down a lengthy list of mythical beings and creatures that MUST exist if no one can disprove them. That list will include about a thousand or so "gods" that I am sure you cannot prove are hypothetical, unreal, or downright non-existent. Lets toss in a few Jersey Devils, Bigfoots, Leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters and Unicorns while your at it. They GOTTA be true by your standards.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I cannot prove something that does not exist. I thought you might have been intuitive enough to see that it is one of the reasons I do not believe.
> 
> By your standards, We can go down a lengthy list of mythical beings and creatures that MUST exist if no one can disprove them. That list will include about a thousand or so "gods" that I am sure you cannot prove are hypothetical, unreal, or downright non-existent. Lets toss in a few Jersey Devils, Bigfoots, Leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters and Unicorns while your at it. They GOTTA be true by your standards.



You left out Skunk Ape.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> explain please



Einstein's theory of special relativity

E= mc2

Einstein thought E (energy) equals m(mass) times c2 )the velocity of light squared) so if you are right and God is energy then either Einstein was wrong or God is really, really fast


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I cannot prove something that does not exist. I thought you might have been intuitive enough to see that it is one of the reasons I do not believe.[QUOTE/]
> 
> Sure you can.  Let me show you how it's done.
> Santa Clause doesn't exists.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot prove something that does not exist. I thought you might have been intuitive enough to see that it is one of the reasons I do not believe.[QUOTE/]
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot prove something that does not exist. I thought you might have been intuitive enough to see that it is one of the reasons I do not believe.[QUOTE/]
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

And now wait a minute.......Jesus was now seen by THOUSANDS after his resurrection???
Does the Bible have the number wrong??


----------



## bullethead (May 6, 2013)

Santa Claus: WAS a real person, your parents were carrying on a tradition.


Saint Nicholas - a brief history

St. Nicholas was born in 280 AD, in Patara, a city of Lycia, in Asia Minor. He became the gift giver of Myra. His gifts were given late at night, so that the gift giver's identity would remain a secret. St Nicholas was eventually named the patron saint of children, sailors, Russia and Greece.

St. Nicholas was a Christian priest, who later became a bishop. He was a rich person, and traveled the country helping people, giving gifts of money and other presents. St. Nicholas did not like to be seen when he gave away presents, so the children of the day were told to go to sleep quickly or he would not come! Nothing has changed and Santa Claus will not arrive this Christmas unless the children go to sleep early.

A famous story about St. Nicholas, is about a poor man who had no money to give to his three daughters on their wedding day. St Nick dropped bags of gold into the stockings which the girls had left to dry by the fire. The sisters found the gold and ever since, children have hung up stockings on Christmas Eve hoping that they will be filled with presents by Christmas morning.

Despite being quite young Nicholas had earned a reputation for kindliness and wisdom. In the year 303, the Roman emperor Diocletian commanded all the citizens of the Roman Empire, which included Asia Minor, to worship him as a god.

Christians believed in one god and one god alone, so their conscience would not allow them to obey the Emperor's order. Angered by their stubbornness, Diocletian warnd the Christians that they would be imprisoned. The Emperor carried out the threat and St Nicholas who resisted too was also imprisoned. For more than five years, St Nicholas was confined to a small cell. He suffered from cold, hunger, and thirst, but he never wavered in his beliefs. In 313, when Diocletian resigned, and Constantine came to power Nicholas was released, and he returned to his post as Bishop of Myra. He continued his good works and became even wiser and more understanding by the time of his death on December 6, 343.

In the eyes of the Catholics, a saint is someone who has lived such a holy life that, after dying and going to heaven, he or she is still able to help people on earth. They often become patron to different groups of people - one such was children and many legends sprang up to explain his presence.

By 450, churches in Asia Minor and Greece were being named in honor of him. By 800, he was officially recognized as the a saint by the Eastern Catholic Church.

In the 1200s, December sixth began to be celebrated as Bishop Nicholas Day in France.

By end of the 1400s, St Nicholas was the third most beloved religious figure, after Jesus and Mary. There were more than 2000 chapels and monasteries named after him.

In the 1500s people in England stopped worshipping St Nicholas and favored more another gift giving figure Father Christmas. Over the centuries, St. Nicholas' popularity grew, and many people in Europe made up new stories that showed his concern for children. The name Santa Claus was derived from the Dutch Sinter Klass pronunciation of St. Nicholas. Early Dutch settlers in New York (once called New Amsterdam) brought their traditions of St Nicholas. As children from other countries tried to pronounce Sinter Klass, this soon became Santa Klass, which was settled as Santa Claus. The old bishop's cloak with mitre, jewelled gloves and crozier were soon replaced with his red suit and clothing seen in other modern images.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Einstein's theory of special relativity
> 
> E= mc2
> 
> Einstein thought E (energy) equals m(mass) times c2 )the velocity of light squared) so if you are right and God is energy then either Einstein was wrong or God is really, really fast



http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering why you skipped all my other examples of Gods, Leprechauns, Unicorns etc>>> and went with Santa Clause(which I did not mention)??
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And now wait a minute.......Jesus was now seen by THOUSANDS after his resurrection???
> Does the Bible have the number wrong??



Nope.  Maybe you need to do a bit of research.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Santa Claus: WAS a real person, your parents were carrying on a tradition.
> 
> 
> Saint Nicholas - a brief history
> ...



Ah, but that is not the Santa you were referencing.  You were referencing the fictional Santa, else you wouldn't have lumped him in with unicorns, leprechauns, etc, or am I incorrect and you were trying to argue God doesn't exist because he is like the REAL Santa Nicholas.  No I don't think you making that proposition.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ah, but that is not the Santa you were referencing.  You were referencing the fictional Santa, else you wouldn't have lumped him in with unicorns, leprechauns, etc, or am I incorrect and you were trying to argue God doesn't exist because he is like the REAL Santa Nicholas.  No I don't think you making that proposition.



You had better go back and re-read my post (#77). I did not mention Santa Claus at all. The first mention of Santa Claus was in post #80 by a SemperFiDawg.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > No.  There's no evidence for them at all but for Santa and God there is tangible evidence which must be addressed.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nope.  Maybe you need to do a bit of research.



Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18)
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10)
3) Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5)
4) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13)
5) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.36-43; John 20.19-25)
6) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5)
7) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14)
8) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20)
9) A crowd of 500 (1 Cor. 15.6)
10) Jesus' brother James (1 Cor. 15.7)
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Luke 24.44-49; Acts 1.3-8)
12) Least of all Paul as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10):


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

That's an awesome list


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > The tangible evidence is what I have been waiting for. Gimme what you got.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> > How much more tangible do you want?  Jesus is just as tangible as you and me.  He was a living, breathing human being.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's an awesome list



That is an awesome list that does not add up to "thousands".


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

I almost thought you were going to be one the new fresh posters on here that could back up what you claim. But like the others,(and honestly your are in excellent company) you do not have a shred of actual anything to help with the outlandish claims. And when called out you avoid the comments YOU make and try to redirect towards something else. You want to make up numbers, add examples that were not given and (like the Bible) try to mesh real places and people with the make believe.
Good luck SFD, your gonna have to bring more to the table if you want to get some credibility here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You had better go back and re-read my post (#77). I did not mention Santa Claus at all. The first mention of Santa Claus was in post #80 by a SemperFiDawg.



I stand corrected, but only on the point that you did not mention Santa.  

You stated "Jersey Devils, Bigfoots, Leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters and Unicorns". which in no way changes your points nor mine


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SemperFiDawg said:
> 
> 
> > Refutation of Proof: NOWHERE are these things claimed outside of the Bible. Your Best Proof is the weakest most unprovable conglomeration of words that can and ARE used to describe any and every other God known to mankind.
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (May 7, 2013)

I thought the thread was about aliens creating humans.....I saw a decent movie recently exploring those thoughts.  From a human perspective, on Earth, God would be "alien" as well.  Just something to think on......

However, it just takes you one step closer to the OC, unless the pilot of that craft is the OC.

I have no doubt the OP saw something, maybe it was an alien.  Cool stuff.


----------



## David Parker (May 7, 2013)

This conversation would go over much better with several bottles of whiskey and fishing poles.  Not sure it would produce anything, but I'd feel better anyway.


----------



## dawg2 (May 7, 2013)

David Parker said:


> This conversation would go over much better with several bottles of whiskey and fishing poles.  Not sure it would produce anything, but I'd feel better anyway.



I think the only thing missing right now are the fishing poles...the result will be the same though...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I almost thought you were going to be one the new fresh posters on here that could back up what you claim. But like the others,(and honestly your are in excellent company) you do not have a shred of actual anything to help with the outlandish claims. And when called out you avoid the comments YOU make and try to redirect towards something else. You want to make up numbers, add examples that were not given and (like the Bible) try to mesh real places and people with the make believe.
> Good luck SFD, your gonna have to bring more to the table if you want to get some credibility here.



Brother I've answered every point you've raised.  I can't help you don't care for the answers.  I'm sorry I've disappointed you.  I'm a bit let down myself.  I had assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that someone on here would be able to provide an intelligent explanation for their beliefs.  Irregardless of your belief, be it Atheism or Agnosticis,  intelligent arguments exist.  I've heard them.  Unfortunately there's very little evidence that they exist here.  What exists here, it seems to me, is a handful of Atheist, who either because they can't defend their own beliefs or won't, don't; yet are perfectly content to hurl, for the most part, unfounded if not patently false criticism at others.   Furthermore when that fails, they begin personally insulting the other party as in the quote above.  As far as credibility here goes, it's impossible to build credibility amoung incredulous people, it can only be built with those willing to listen and if not learn, at least give an impartial hearing.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother I've answered every point you've raised.  I can't help you don't care for the answers.  I'm sorry I've disappointed you.  I'm a bit let down myself.  I had assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that someone on here would be able to provide an intelligent explanation for their beliefs.  Irregardless of your belief, be it Atheism or Agnosticis,  intelligent arguments exist.  I've heard them.  Unfortunately there's very little evidence that they exist here.  What exists here, it seems to me, is a handful of Atheist, who either because they can't defend their own beliefs or won't, don't; yet are perfectly content to hurl, for the most part, unfounded if not patently false criticism at others.   Furthermore when that fails, they begin personally insulting the other party as in the quote above.  As far as credibility here goes, it's impossible to build credibility amoung incredulous people, it can only be built with those willing to listen and if not learn, at least give an impartial hearing.




YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ALL MY POINTS AND QUESTIONS!!!
where do you get reality out of an invisible being taking sand and making a man,then taking a rib to make a woman his sister,then having two sons to populate the earth...explain please

i saw mine to have something to go with the rest of my theory...how do you explain yours?i also don't claim mine as fact,and worship it!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

That reality comes from a book and the claims it makes... Your reality comes from your own personal sight. Of course, when you're not completely engulfed in the culture and everything that Christianity can do to a person, then you're ok with using that very momentary personal and then also understanding that there are no facts to it all that we know of.


----------



## David Parker (May 7, 2013)

death and taxes = the only true reality


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ALL MY POINTS AND QUESTIONS!!!
> where do you get reality out of an invisible being taking sand and making a man,then taking a rib to make a woman his sister,then having two sons to populate the earth...explain please



I did. See post 5.



hummdaddy said:


> i saw mine ....how do you explain yours?



I did. See post 80



hummdaddy said:


> i also don't claim mine as fact,and worship it!!!



Your point?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I did. See post 5.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Avoided,dodged,and deflected each time ....that's cool,it's your right....i just wanted your logical explanation why i should pick your theory over mine, by what has been presented from your book, and my eyes and research ,,,


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother I've answered every point you've raised.  I can't help you don't care for the answers.  I'm sorry I've disappointed you.  I'm a bit let down myself.  I had assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that someone on here would be able to provide an intelligent explanation for their beliefs.  Irregardless of your belief, be it Atheism or Agnosticis,  intelligent arguments exist.  I've heard them.  Unfortunately there's very little evidence that they exist here.  What exists here, it seems to me, is a handful of Atheist, who either because they can't defend their own beliefs or won't, don't; yet are perfectly content to hurl, for the most part, unfounded if not patently false criticism at others.   Furthermore when that fails, they begin personally insulting the other party as in the quote above.  As far as credibility here goes, it's impossible to build credibility amoung incredulous people, it can only be built with those willing to listen and if not learn, at least give an impartial hearing.



With 100 posts you have not been here long enough to read all the past posts that covered everything you've asked for and all the points you have already brought up. But that does not make you any less a worthy conversationalist. I apologize for the quick draw and sometimes short tempered responses but it is just to cut out the middle man stuff that has already been covered multiple times and get right to the point(s).

You have to understand that "here" we are looking beyond the "look out your window" and "it says so in verse xyz" we are looking for something that only a supreme being could pull off and in 20+ years I have not found any evidence that would be considered that extraordinary or that literally ANY other name could be inserted in place of "god" and be given the same credit based off of the total lack of evidence to back up the claims.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> With 100 posts you have not been here long enough to read all the past posts that covered everything you've asked for and all the points you have already brought up. But that does not make you any less a worthy conversationalist. I apologize for the quick draw and sometimes short tempered responses but it is just to cut out the middle man stuff that has already been covered multiple times and get right to the point(s).
> 
> You have to understand that "here" we are looking beyond the "look out your window" and "it says so in verse xyz" we are looking for something that only a supreme being could pull off and in 20+ years I have not found any evidence that would be considered that extraordinary or that literally ANY other name could be inserted in place of "god" and be given the same credit based off of the total lack of evidence to back up the claims.



Thanks for the compliment and also the honest reply.  I appreciate both.  There are all types of evidence, historical, empirical, and logical just to name a few, but I honestly sense that there are those on here that no matter what type of evidence is presented, they would ridicule it.  Honestly I don't fault them as much as the people, probably Christians, that caused them to feel that way.  I think in most instances when people truly will not listen with an open mind it indicates not that they don't have an open mind(they would probably give a fair hearing to the same person giving a argument for say.....which way a doe is gone run after you shoot her), but that they have been so wronged by a 'Christian' it doesn't matter what is said.  Their minds are on lockdown in regards to that subject.  I don't take it personally, but once a conversation reaches insults I won't be a part of that.  There's no point once it gets there.
That being said if you would tell me what type of evidence it would take to convince you personally,  I would like to give it my best shot.  It may not sway you, but I would at least have the honor of hopefully making a showing.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks for the compliment and also the honest reply.  I appreciate both.  There are all types of evidence, historical, empirical, and logical just to name a few, but I honestly sense that there are those on here that no matter what type of evidence is presented, they would ridicule it.  Honestly I don't fault them as much as the people, probably Christians, that caused them to feel that way.  I think in most instances when people truly will not listen with an open mind it indicates not that they don't have an open mind(they would probably give a fair hearing to the same person giving a argument for say.....which way a doe is gone run after you shoot her), but that they have been so wronged by a 'Christian' it doesn't matter what is said.  Their minds are on lockdown in regards to that subject.  I don't take it personally, but once a conversation reaches insults I won't be a part of that.  There's no point once it gets there.
> That being said if you would tell me what type of evidence it would take to convince you personally,  I would like to give it my best shot.  It may not sway you, but I would at least have the honor of hopefully making a showing.



I'll beat ambush to it.  How about a talking donkey?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks for the compliment and also the honest reply.  I appreciate both.  There are all types of evidence, historical, empirical, and logical just to name a few, but I honestly sense that there are those on here that no matter what type of evidence is presented, they would ridicule it.  Honestly I don't fault them as much as the people, probably Christians, that caused them to feel that way.  I think in most instances when people truly will not listen with an open mind it indicates not that they don't have an open mind(they would probably give a fair hearing to the same person giving a argument for say.....which way a doe is gone run after you shoot her), but that they have been so wronged by a 'Christian' it doesn't matter what is said.  Their minds are on lockdown in regards to that subject.  I don't take it personally, but once a conversation reaches insults I won't be a part of that.  There's no point once it gets there.
> That being said if you would tell me what type of evidence it would take to convince you personally,  I would like to give it my best shot.  It may not sway you, but I would at least have the honor of hopefully making a showing.



Here is a definition of empirical .



> Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.



How does this apply here?

And just for conversation sake, I do not believe faith is logical.  Spock would agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I'll beat ambush to it.  How about a talking donkey?



Ones already been documented.  Gotta do better than that.


----------



## vowell462 (May 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I'll beat ambush to it.  How about a talking donkey?[/
> 
> I don't post as much, but I do read just about everything written on this forum....and that made me laugh out loud.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ones already been documented.  Gotta do better than that.



Maybe you should look into the info I posted in the 'Puff The Magic Dragon' thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Here is a definition of empirical .
> 
> 
> 
> How does this apply here?



It's just one type of evidence available not implying it applies.  Was just using for n example.



drippin' rock said:


> HAnd just for conversation sake, I do not believe faith is logical.  Spock would agree.



Picture this.  A man needs a heart transplant.  He researches for the best Doctor to do it and eventually decides based on his research that it is Dr Jones.  He chooses Dr. Jones based his need and the best information available to him.  That is a pretty accurate analogy of faith.  It's logical , but not perfect.  I think too many people expect Christianity to be perfect when its not.  I would argue it simply provides the best answers to many people's needs.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 7, 2013)

> It's just one type of evidence available not implying it applies. Was just using for n example


  Ok, I see that now.  

And I'd argue that folks here aren't being contrary for contrary's sake.  There are some people that aren't inclined to believe 2000 year old tales, or like some here have first hand experience with speaking in tongues.  I believe my own eyes.  I have seen nothing to make me think that there might have ever been talking animals or burning bushes or loaves and fishes miraculously multiplying and feeding 5000.  Just because the bible says Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt doesn't make me assume that's documented evidence that such an event happened.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Thanks for the compliment and also the honest reply.  I appreciate both.  There are all types of evidence, historical, empirical, and logical just to name a few, but I honestly sense that there are those on here that no matter what type of evidence is presented, they would ridicule it.  Honestly I don't fault them as much as the people, probably Christians, that caused them to feel that way.  I think in most instances when people truly will not listen with an open mind it indicates not that they don't have an open mind(they would probably give a fair hearing to the same person giving a argument for say.....which way a doe is gone run after you shoot her), but that they have been so wronged by a 'Christian' it doesn't matter what is said.  Their minds are on lockdown in regards to that subject.  I don't take it personally, but once a conversation reaches insults I won't be a part of that.  There's no point once it gets there.
> That being said if you would tell me what type of evidence it would take to convince you personally,  I would like to give it my best shot.  It may not sway you, but I would at least have the honor of hopefully making a showing.



I have gone from 100% believer to 99.999999999% positive that there is no supreme being, 100% positive that there is no supreme being that gives 2 darns and a dang about anything that goes on in this world and 1000% positive that no religion has got anything right about any god.
That being said, IF there was some sort of supreme omnipotent and omniscient being overlooking us all..."it" "he" "she" or whatever it is would be able to give each individual exactly what is needed to prove itself to that person and then that person can decide if they want to take the relationship further. I am convinced no loving caring being would do less than what the average parent of any species would do to to keep watch over it's young. There are many more examples of "supreme" beings right here on this planet that do not have "super" powers and actually DO more than any god can ever hope to accomplish.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Ok, I see that now.
> 
> And I'd argue that folks here aren't being contrary for contrary's sake.  There are some people that aren't inclined to believe 2000 year old tales, or like some have first hand experience with speaking in tongues.  I believe my own eyes.  I have seen nothing to make me think that there might have ever been talking animals or burning bushes or loaves and fishes miraculously multiplying and feeding 5000.  Just because the bible says Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt doesn't make me assume that's documented evidence that such an event happened.



SOME real places involving SOME real people that are linked to SOME real events that all have been told and re-told with embellishments to make the stories better.
Many of the stories are not unique and predate the Biblical stories by a thousand years. Most are told and used by man in order to further his agenda and adding a "god" to the mix allows him to somehow make his warped agenda seem alright.
ANY god worth worshiping would leave no doubt to the accuracy of it's claims and it's message would be understood by all. NO GOD would NEED man to write "his" book. Only man made embellished stories are good enough to entice people using hope and fear because the stories themselves do not hold up when scrutinized.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 7, 2013)

I've commented on here only a handful of times, but read up on the current threads often.  The atheists/agnostics in here typically bring up two main points in their arguments.  They've come up again in this thread.

1) They want empirical evidence of the existence of God.

2) As bullet stated in post 117, they believe that if a God exists, he should have a, b, and c characteristics and should present himself to us in d, e, and f ways.  

Here are my thoughts on these points:

1) By necessity, if a God exists, he must operate outside of the scientific laws as we know them.  I think the Willard article String posted did an excellent job of explaining why that is.  So if God exists, and he operates outside of our scientific laws and principles, why would we expect science to be capable of detecting him, offering empirical proof of his existence?

2) If God exists, why would you expect Him to exhibit characteristics similar to humans (or animals)?  Furthermore, in what way would it be logical to assume that a being of infinite knowledge and power would act like us at all, or that we are entitled to its presenting itself to us in some certain manner?


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> I've commented on here only a handful of times, but read up on the current threads often.  The atheists/agnostics in here typically bring up two main points in their arguments.  They've come up again in this thread.
> 
> 1) They want empirical evidence of the existence of God.
> 
> ...



Then do you agree that ANY religion or person that tells us they can not only understand the thoughts and speak for such a supreme being, should be held to the highest suspicions by all other mere mortals?

If such a God cannot or will not make itself known to science and every individual that seeks the knowledge of it's existence(especially it's greatest doubters) then what is the point of all the hokus pokus nonsense where it is said that a God does EXACTLY what you state it does not do? IE: act,think and do EXACTLY like humans.....
If the Bible is even remotely accurate it shows that "god" is exactly like humans......almost as if humans created a "god" not the other way around.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

Surely a god capable of such great feats as creating creation and all the individual complexities involved in such a task could present itself in the most understandable ways to each and every person in order to allow it's existence to be known.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 7, 2013)

First, I almost prefaced my reply with a little background on myself, but I didn't want to derail the thread any worse than it already is, but I can see that I should.  Very briefly - born and raised Christian, increasingly agnostic over the past 10 yrs., now again open to the idea of God but still searching.  THUS, I was offering the questions more from a desire for answers than as an attempt to make an argument for God.  

That being said, I see the merit in your reply, and offer another perspective below.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Surely a god capable of such great feats as creating creation and all the individual complexities involved in such a task could present itself in the most understandable ways to each and every person in order to allow it's existence to be known.


I'll address this one first, since it'll hopefully be a quicker reply.

It seems to me that all of the back and forth over what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be presented to us by God really falls back on whether or not we could maintain free will if that was the case.  IF the Bible's record of the nature of God is true, then he wants us to have free will.  If a god presented himself to each of us in the most understandable ways, in order for its existence to be known, there'd be no room for free will in choosing whether or not to believe in and follow that god.  

Honestly, if you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was an omnipotent being that decided your eternal fate, do you really think you'd give yourself the option of rejecting that being?


----------



## Buck Trax (May 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then do you agree that ANY religion or person that tells us they can not only understand the thoughts and speak for such a supreme being, should be held to the highest suspicions by all other mere mortals?
> 
> If such a God cannot or will not make itself known to science and every individual that seeks the knowledge of it's existence(especially it's greatest doubters) then what is the point of all the hokus pokus nonsense where it is said that a God does EXACTLY what you state it does not do? IE: act,think and do EXACTLY like humans.....
> If the Bible is even remotely accurate it shows that "god" is exactly like humans......almost as if humans created a "god" not the other way around.


The thought I offered was not that there couldn't be evidence of a god's existence, just that it likely wouldn't come in the forms (scientific, empirical) that we would expect of other beings and things that follow the laws of nature.  

I may get reamed on this, and that's fine, but I find it curious how we (self included) continue to seek answers despite having our minds made up.  I went through a brief phase where I was, as you, 99.9% sure a god didn't exist.  But for some reason, I wasn't satisfied.  I'm guessing you aren't either or you'd be doing something else with your time besides discussing this with me.  Why do so many of us have this nagging even when our minds are supposedly made up?  To me this is a piece of evidence (not proof) that something (someone) may have put it there.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> I'll address this one first, since it'll hopefully be a quicker reply.
> 
> It seems to me that all of the back and forth over what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be presented to us by God really falls back on whether or not we could maintain free will if that was the case.  IF the Bible's record of the nature of God is true, then he wants us to have free will.  If a god presented himself to each of us in the most understandable ways, in order for its existence to be known, there'd be no room for free will in choosing whether or not to believe in and follow that god.
> 
> Honestly, if you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was an omnipotent being that decided your eternal fate, do you really think you'd give yourself the option of rejecting that being?



We can throw out any Bible or any religion's version of a handbook. Free Will does not hold up to an Omniscient and Omnipotent being. Such a being would already know the outcome of every situation before it ever happened and the "bible" is chock full of situations where "god" changes his mind after something did not work out.........the God in the Bible, despite the Bible's claims, is neither Omniscient or Omnipotent based off of it's own stories. if such a being created you and I it already knows what we choose so in reality there is no free will as our will is already known.

Now, in all reality, if there was such a being that could present itself to me and explain what I need answered I could make a judgement on whether such a being is worthy of worship. There is no personal relationship with a god that does not specifically interact with each individual, but relies on writings of man that are errant and fallible.
In your scenario you are inserting that the Bible is right........let "god" tell me that. Let "god" tell me if it is some other way. People on this planet should know "right" from "wrong" yet still seem to make decisions that do not fit. No difference if a god that is capable of making a personal visit, the person (if free will is true) still can decide for them self.


----------



## bullethead (May 7, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> The thought I offered was not that there couldn't be evidence of a god's existence, just that it likely wouldn't come in the forms (scientific, empirical) that we would expect of other beings and things that follow the laws of nature.
> 
> I may get reamed on this, and that's fine, but I find it curious how we (self included) continue to seek answers despite having our minds made up.  I went through a brief phase where I was, as you, 99.9% sure a god didn't exist.  But for some reason, I wasn't satisfied.  I'm guessing you aren't either or you'd be doing something else with your time besides discussing this with me.  Why do so many of us have this nagging even when our minds are supposedly made up?  To me this is a piece of evidence (not proof) that something (someone) may have put it there.



I think because it is all we are told since we are born.
Same way we would think some other religion's story is true had we been born in a non-christian society.

If "god's" children can't agree and kill each other over who is right and who's god is the better god, then I question if there is a loving and caring god at all. I have dedicated a lot of time trying to search for such a being at all existing, let alone any ONE belief getting it right.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> Here are my thoughts on these points:
> 
> 1) By necessity, if a God exists, he must operate outside of the scientific laws as we know them.  I think the Willard article String posted did an excellent job of explaining why that is.  So if God exists, and he operates outside of our scientific laws and principles, why would we expect science to be capable of detecting him, offering empirical proof of his existence?
> 
> 2) If God exists, why would you expect Him to exhibit characteristics similar to humans (or animals)?  Furthermore, in what way would it be logical to assume that a being of infinite knowledge and power would act like us at all, or that we are entitled to its presenting itself to us in some certain manner?



The answer to both points is "because of what the bible says".


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> I'll address this one first, since it'll hopefully be a quicker reply.
> 
> It seems to me that all of the back and forth over what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be presented to us by God really falls back on whether or not we could maintain free will if that was the case.  IF the Bible's record of the nature of God is true, then he wants us to have free will.  If a god presented himself to each of us in the most understandable ways, in order for its existence to be known, there'd be no room for free will in choosing whether or not to believe in and follow that god.
> 
> Honestly, if you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was an omnipotent being that decided your eternal fate, do you really think you'd give yourself the option of rejecting that being?



I don't know about you but any being that would create a lake of fire and send people there forever for disobeying him doesn't strike me as one who has freedom very high on their list of values.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We can throw out any Bible or any religion's version of a handbook. Free Will does not hold up to an Omniscient and Omnipotent being. Such a being would already know the outcome of every situation before it ever happened and the "bible" is chock full of situations where "god" changes his mind after something did not work out.........the God in the Bible, despite the Bible's claims, is neither Omniscient or Omnipotent based off of it's own stories. if such a being created you and I it already knows what we choose so in reality there is no free will as our will is already known.


If you offer a kid a choice between eating a ice cream or broccoli for dinner, knowing that they're going to choose the ice cream, have you taken away their free will to choose?

I know that there are instances in the Bible where God changes his mind but don't really see the point you're making here.  If anything, by your own reasoning, a lack of omniscience on God's part would further support the existence of free will.



bullethead said:


> Now, in all reality, if there was such a being that could present itself to me and explain what I need answered I could make a judgement on whether such a being is worthy of worship. There is no personal relationship with a god that does not specifically interact with each individual, but relies on writings of man that are errant and fallible.
> In your scenario you are inserting that the Bible is right........let "god" tell me that. Let "god" tell me if it is some other way. People on this planet should know "right" from "wrong" yet still seem to make decisions that do not fit. No difference if a god that is capable of making a personal visit, the person (if free will is true) still can decide for them self.


Worthy of worship? Based on what criteria? If a being with infinitely more wisdom and power than ourselves exists, how can we judge what it should or shouldn't do with our finite minds?  Would we even be capable of understanding if it explained itself to each and every one of us or would it be a fruitless endeavor?

It's interesting that you put right and wrong in quotation marks.  Do you believe that all right and wrong is relative?  If they make decisions that do not fit, what do they not fit?  Does an absolute right exist?  If it does, but people choose not to do it, isn't that evidence of the existence of free will?  By default, if free will does exist, people will have the right to make "wrong" decisions and evil will result.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> The thought I offered was not that there couldn't be evidence of a god's existence, just that it likely wouldn't come in the forms (scientific, empirical) that we would expect of other beings and things that follow the laws of nature.
> 
> I may get reamed on this, and that's fine, but I find it curious how we (self included) continue to seek answers despite having our minds made up.  I went through a brief phase where I was, as you, 99.9% sure a god didn't exist.  But for some reason, I wasn't satisfied.  I'm guessing you aren't either or you'd be doing something else with your time besides discussing this with me.  Why do so many of us have this nagging even when our minds are supposedly made up?  To me this is a piece of evidence (not proof) that something (someone) may have put it there.



I cannot help but think with the most extreme DOUBT that if I were born and immediately taken away from society, raised in the wilderness and completely cut off from all other outside influences of any religious stories(call it raised neutral) that when I reached the age where I was considered an adult I would look up into the sky and automatically think " look at the sun, moon, mountains, stars, look at the streams, trees animals and rocks....I bet a God that impregnated a virgin in order to bear his Son strictly to have him killed to save the rest of the world and then have his son raise up to live with the god along with a holy ghost as all three are separate and yet all three are the same......made all this"
It just would not strike me as so. That is NOT the story anyone would come up with by merely looking out into nature. If I felt compelled to owe it to some sort of higher power I most certainly would conjure up MY version of what I think or want or need that higher power to be....and pass MY version on to the next person. Or I would just live life without the complicated menagerie of invisible friends, higher powers, and rules to either live forever in a rewarding place for worshiping a god "properly" that I have NEVER heard of or spending eternity in a fiery pit for not worshiping a god that I have NEVER heard of.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 8, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I don't know about you but any being that would create a lake of fire and send people there forever for disobeying him doesn't strike me as one who has freedom very high on their list of values.


What's the point in establishing right and wrong if there are no consequences for the wrong?

The most free societies in the world still have penal systems.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> If you offer a kid a choice between eating a ice cream or broccoli for dinner, knowing that they're going to choose the ice cream, have you taken away their free will to choose?
> 
> I know that there are instances in the Bible where God changes his mind but don't really see the point you're making here.  If anything, by your own reasoning, a lack of omniscience on God's part would further support the existence of free will.
> 
> ...



If a being with infinitely more wisdom and power existed it could easily do whatever is necessary to allow me, you and everyone to understand what needs to be understood. If a being with that capability exists and is happy with all the deaths just from people that do not agree on who this being is.....well.....


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> What's the point in establishing right and wrong if there are no consequences for the wrong?
> 
> The most free societies in the world still have penal systems.



But, but, but, YOUR god is above those human characteristics of right and wrong.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I cannot help but think with the most extreme DOUBT that if I were born and immediately taken away from society, raised in the wilderness and completely cut off from all other outside influences of any religious stories(call it raised neutral) that when I reached the age where I was considered an adult I would look up into the sky and automatically think " look at the sun, moon, mountains, stars, look at the streams, trees animals and rocks....I bet a God that impregnated a virgin in order to bear his Son strictly to have him killed to save the rest of the world and then have his son raise up to live with the god along with a holy ghost as all three are separate and yet all three are the same......made all this"
> It just would not strike me as so. That is NOT the story anyone would come up with by merely looking out into nature. If I felt compelled to owe it to some sort of higher power I most certainly would conjure up MY version of what I think or want or need that higher power to be....and pass MY version on to the next person. Or I would just live life without the complicated menagerie of invisible friends, higher powers, and rules to either live forever in a rewarding place for worshiping a god "properly" that I have NEVER heard of or spending eternity in a fiery pit for not worshiping a god that I have NEVER heard of.


I think this is a bad example simply because there are myriad examples of things that occur whose processes leading up to those events we would've never guessed.  That doesn't make it any less true.  

I share your frustration with the complicated menagerie, etc., etc.  Living as an atheist is certainly a more parsimonious lifestyle.  That is part of what made non-belief attractive to me.  Unfortunately I think that organized religion, and the people that created it, are the ones responsible for its complicated appearance.


----------



## Buck Trax (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If a being with infinitely more wisdom and power existed it could easily do whatever is necessary to allow me, you and everyone to understand what needs to be understood. If a being with that capability exists and is happy with all the deaths just from people that do not agree on who this being is.....well.....


Who says it is happy with that result?


----------



## Buck Trax (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But, but, but, YOUR god is above those human characteristics of right and wrong.


This is why I typically refrain from comment.  Less than 10 posts into a thread and I'm already being mocked while trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Are right and wrong human characteristics?  You never answered my question re: whether or not true right and wrong exists or if it's all relative.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> What's the point in establishing right and wrong if there are no consequences for the wrong?
> 
> The most free societies in the world still have penal systems.



Will there be a penal system in heaven? Will there be freedom?

We have penal systems, at least in theory, to stop people from exercising their freedom in such a way that violates the freedom of others. If we could prevent people from doing harm to each other there would be no need for a penal system. The god of the bible throws people in a lake of fire for things that in many cases have nothing to do with infringing on the lives or liberties of others.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> What's the point in establishing right and wrong if there are no consequences for the wrong?
> 
> The most free societies in the world still have penal systems.



Guilt and shame are powerful motivators.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> I've commented on here only a handful of times, but read up on the current threads often.  The atheists/agnostics in here typically bring up two main points in their arguments.  They've come up again in this thread.
> 
> 1) They want empirical evidence of the existence of God.
> 
> ...



Two great points.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> Who says it is happy with that result?



Unless happy,content,or satisfied there is no reason to let such things happen. The only other options would be it is capable of stopping it but won't, want's to stop it but can't, or there is no god to do anything.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Two great points.



IF THERE IS AN ALL KNOWING ,ALL LOVING GOD,WITH ALL THESE POWERS!!! why are there dying,starving,suffering children all over the world?wouldn't he do something about that?


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

Buck Trax said:


> This is why I typically refrain from comment.  Less than 10 posts into a thread and I'm already being mocked while trying to have an intelligent discussion.
> 
> Are right and wrong human characteristics?  You never answered my question re: whether or not true right and wrong exists or if it's all relative.



No one is mocking you. In one sentence you are using the argument that god is above the actions of humans and then you are using human actions as an excuse for god.

Like I said to you earlier you need to search through prior posts. Right/wrong, morals etc have all been covered. I personally think they are relative. Since I do not believe in a god I certainly cannot believe our morals come from a higher power.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Two great points.



They are great points with two major words that stand out...."IF".

In all the conversations on here over all the years no one has established whether or not there is a God, let alone has been able to narrow it down to any one specific God.

A great case can be made for darn near anything when we start throwing words in like "IF".  Well yeah......."IF" this was how it is then things seem to line up but no has been able to get beyond the "IF" part.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

LOL "God doesn't do things my way, therefor, God doesn't exist."

Number one reason people deny God, they want to be God of their own lifes.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In all the conversations on here over all the years no one has established whether or not there is a God



A better argument would be that you deny the evidence, on whatever grounds, that has been presented by believers in this forum.


To say that no one has presented any evidence would be dishonest. So, it might be better to word your statement "I deny the evidence that I have been presented about God"


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL "God doesn't do things my way, therefor, God doesn't exist."
> 
> Number one reason people deny God, they want to be God of their own lifes.



LOL "God thinks exactly the way I do, Likes the same people I like, and hates the same people I hate, God even likes the same sport teams that I like, therefore there must be a God"

Number ONE reason people are so easy to believe such being exists.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A better argument would be that you deny the evidence, on whatever grounds, that has been presented by believers in this forum.
> 
> 
> To say that no one has presented any evidence would be dishonest. So, it might be better to word your statement "I deny the evidence that I have been presented about God"



Nothing and I mean nothing concrete string.

Read the bible, look out the window, there was this guy (among thousands of others) named Jesus........ STOP the presses I must not have realized what incredible evidence I have previously dismissed!


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> LOL "God thinks exactly the way I do, Likes the same people I like, and hates the same people I hate, God even likes the same sport teams that I like, therefore there must be a God"
> 
> Number ONE reason people are so easy to believe such being exists.



Tell you what Bullet, you give me some evidence that I believe those statements, and I'll give you some evidence that you believe my statements.

Here's my evidence...


			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Surely a god capable of such great feats as creating creation and all the individual complexities involved in such a task could present itself in the most understandable ways to each and every person in order to allow it's existence to be known.





			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> ANY god worth worshiping would leave no doubt to the accuracy of it's claims and it's message would be understood by all.



I'll provide more if I need to.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A better argument would be that you deny the evidence, on whatever grounds, that has been presented by believers in this forum.
> 
> 
> To say that no one has presented any evidence would be dishonest. So, it might be better to word your statement "I deny the evidence that I have been presented about God"



I'll beat you to the punch with the Willard reference>>

Email Mr. Willard and give him my congrats on a well written article that lends one of the best arguments yet to the possibility a higher power. Now ask him to link that with ONE specific God and tell us why.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nothing and I mean nothing concrete string.
> 
> Read the bible, look out the window, there was this guy (among thousands of others) named Jesus........ STOP the presses I must not have realized what incredible evidence I have previously dismissed!



You're exactly right Bullet, I, nor has anyone else pulled God down from heaven and let you see him. But evidence has been presented to you, and you simply deny it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll beat you to the punch with the Willard reference>>
> 
> Email Mr. Willard and give him my congrats on a well written article that lends one of the best arguments yet to the possibility a higher power. Now ask him to link that with ONE specific God and tell us why.



Go back and read the third argument in the article.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Tell you what Bullet, you give me some evidence that I believe those statements, and I'll give you some evidence that you believe my statements.
> 
> Here's my evidence...
> 
> ...



I am going to tell you exactly why I stick by those statements.
I need more than some book that was not written by a god to convince me. 

If there is a God with half the powers given to it by the believers then such a God knows exactly what it would take to convince me. If it could create the world it could give me ten seconds.
If not, then it is not worthy of my worship.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Go back and read the third argument in the article.



Did, epic fail.
One and two had my interest, third stage stank.
Sorry if you buy it, I don't.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am going to tell you exactly why I stick by those statements.
> I need more than some book that was not written by a god to convince me.
> 
> If there is a God with half the powers given to it by the believers then such a God knows exactly what it would take to convince me. If it could create the world it could give me ten seconds.
> If not, then it is not worthy of my worship.



That's fine if you want to stick by your statements, but please don't put me, and other believers in this forum, in a box painted with a broad brush by insinuating that we believe those statements you posted.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL "God doesn't do things my way, therefor, God doesn't exist."
> 
> Number one reason people deny God, they want to be God of their own lifes.



Nope, the bible describes a god with human attributes that intervenes in the natural world. We don't have any evidence of such a god, therefore there is no reason to believe that particular god exists. The expectations are based off of the characteristics the bible attributes to this god. If you want to change those expectations you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new god that doesn't have them.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did, epic fail.
> One and two had my interest, third stage stank.
> Sorry if you buy it, I don't.



If you would like, bump the thread back up with some of the problems you find with the third argument, it's one of the arguments that we didn't really discuss in the thread.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Nope, the bible describes a god with human attributes


But the bible doesn't stop there, it also describes a God with supernatural attributes.

And just out of curiousity, what human attributes, besides Jesus, are you speaking about?



> that intervenes in the natural world. We don't have any evidence of such a god, therefore there is no reason to believe that particular god exists. The expectations are based off of the characteristics the bible attributes to this god. If you want to change those expectations you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new god that doesn't have them.



Again, believers have evidence, you too deny that evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Nope, the bible describes a god with human attributes that intervenes in the natural world. We don't have any evidence of such a god, therefore there is no reason to believe that particular god exists. The expectations are based off of the characteristics the bible attributes to this god. If you want to change those expectations you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new god that doesn't have them.



That is an absolutely false statement.  Christianity affirms Jesus's statement that he is God.  So to prove your statement you either have to prove Jesus didn't exist or his statement is incorrect.  You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you.  Anyone with a mouth can make an assertion, but it takes proof to back it up.  We're waiting.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you would like, bump the thread back up with some of the problems you find with the third argument, it's one of the arguments that we didn't really discuss in the thread.



I have told you repeatedly......Willard's article is a good read but if it had any actual clout it would be used world wide as the do all end all argument for a god. What it is good for is forums like this one where people will cling to it as if it was something special (and it might be to them) but in reality it is just a well written article with no actual proof of anything. If it was more than that, it would be more than that.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have told you repeatedly......Willard's article is a good read but if it had any actual clout it would be used world wide as the do all end all argument for a god. What it is good for is forums like this one where people will cling to it as if it was something special (and it might be to them) but in reality it is just a well written article with no actual proof of anything. If it was more than that, it would be more than that.


There is no "actual proof" of God. There is evidence for God, and again because this article didn't pull God down from heaven to let you meet him in person, it's not sufficient for you, that's fine. 

And yes, I've heard you make the argument before that because the article didn't start a world wide phenomena that made everyone on earth believe in God, that falsifies his entire arguments.

How about you....


stringmusic said:


> bump the thread back up with some of the problems you find with the third argument



....so we don't continue to derail this thread.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "actual proof" of God. There is evidence for God, and again because this article didn't pull God down from heaven to let you meet him in person, it's not sufficient for you, that's fine.
> 
> And yes, I've heard you make the argument before that because the article didn't start a world wide phenomena that made everyone on earth believe in God, that falsifies his entire arguments.
> 
> ...




what evidence is there that there was an invisible being that created adam from sand,eve(his sister) from his rib,they had 2 sons,and they populated the earth

wouldn't we all have the same dna


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "actual proof" of God. There is evidence for God, and again because this article didn't pull God down from heaven to let you meet him in person, it's not sufficient for you, that's fine.
> 
> And yes, I've heard you make the argument before that because the article didn't start a world wide phenomena that made everyone on earth believe in God, that falsifies his entire arguments.
> 
> ...



Told you before, the article means nothing to me. Not bumping it up. The millionth and first time is not going to do anything the first million could not accomplish.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> what evidence is there that there was an invisible being that created adam from sand,eve(his sister) from his rib,they had 2 sons,and they populated the earth
> 
> wouldn't we all have the same dna


The bible.


bullethead said:


> Told you before, the article means nothing to me. Not bumping it up. The millionth and first time is not going to do anything the first million could not accomplish.



Like I said, we didn't really discuss the third argument. But if you don't want to, that's fine.

You did say however, that the third argument stunk, which tells me that you do find problems with it, not sure why you're unwilling to point those problems out.

Therefor, I cannot accept your assesment of the third argument because you have not given me  proof that it actually stunk.


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible.



That might be good enough for the believers, but you know as well as anyone that in here the Bible is not your best bet for convincing us.




stringmusic said:


> Like I said, we didn't really discuss the third argument. But if you don't want to, that's fine.
> 
> You did say however, that the third argument stunk, which tells me that you do find problems with it, not sure why you're unwilling to point those problems out.
> 
> Therefor, I cannot accept your assesment of the third argument because you have not given me  proof that it actually stunk.



You have to accept what I have already accepted....that is that You and I, no matter how much we discuss things and how much proof we each think we provide, just will not accept each others "evidence" so it is pointless to continue the head bashing.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That might be good enough for the believers, but you know as well as anyone that in here the Bible is not your best bet for convincing us.


I understand, but he asked me what evidence there was, and I gave him the evidence.






> You have to accept what I have already accepted....that is that You and I, no matter how much we discuss things and how much proof we each think we provide, just will not accept each others "evidence" so it is pointless to continue the head bashing.


Are you saying you don't want to have conversations in this forum anymore?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The bible.
> 
> 
> Like I said, we didn't really discuss the third argument. But if you don't want to, that's fine.
> ...



we can prove that theory wrong with dna test...


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> we can prove that theory wrong with dna test...



How many people did God create after He created Adam and Eve?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How many people did God create after He created Adam and Eve?



1 supposedly jesus,do i tell you the real way that happened


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> 1 supposedly jesus,do i tell you the real way that happened



You're going to need to explain this post a little better for me.

Where are you getting that God only created Jesus after Adam and Eve?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You're going to need to explain this post a little better for me.
> 
> Where are you getting that God only created Jesus after Adam and Eve?



is there a new bible being writtenthat's the only humans i know of that have been created and written about by this  invisible being god...

to explain it to you,if i don't believe there is an invisible magic being with all these powers,i think mary got inpregnated by somebody besides joseph,and claimed to be a virgin...

that does not take away from how jesus acted and what he did ,that created what christanity is supposed to be today...however it doesn't erase how you got to this point in your lives either,as christians


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> that's the only humans i know that have been created and written about by this  invisible being god..



Precisely. You don't know how many people God created which means He could have created more people after He created Adam and Eve, giving humans different DNA.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Precisely. You don't know how many people God created which means He could have created more  people after He created Adam and Eve, giving humans different DNA.



to accept it happened once is beyond me considering...you would think important details would be in there 1 man,mom/sister,2 sons populating No No:


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> to accept it happened once is beyond me considering...you would think important details would be in there 1 man,mom/sister,2 sons populating No No:



How the earth got populated is not important to the message of the bible.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How the earth got populated is not important to the message of the bible.



.you do however induct a lot of christian ways and the constitution into your way of living to try to be the best person you can your called crazy...you need to up your meds,christians tell you when their theory  is crazier imo

you must not have read what i wrote then huh!!!i think nobody knows the true answer...No No:


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I understand, but he asked me what evidence there was, and I gave him the evidence.


String, that is not evidence.






stringmusic said:


> Are you saying you don't want to have conversations in this forum anymore?



What I am saying is whatever we each provide for evidence the other dismisses it. See above


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is an absolutely false statement.  Christianity affirms Jesus's statement that he is God.  So to prove your statement you either have to prove Jesus didn't exist or his statement is incorrect.  You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you.  Anyone with a mouth can make an assertion, but it takes proof to back it up.  We're waiting.



String said: LOL "God doesn't do things my way, therefor, God doesn't exist."

Number one reason people deny God, they want to be God of their own lifes.


To which I responded: Nope, the bible describes a god with human attributes that intervenes in the natural world. We don't have any evidence of such a god, therefore there is no reason to believe that particular god exists. The expectations are based off of the characteristics the bible attributes to this god. If you want to change those expectations you need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new god that doesn't have them.



Actually sfd it is, as you correctly pointed out, christians who assert Jesus existed and was a deity so the burden of proof is on them. The skeptics burden of proof extends only in so far as pointing out the inability of christians to prove their claims. There is no more evidence that Jesus was a deity than there is for any other man claimed to have been a deity. If there were then there would be no need to resort to faith as an excuse for belief. I can cite any number of men for which we have much better evidence of having actually existed than there is for Jesus having existed that either claimed to be a god or others claimed to be a god which you would reject on lack of evidence. That rejection does not place any burden of proof on you. The burden of proof would still remain on those making the original claim.

But it gets worse than that for the christians because of what their book says. Personally I don't consider the new testament to be historically reliable but for those who claim it is let's see if the evidence backs that up. In it Jesus is said to have performed many interventions in the natural world. Walking on water, turning water to wine, healing amputations by just taking a cut off body part and sticking it back on, flying through the air like superman, etc... We all know the stories. The NT also says that Jesus said those with faith could and would do all that he did and even more. So his followers should be capable of these feats that are considered to be suspensions of the natural order. That means due to the claims of your own book you don't get to use the excuse that just because the biblical god doesn't do as non-believers think he should that it doesn't mean he isn't real. These expectations are the expectations set by the book that tells us about this god to begin with. If those expectations can't be supported then the book destroys any credibility even the generous minded might try to give it.

Show us the evidence and make it good. Don't tell us about how you did well on an exam after saying a prayer or how you got that job you needed so bad to keep your home or all the other mundane things that Christians pray for and give god credit for. Show us that your book is true by being the only ones in the world that can make amputated limbs regrow with a prayer to your deity. The only ones that can walk on water, and bring corpses alive to walk out of their graves. The only ones whose faith in god can make them levitate through the air unassisted, and magically turn water to wine, or lead to gold. Show us the acts which defy the laws of nature and can only be described as supernatural. Show us these deeds that you claim your man-god did and who your book claims that you should be able to duplicate and surpass. Do that and you'll have my attention. Until then the bible should be taken no more seriously than any other book of ancient myths.


----------



## stringmusic (May 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String, that is not evidence.


It is very much so evidence. You don't think it is credible evidence, but it is evidence none the less.




> What I am saying is whatever we each provide for evidence the other dismisses it. See above



Fair enough, but that goes for just about every conversation we have in here. I cannot figure out why you're hesitant to have a conversation about that particular article.


----------



## JB0704 (May 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is whatever we each provide for evidence the other dismisses it. See above



Yea, but the process is always a good time


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yea, but the process is always a good time



It is usually a great time.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It is very much so evidence. You don't think it is credible evidence, but it is evidence none the less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



String, the stuff that can be backed up in the Bible with evidence that can hold up in a court of law has already been taken care of. Some People, some places, and some events have been proven to exist. The things you think is evidence just does not hold up to the scrutiny which all else is judged by. Merely jotting down far fetched stories does not automatically make that evidence of anything other than someone could write. The hardcore meat and potatoes of your god and your jesus are the things that have no evidence whatsoever to back them up.  If asked "was Jesus real?" there can be a good case made for his existence, although very little actual evidence outside of the Bible exists for his existence but there is barely enough to credit him as being a real man. Now when all the extra baloney claims of miracles and resurrections and ascension and Roman guards doing the exact opposite of what Roman guards would do in order to embellish these real people and places and events your book just does not have enough credibility to back up the claims it makes. For YOU it is enough. Time and Time again you are going to have to come up with something more if you want to get any real evidence across to someone else that just does not believe the Bible to be the do all, end all book you think it is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2013)

I think you would PROBABLY think about the likelihood of a higher power.

When you have a society of people - a group, clan, settlement, village... and you SEE DEATH.. You will quite certainly develop these ideas, whatever they might be. It's happened just about as far back as we find anything about humans.



bullethead said:


> I cannot help but think with the most extreme DOUBT that if I were born and immediately taken away from society, raised in the wilderness and completely cut off from all other outside influences of any religious stories(call it raised neutral) that when I reached the age where I was considered an adult I would look up into the sky and automatically think " look at the sun, moon, mountains, stars, look at the streams, trees animals and rocks....I bet a God that impregnated a virgin in order to bear his Son strictly to have him killed to save the rest of the world and then have his son raise up to live with the god along with a holy ghost as all three are separate and yet all three are the same......made all this"
> It just would not strike me as so. That is NOT the story anyone would come up with by merely looking out into nature. If I felt compelled to owe it to some sort of higher power I most certainly would conjure up MY version of what I think or want or need that higher power to be....and pass MY version on to the next person. Or I would just live life without the complicated menagerie of invisible friends, higher powers, and rules to either live forever in a rewarding place for worshiping a god "properly" that I have NEVER heard of or spending eternity in a fiery pit for not worshiping a god that I have NEVER heard of.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But the bible doesn't stop there, it also describes a God with supernatural attributes.
> 
> And just out of curiousity, what human attributes, besides Jesus, are you speaking about?
> 
> ...



We are created in his image.. God is love, and there is a whole set of love instructions... That have human attributes.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think you would PROBABLY think about the likelihood of a higher power.
> 
> When you have a society of people - a group, clan, settlement, village... and you SEE DEATH.. You will quite certainly develop these ideas, whatever they might be. It's happened just about as far back as we find anything about humans.



I agree totally. I would come up with my own version of some super power in ways I want or need to be.
I am convinced I would not come up with the story, or anything even close as told in the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think you would PROBABLY think about the likelihood of a higher power.
> 
> When you have a society of people - a group, clan, settlement, village... and you SEE DEATH.. You will quite certainly develop these ideas, whatever they might be. It's happened just about as far back as we find anything about humans.



I completely agree with this.   What is absolutely certain is that ancient people were awestruck and fearful of the big bad world and all its powerful forces; all of them around the world, independent of one another.  Many of them attributed these natural forces to beings conjured in their imaginations.    I can see how that could happen.  I really can.  Given some 20,000 years or so I can see how these notions got refined.  I can even understand how the afterlife ideas came about.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 9, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I completely agree with this.   What is absolutely certain is that ancient people were awestruck and fearful of the big bad world and all its powerful forces; all of them around the world, independent of one another.  Many of them attributed these natural forces to beings conjured in their imaginations.    I can see how that could happen.  I really can.  Given some 20,000 years or so I can see how these notions got refined.  I can even understand how the afterlife ideas came about.



Oh, good Lord. Here we go with the "Old Earth Theory again."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 9, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> String said: LOL "God doesn't do things my way, therefor, God doesn't exist."
> 
> Number one reason people deny God, they want to be God of their own lifes.
> 
> ...



The truth is there is ample evidence for all of the Christian  claims.  You may say you can't/won't accept them but to say there is no evidence is a lie plain and simple.  

I find it laughably ironic that 86% of the worlds population is religious, 12% don't know and 2% are Athiest, and yet a small subset of that 2% have the audacity to look down on everyone else as bumbling idiots.  Do you not find that the epitome of hubris.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The truth is there is ample evidence for all of the Christian  claims.  You may say you can't/won't accept them but to say there is no evidence is a lie plain and simple.
> 
> I find it laughably ironic that 86% of the worlds population is religious, 12% don't know and 2% are Athiest, and yet a small subset of that 2% have the audacity to look down on everyone else as bumbling idiots.  Do you not find that the epitome of hubris.



just makes you look like sheep herded in a corral


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 9, 2013)

atlas if the evidence was so obvious then would we need faith? if God acted clearly and obviously in everything then no one would have a reason not to believe


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We are created in his image.. God is love, and there is a whole set of love instructions... That have human attributes.



Not to mention jealousy and anger. Or a desire to receive praise and a need for companionship.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

ross the deer slayer said:


> atlas if the evidence was so obvious then would we need faith? if God acted clearly and obviously in everything then no one would have a reason not to believe



I agree. And if that question were settled it would open the door to people being able to make an honest decision of whether to accept or reject a relationship with this god which is what many Christians say is the whole point of this exercise called life on earth. Imagine for a moment that the Christian god was a myth and some other god were the real god and all the Christians are doomed because they didn't accept that god. Did they ever really have an honest chance when they had no way of determining that their god was false and the other real?

Faith doesn't have much of a track record in helping humans determine the truth. I see no reason to even go there and plenty of reasons not to. My question for those that do is, why one belief vs the other? The answer is pretty obvious. Most people have faith in whatever is the dominant faith of the society they happened to be born into.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The truth is there is ample evidence for all of the Christian  claims.  You may say you can't/won't accept them but to say there is no evidence is a lie plain and simple.



Great! What is it? You don't have to give us all of it if that is asking too much. Just give us the best.




SemperFiDawg said:


> I find it laughably ironic that 86% of the worlds population is religious, 12% don't know and 2% are Athiest, and yet a small subset of that 2% have the audacity to look down on everyone else as bumbling idiots.  Do you not find that the epitome of hubris.



Good point! A billion muslims or hindus can't be wrong can they? Oh that's right, Christians are different.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

ross the deer slayer said:


> atlas if the evidence was so obvious then would we need faith? if God acted clearly and obviously in everything then no one would have a reason not to believe



So all I have to do is BELIEVE? No... Even the devil believes, right? He's not saved. It STILL takes faith and a personal relationship even after you believe. So it would still be a choice even if there was an undeniable fact that the god of the bible was real. God could appease his controlling nature and cast people who simply refused to care in to the lake of fire even if he was a fact. 

The good book is written in human languages and interpreted by humans.. Those humans that feel the need to re-write books about it and also you and I who read it, INTERPRET it... We have no other way to interpret it than with our own human minds. If you think his ways are SO MUCH NOT OUR WAYS THAT WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND HIM, then you're wasting your time trying to. You have interpreted that he wants you to bow to him, ask for grace before your meals and talk to him in your head.... when, if his ways are not our ways, you have no way of knowing that at all. So if you're going to say we can't place human characteristics on him, you might as well stop trying to do anything.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> just makes you look like sheep herded in a corral



There are 2.1 BILLION Christians today, but yeah I guess it's plausible that you are smarter than all of us.  However it does strike me as bit egotistical that every child will thank their parents for putting toys in their stockings Christmas morning while only the atheist thinks there's no one to thank for putting two feet in his.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Great! What is it? You don't have to give us all of it if that is asking too much. Just give us the best.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There are 2.1 BILLION Christians today, but yeah I guess it's plausible that you are smarter than all of us.  However it does strike me as bit egotistical that every child will thank their parents for putting toys in their stockings Christmas morning while only the atheist thinks there's no one to thank for putting two feet in his.



2.1 billion Christians lumped into at least 20,000 different denominations because they all have some little twist that they cannot agree on so they had to break off and start their own little "who is with me" group. Within those denominations are individuals that cannot agree on much because every single believer seems to have the notion they THEY(as an individual) somehow can understand God better than the next guy, yet will tell everyone else that this God is so highly complex and above human ways that his thoughts, actions and deeds are above comprehension......except of course to the 2.1 Billion people that think they have it figured out. If every single person on the planet was a Christian the denominations would jump at least another 50,000 new ones because none of them can agree on anything. Check the christianity forum above and see how many topics are un-allowed because of the in fighting between all the people that know God a little better than the next person.

Who should the people born with birth defects and have no legs to put anywhere thank? Now all of a sudden that is not the creators fault right?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 2.1 billion Christians lumped into at least 20,000 different denominations because they all have some little twist that they cannot agree on so they had to break off and start their own little "who is with me" group. Within those denominations are individuals that cannot agree on much because every single believer seems to have the notion they THEY(as an individual) somehow can understand God better than the next guy, yet will tell everyone else that this God is so highly complex and above human ways that his thoughts, actions and deeds are above comprehension......except of course to the 2.1 Billion people that think they have it figured out. If every single person on the planet was a Christian the denominations would jump at least another 50,000 new ones because none of them can agree on anything. Check the christianity forum above and see how many topics are un-allowed because of the in fighting between all the people that know God a little better than the next person.



I agree with your point.  We Christians are indeed in,many instances,our own worst enemies.  I will be the first to admit I am, but I think that's true of everyone.  Being a Christian doesn't make me better than anyone else.  It just makes me better than I was when I was not a Christian.  That ONE point is misunderstood by both believers and non believers, however the believers can't feign ignorance.

QUOTE=bullethead;7808598]2Who should the people born with birth defects and have no legs to put anywhere thank? Now all of a sudden that is not the creators fault right?[/QUOTE]

Due to my vocation I work with more of that population than the average person.  I find that they tend to understand gratitude better most of us "normal" people.
I believe when you stare death, illness, and pain and suffering, in the face everyday life gets REAL, real quick.  The theoretical goes out the window first.  People want REAL answers to the BIG questions.  How many people 'come to God' on their deathbed?  I would suggest countless.  I've seen it many times personally,  but I've never seen a deathbed denial of God or Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with your point.  We Christians are indeed in,many instances,our own worst enemies.  I will be the first to admit I am, but I think that's true of everyone.  Being a Christian doesn't make me better than anyone else.  It just makes me better than I was when I was not a Christian.  That ONE point is misunderstood by both believers and non believers, however the believers can't feign ignorance.
> 
> QUOTE=bullethead;7808598]2Who should the people born with birth defects and have no legs to put anywhere thank? Now all of a sudden that is not the creators fault right?




Due to my vocation I work with more of that population than the average person.  I find that they tend to understand gratitude better most of us "normal" people.
I believe when you stare death, illness, and pain and suffering, in the face everyday life gets REAL, real quick.  The theoretical goes out the window first.  People want REAL answers to the BIG questions.  How many people 'come to God' on their deathbed?  I would suggest countless.  I've seen it many times personally,  but I've never seen a deathbed denial of God or Jesus.[/QUOTE]

How many Muslims come to Jesus on their deathbed? Hindus? Buddhists? How many bushman from the Congo come to Jesus on their deathbed? How many Atlanta Braves fans would tell you some other team is better?

Now I'm not talking about amputees due to illness,accidents or war. I am talking about the "creator" creating birth defects. You mentioned:
 Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post
""There are 2.1 BILLION Christians today, but yeah I guess it's plausible that you are smarter than all of us. However it does strike me as bit egotistical that every child will thank their parents for putting toys in their stockings Christmas morning while only the atheist thinks there's no one to thank for putting two feet in his.""

I am asking you who do the people born without legs have to thank for not having legs to put into stockings? Someone screwed up, but not the creator right?


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with your point.  We Christians are indeed in,many instances,our own worst enemies.  I will be the first to admit I am, but I think that's true of everyone.  Being a Christian doesn't make me better than anyone else.  It just makes me better than I was when I was not a Christian.  That ONE point is misunderstood by both believers and non believers, however the believers can't feign ignorance.



QUOTE=bullethead;7808598]2Who should the people born with birth defects and have no legs to put anywhere thank? Now all of a sudden that is not the creators fault right?[/QUOTE]




SemperFiDawg said:


> Due to my vocation I work with more of that population than the average person.  I find that they tend to understand gratitude better most of us "normal" people.
> I believe when you stare death, illness, and pain and suffering, in the face everyday life gets REAL, real quick.  The theoretical goes out the window first.  People want REAL answers to the BIG questions.  How many people 'come to God' on their deathbed?  I would suggest countless.  I've seen it many times personally,  but I've never seen a deathbed denial of God or Jesus.



How many Muslims come to Jesus on their deathbed? Hindus? Buddhists? How many bushman from the Congo come to Jesus on their deathbed? How many Atlanta Braves fans would tell you some other team is better?

Now I'm not talking about amputees due to illness,accidents or war. I am talking about the "creator" creating birth defects. You mentioned:
 Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post
""There are 2.1 BILLION Christians today, but yeah I guess it's plausible that you are smarter than all of us. However it does strike me as bit egotistical that every child will thank their parents for putting toys in their stockings Christmas morning while only the atheist thinks there's no one to thank for putting two feet in his.""

I am asking you who do the people born without legs have to thank for not having legs to put into stockings? Someone screwed up, but not the creator right?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How many Muslims come to Jesus on their deathbed? Hindus? Buddhists? How many bushman from the Congo come to Jesus on their deathbed? How many Atlanta Braves fans would tell you some other team is better?







bullethead said:


> I am asking you who do the people born without legs have to thank for not having legs to put into stockings? Someone screwed up, but not the creator right?



God, but who are you to judge if its a screw up?  Honestly.  For you to state it's a screw up is to claim omniscience.  Omniscience absolutely without a doubt posits a God.  Is that what you are implying.......or are they just screwed up in your eyes.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There are 2.1 BILLION Christians today, but yeah I guess it's plausible that you are smarter than all of us.  However it does strike me as bit egotistical that every child will thank their parents for putting toys in their stockings Christmas morning while only the atheist thinks there's no one to thank for putting two feet in his.



It strikes me as a bit egotistical that you would assume 2.1 billion have the answer that the other 4.9 doesn't.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> It strikes me as a bit egotistical that you would assume 2.1 billion have the answer that the other 4.9 doesn't.



The 2.1 are just Christians.  86% of the worlds population are religious. 12% are Agnostic and 2% are Atheist.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Due to my vocation I work with more of that population than the average person.  I find that they tend to understand gratitude better most of us "normal" people.
> I believe when you stare death, illness, and pain and suffering, in the face everyday life gets REAL, real quick.  The theoretical goes out the window first.  People want REAL answers to the BIG questions.  How many people 'come to God' on their deathbed?  I would suggest countless.  I've seen it many times personally,  but I've never seen a deathbed denial of God or Jesus.



Well that explains the plethora of myths which humans have come up with throughout history to answer the big questions. For most humans any answer is better than no answer at all. The primary consideration in clinging to these myths has always been how it made the person feel, not whether any of it was actually true.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The 2.1 are just Christians.  86% of the worlds population are religious. 12% are Agnostic and 2% are Atheist.



What's your point?


----------



## mtnwoman (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What's your point?



I think his point might be that people on here have said that atheism is growing and that eventually will out number religious folk. It won't be in my lifetime or theirs.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I think his point might be that people on here have said that atheism is growing and that eventually will out number religious folk. It won't be in my lifetime or theirs.



Perhaps not but it has already happened in parts of europe. Europe is much less religious than it used to be. The US is headed in the same direction.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Well that explains the plethora of myths which humans have come up with throughout history to answer the big questions. For most humans any answer is better than no answer at all. The primary consideration in clinging to these myths has always been how it made the person feel, not whether any of it was actually true.



Do you care to offer any proof to go with these assertions,or are you just throwing them out there as an expert opinion?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you care to offer any proof to go with these assertions,or are you just throwing them out there as an expert opinion?



nobody knows the answer until they die


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What's your point?



Try to re-read the conversation and let me know if you still have that question.  Thanks


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Try to re-read the conversation and let me know if you still have that question.  Thanks



I still have that question. What's your point?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you care to offer any proof to go with these assertions,or are you just throwing them out there as an expert opinion?



The proof is in your own post that people tend to really grab on to these "answers" in times of need and desperation.

Do you consider all of the myriad myths that humans have believed across various cultures and thousands of years to be true? I take it you believe only one of them to be true. Even if you are right about that you are left with the fact that over the course of human history most who thought they had the answer had nothing more than something that made them feel better and helped them cope with what life was throwing at them. That being the case isn't it obvious that how it helped them took precedence over any objective pursuit of whether or not it was actually true?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I still have that question. What's your point?



My point is this.  If dripping rock feels it's egotistical of Christians(30% of the worlds population) to think they're right and everyone else is wrong,then what does he think of Atheist(2% of the worlds population) who think they're right and everyone else is wrong?


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> God, but who are you to judge if its a screw up?  Honestly.  For you to state it's a screw up is to claim omniscience.  Omniscience absolutely without a doubt posits a God.  Is that what you are implying.......or are they just screwed up in your eyes.



It is a screw up for the person left to deal with variations and levels of incapacitation and for the poor people who were born so disfigured, so crippled and so unhealthy that they've never lived off of some medical contraption built to keep them alive. Undeveloped or underdeveloped organs, no limbs or deformed limbs, parasitic twins.....yeah that is "normal" to everyone but me.
I know you can't think for your God and I know you certainly can't speak for your God so in your shoes it is best to make excuses and do not question your God.
I can. I have my own mind. I can question and decide for myself.

Back to an unanswered question of mine:
 Originally Posted by bullethead 
How many Muslims come to Jesus on their deathbed? Hindus? Buddhists? How many bushman from the Congo come to Jesus on their deathbed? How many Atlanta Braves fans would tell you some other team is better?

In regards to:
 Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post
Due to my vocation I work with more of that population than the average person. I find that they tend to understand gratitude better most of us "normal" people.
I believe when you stare death, illness, and pain and suffering, in the face everyday life gets REAL, real quick. The theoretical goes out the window first. People want REAL answers to the BIG questions. How many people 'come to God' on their deathbed? I would suggest countless. I've seen it many times personally, but I've never seen a deathbed denial of God or Jesus.

You see all these people not denying Jesus on their deathbed. You see all these people come to God.
WHO does all the other people of all the other religious beliefs that I have mentioned go to?
If there is one God/Jesus why don't they swoop in and comfort all the other 4 billion people of other beliefs when it comes to be their time?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My point is this.  If dripping rock feels it's egotistical of Christians(30% of the worlds population) to think they're right and everyone else is wrong,then what does he think of Atheist(2% of the worlds population) who think they're right and everyone else is wrong?



Thanks. Just wanted to be sure I was understanding you properly. Now that you've clarified, my question is what bearing do these numbers have on what is or isn't true?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The proof is in your own post that people tend to really grab on to these "answers" in times of need and desperation.
> 
> Do you consider all of the myriad myths that humans have believed across various cultures and thousands of years to be true? I take it you believe only one of them to be true. Even if you are right about that you are left with the fact that over the course of human history most who thought they had the answer had nothing more than something that made them feel better and helped them cope with what life was throwing at them. That being the case isn't it obvious that how it helped them took precedence over any objective pursuit of whether or not it was actually true?



If the proof is in MY assertion then I guess you're making ME the expert witness.  Is that what you're doing?   Because if it is, and I appreciate the compliment, you are probably not going to be very happy with some of my other assertions. For instance I assert that I agree with all you've said in this post, except the last sentence.  I don't buy your conclusion.  Its certainly reasonable, but not the most reasonable in my opinion.  You may want to know why I feel this way, but its late and that will have to wait till tomorrow for you to reply.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My point is this.  If dripping rock feels it's egotistical of Christians(30% of the worlds population) to think they're right and everyone else is wrong,then what does he think of Atheist(2% of the worlds population) who think they're right and everyone else is wrong?



My guess, based off of my own personal beliefs is that there are either thousands of Gods or no Gods. Being that not one single god EVER has made itself known in a way that lets mankind know THAT god is the real deal then there is a small part of the population that can go beyond their fears and say, confidently based off of a total lack of evidence of any god, that no god exists. They do it without fear of going against the indoctrination they have been subjected to since birth. 2% don't feel the need to cover some sort of base just in case.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If the proof is in MY assertion then I guess you're making ME the expert witness.  Is that what you're doing?   Because if it is, and I appreciate the compliment, you are probably not going to be very happy with some of my other assertions. For instance I assert that I agree with all you've said in this post, except the last sentence.  I don't buy your conclusion.  Its certainly reasonable, but not the most reasonable in my opinion.  You may want to know why I feel this way, but its late and that will have to wait till tomorrow for you to reply.



I understand you think christians are the exception to the rule but my original point was the rule itself. I'm not particularly interested in why you think of all the tens of thousands of myths that you and I agree are just that you think there is one myth that is an exception to the rule. I fully expect that from you just as I would expect it from every other human being that has ever believed a myth to be true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Being that not one single god EVER has made itself known in a way that lets mankind know THAT god is the real deal.



Roughly 2/3 of 'mankind' would call that statement a lie.  Plain and simple.



bullethead said:


> then there is a small part of the population that can go beyond their fears and say, confidently based off of a total lack of evidence of any god, that no god exists. They do it without fear of going against the indoctrination .



Do you even realize the position you are putting yourself in making the above statement?

You are either making one of two assertions:

a)God doesn't exist based on my ignorance of him.  (Crowd favorite)

Or my favorite

b)God doesn't exist, because an  omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being as described by the Bible can't exist.  I absolutely know this because I'm an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient human being which is the only way one can know this.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Roughly 2/3 of 'mankind' would call that statement a lie.  Plain and simple.


So 2/3 of mankind has been contacted by a god.
I am beginning to think you embellish things.

Now if you told me 2/3 of mankind believes in a higher power then I can go along with that. I'd ask you to then break it down as to how many of these 2/3 got the "wrong" higher power and how you know that.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you even realize the position you are putting yourself in making the above statement?
> 
> You are either making one of two assertions:
> 
> ...



Are those the only two or are they the only two you can think of and I have to choose one? Are you just using your favorite ones?
Neither of those are my assertions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So 2/3 of mankind has been contacted by a god.
> I am beginning to think you embellish things.



That's not what you implied in the quote I addressed, but nice try in attempting to mislead yet again by changing your original point.
I think the record above speaks for itself.  People can figure it out on their own.




bullethead said:


> Are those the only two or are they the only two you can think of and I have to choose one? Are you just using your favorite ones?
> Neither of those are my assertions.



By all means, if you can draw another conclusion from your statement "then there is a small part of the population that can go beyond their fears and say, confidently based off of a total lack of evidence of any god, that no god exists. They do it without fear of going against the indoctrination."than either:a)God doesn't exist based on my ignorance of him. or b)God doesn't exist, because an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being as described by the Bible can't exist. I absolutely know this because I'm an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient human being which is the only way one can know this.,be my guest.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's not what you implied in the quote I addressed, but nice try in attempting to mislead yet again by changing your original point.
> I think the record above speaks for itself.  People can figure it out on their own.


Ok, I will restate:
I think your making things up if you are telling me "A god has made itself known in a way that lets 2/3 of mankind know THAT god is the real deal."






SemperFiDawg said:


> By all means, if you can draw another conclusion from your statement "then there is a small part of the population that can go beyond their fears and say, confidently based off of a total lack of evidence of any god, that no god exists. They do it without fear of going against the indoctrination."than either:a)God doesn't exist based on my ignorance of him. or b)God doesn't exist, because an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being as described by the Bible can't exist. I absolutely know this because I'm an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient human being which is the only way one can know this.,be my guest.



C. I absolutely know this because I have not see a shred of evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. Therefore I have to use what evidence is available, which is none, and be satisfied with that.

D. Unicorns do not exist because of my ignorance of them.

E. I have an ability to be rational and the existence of a god makes about as much sense as the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. I cannot prove either do not exist, I leave their total lack of presence speak for themselves.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I'll beat ambush to it.  How about a talking donkey?



That is waaaaay too funny....


----------



## mtnwoman (May 15, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> nobody knows the answer until they die



Well I sorta agree...nobody can prove it until they die.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ok, I will restate:
> I think your making things up if you are telling me "A god has made itself known in a way that lets 2/3 of mankind know THAT god is the real deal."



Bullet 4.1 BILLION people believe in a God.  Their belief is based on some evidence THEY find REAL, else they wouldn't believe.  Would a reasonable unbiased person look at this picture and say 4.1 billion people are delusional, there is no evidence, or would he say Bullet is refusing to acknowledge the evidence.  I think the answer is obvious.







bullethead said:


> C. I absolutely know this because I have not see a shred of evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. Therefore I have to use what evidence is available, which is none, and be satisfied with that.
> 
> D. Unicorns do not exist because of my ignorance of them.
> 
> E. I have an ability to be rational and the existence of a god makes about as much sense as the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. I cannot prove either do not exist, I leave their total lack of presence speak for themselves.



These are simply separate assertions, not different conclusions based on your first one, but I think there is a trend.  It seems as soon as one of your assertions is proven untenable, you simply make another one equally untenable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2013)

Matthew 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

What this means is Atheists, Hindus, and all the other Non-Christians are equally wrong so why do people pick on the Atheist more?


----------



## mtnwoman (May 15, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What this means is Atheists, Hindus, and all the other Non-Christians are equally wrong so why do people pick on the Atheist more?



We are in an atheist thread/forum?

If we were in a hindu forum, I doubt we'd even mention atheists.  I personally don't think I 'pick on' atheists, I just try to answer their questions, just to be condemned for every answer I have of how ignernt I am for believing in fairy tales.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet 4.1 BILLION people believe in a God.  Their belief is based on some evidence THEY find REAL, else they wouldn't believe.  Would a reasonable unbiased person look at this picture and say 4.1 billion people are delusional, there is no evidence, or would he say Bullet is refusing to acknowledge the evidence.  I think the answer is obvious.



Do you accept that all of their gods are real?


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet 4.1 BILLION people believe in a God.  Their belief is based on some evidence THEY find REAL, else they wouldn't believe.  Would a reasonable unbiased person look at this picture and say 4.1 billion people are delusional, there is no evidence, or would he say Bullet is refusing to acknowledge the evidence.  I think the answer is obvious.


 So you are telling me that in addition to the Christian God, the rest of the people have got to be just as legitimate with evidence concerning the other Gods they worship.









SemperFiDawg said:


> These are simply separate assertions, not different conclusions based on your first one, but I think there is a trend.  It seems as soon as one of your assertions is proven untenable, you simply make another one equally untenable.



Have not seen one untenable yet and I have tons left in reserve.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Do you accept that all of their gods are real?



Please try to keep up.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullethead  
Being that not one single god EVER has made itself known in a way that lets mankind know THAT god is the real deal.

My point was 4.1 Billion believe on a God for SOME reason.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So you are telling me that in addition to the Christian God, the rest of the people have got to be just as legitimate with evidence concerning the other Gods they worship.



Is that what was stated or are you misleading again in an attempt to wiggly out of an untenable position?  Re-read it if you're having a problem comprehending it.  It seems you and atlas are the only ones having a problem following the conversation.




			
				bullethead;7817234Have not seen one untenable yet and I have tons left in reserve.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I would expect no less.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 16, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> We are in an atheist thread/forum?
> 
> If we were in a hindu forum, I doubt we'd even mention atheists.  I personally don't think I 'pick on' atheists, I just try to answer their questions, just to be condemned for every answer I have of how ignernt I am for believing in fairy tales.



True this is an Atheist forum but the discussion was leaning towards believers of any God over Atheist. I've seen organizations that allow anyone to join who has a belief in any God but not Atheist. One would assume with this line of thinking that all God's are real. At least believing in a fake God is better than a belief in no God.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is that what was stated or are you misleading again in an attempt to wiggly out of an untenable position?  Re-read it if you're having a problem comprehending it.  It seems you and atlas are the only ones having a problem following the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is implied. If 4.1 billion people believe in a God and they all have a reason to do so, then the ones that believe in God(s) other than the Christian God must have evidence as good as any.
I am now asking you, does that make them and their Gods just as legitimate?

There is no misleading, I am taking your assertion further, one step at a time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> True this is an Atheist forum but the discussion was leaning towards believers of any God over Atheist. I've seen organizations that allow anyone to join who has a belief in any God but not Atheist. One would assume with this line of thinking that all God's are real. At least believing in a fake God is better than a belief in no God.



Actually it is an Atheist/Agnostics/APOLOGETICS forum as the Title implies.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is implied. If 4.1 billion people believe in a God and they all have a reason to do so, then the ones that believe in God(s) other than the Christian God must have evidence as good as any.
> I am now asking you, does that make them and their Gods just as legitimate?
> 
> There is no misleading, I am taking your assertion further, one step at a time.



Well lets deal with your assertion first.
"Being that not one single god EVER has made itself known in a way that lets mankind know THAT god is the real deal."

To which I basically said that 4.1 billion of mankind believe in God for some reason real to them or they wouldn't believe.

You now ask: "If 4.1 billion people believe in a God and they all have a reason to do so,....?

Are you conceding your original point?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well lets deal with your assertion first.
> "Being that not one single god EVER has made itself known in a way that lets mankind know THAT god is the real deal."
> 
> To which I basically said that 4.1 billion of mankind believe in God for some reason real to them or they wouldn't believe.
> ...



No
Next


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

If you want to break this down into the little bits and exact pieces lets do it.
I'm going to ask you for very specific answers with detailed evidence to back it up. I am prepared to offer you the same.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

No Sir.  I have to decline.  In my opinion, based on your history, you have not shown the ability to answer specific questions.   I see no need to place any confidence that you will do so in the future.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Sir.  I have to decline.  In my opinion, based on your history, you have not shown the ability to answer specific questions.   I see no need to place any confidence that you will do so in the future.



I can read right between those lines. Don't blame you one bit for not wanting to get into specifics.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you conceding your original point?



Yea, that's not going to happen in here. I can't remember one single time that a non believer has conceded a point to a believer in this forum, ever.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, that's not going to happen in here. I can't remember one single time that a non believer has conceded a point to a believer in this forum, ever.



It is not so much about conceding to a point as it is about switching tactics.
If I talk to someone about Dungeons and Dragons I can't really have a serious conversation about the characters "outside" of the D&D world. Sometimes I have to play along and go with the the make believe for a bit so I can tie it in with what I am really trying to get across.
Like in here, when I am dealing with people that believe in things I do not believe in, I have to switch gears and go into their world at times in order to use terms they understand to try to get out of a conversation what I would much rather have outside of their zone. It is impossible sometimes so I adapt.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is impossible sometimes so I adapt.



Both sides do that.  I can't temper my thoughts in here with my beliefs because we have no common basis outside science and logic.

I've been thinking about a new thread on that subject, though.  Tieing a "common sense" biblical concept into how you guys live your lives, where you have to make differing belief systems work together in order to get along......I think it'll be fun once I get it up, we'll see.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SFD tells me he believes in a God. And, not only him but a few billion others believe in the same God. And, not only all those people but there are also a few more billion others that all believe in different gods that are not the same god he believes in. He said that there has got be a reason why all these different people believe.
Now I am at a disadvantage by not believing in any of these Gods but I enjoy the conversation. In order to continue the convo I have to play along for a bit and use terms that seem to be more on the same level as the person I am conversing with.
Being that sfd has some evidence that has lead him to believe there is a god, a specific god, and he tells me there are 4,999,999,999 other believers in the same god as him PLUS other gods, I am curious to now know if HE thinks those other people are as legitimate with their gods as he is with his god.

I gotta try to get in the same mindset in order to play the game.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is not so much about conceding to a point as it is about switching tactics.
> If I talk to someone about Dungeons and Dragons I can't really have a serious conversation about the characters "outside" of the D&D world. Sometimes I have to play along and go with the the make believe for a bit so I can tie it in with what I am really trying to get across.
> Like in here, when I am dealing with people that believe in things I do not believe in, I have to switch gears and go into their world at times in order to use terms they understand to try to get out of a conversation what I would much rather have outside of their zone. It is impossible sometimes so I adapt.


I don't think that really has much to do with conceding points, but I understand your point.



bullethead said:


> I can read right between those lines. Don't blame you one bit for not wanting to get into specifics.



I don't think you're reading the correct "lines". SFD probably doesn't want to go into a deeper conversation on the subject because you are unwilling to concede on a point in which you should clearly do so.

I might be wrong and I'm sure SFD will provide you with a more sufficient answer.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think that really has much to do with conceding points, but I understand your point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot concede to that point based on my own beliefs. I personally do not buy it one bit.
But to continue the conversation, I temporarily went along with that idea in order to further the conversation. SFD doesn't want to continue (i think) because he is going to have get into why all those other believers in gods that are not the same god is his are also somehow just as right. Then we can really get in depth about his god and the other gods.

He put himself in a fairly tight spot and now says "based on my history".....
Well with almost 4,000 posts I have piled up a decent amount of answers to specific questions so I know he is trying to shrug off his real answer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I cannot concede to that point based on my own beliefs. I personally do not buy it one bit.
> But to continue the conversation, I temporarily went along with that idea in order to further the conversation. SFD doesn't want to continue (i think) because he is going to have get into why all those other believers in gods that are not the same god is his are also somehow just as right. Then we can really get in depth about his god and the other gods.
> 
> He put himself in a fairly tight spot and now says "based on my history".....
> Well with almost 4,000 posts I have piled up a decent amount of answers to specific questions so I know he is trying to shrug off his real answer.



OK. Let me clarify my position so it's not taken out of context.  I am a Christian because I feel it is true in that it provides the most coherent and comprehensive answers to life's questions, in other words it provides the best evidence of reality.  That been said, if something else was to come along that i found more true, I would accept it instead.  I would not lie or disregard the evidence to hang onto an untenable belief.  I would have to concede it as truth despite of my beliefs.
You made a point that was refuted by the evidence presented, yet you will not admit it.  You state "I cannot concede to that point based on my own beliefs."  
Hence my point, there is nothing to be gained by me debating with someone who won't concede the truth when presented with it, because to do so would make their beliefs untenable.  That person be it a Christian, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever is dedicated to their beliefs not based on truth, but something else, and no amount of evidence is gonna make a difference.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK. Let me clarify my position so it's not taken out of context.  I am a Christian because I feel it is true in that it provides the most coherent and comprehensive answers to life's questions, in other words it provides the best evidence of reality.  That been said, if something else was to come along that i found more true, I would accept it instead.  I would not lie or disregard the evidence to hang onto an untenable belief.  I would have to concede it as truth despite of my beliefs.
> You made a point that was refuted by the evidence presented, yet you will not admit it.  You state "I cannot concede to that point based on my own beliefs."
> Hence my point, there is nothing to be gained by me debating with someone who won't concede the truth when presented with it, because to do so would make their beliefs untenable.  That person be it a Christian, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever is dedicated to their beliefs not based on truth, but something else, and no amount of evidence is gonna make a difference.



What evidence EXACTLY was presented?
Was it Your statement about 4.1 billion believing in something, and you provided not ONE single shred of actual evidence to back that up??
Sure people believe in gods. Reading a couple verses in an ancient book has people smitten. Sure Looking out a window is enough proof for some people. None of that is any actual proof of a God.
You might be easily convinced with a vague sentence you provided but it refuted nothing! I did not even consider it as an attempt of providing any truth.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Sir.  I have to decline.  In my opinion, based on your history, you have not shown the ability to answer specific questions.   I see no need to place any confidence that you will do so in the future.



Here is my specific question.

Do you accept that all of their gods are real?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Here is my specific question.
> 
> Do you accept that all of their gods are real?



Your point being?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Sir.  I have to decline.  In my opinion, based on your history, you have not shown the ability to answer specific questions.   I see no need to place any confidence that you will do so in the future.





atlashunter said:


> Here is my specific question.
> 
> Do you accept that all of their gods are real?





SemperFiDawg said:


> Your point being?



Pot meet kettle. That's my point.

Also the fact that you continue to dodge that question tells us that you understand just how bogus your point was about how many theists there are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Here is my specific question.
> 
> Do you accept that all of their gods are real?



I'll see your pot and raise you one.  No, I don't accept that all their gods are real, but that wasn't the point raised above.  Bullets point was than no God has given MANKIND reason to believe.  Well 4.1 billion believe in a God for some reason.  I'm a Christian.  There are only about 2 billion of us.  Whether its 2 or 4 billion, that's a lot of people who believes in a God for some reason that is real to them, not necessarily real to me, but to them.  This not only directly contradicts, but also disproves his assertion.
What he should have said no God has given HIM reason to believe.  
Now here's a specific question for you Sir.   Based on the evidence that 2/3 of humanity believes in a God for some reason that is tangible to them, are you capable of acknowledging that evidence without being dismissive, denigrating, or dodging?


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2013)

I have no problem acknowledging a lot of people believe in some god or gods. Where we disagree is in what that is actually evidence of. Assuming your numbers are correct 4.1 billion minus 2 billion christians equals 2.1 billion people that believe in a god you don't think is real. How do you explain all of those people convinced of the existence of a god that is really nothing more than a myth?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I have no problem acknowledging a lot of people believe in some god or gods. Where we disagree is in what that is actually evidence of.



Dodge



atlashunter said:


> Assuming your numbers are correct 4.1 billion minus 2 billion christians equals 2.1 billion people that believe in a god you don't think is real. How do you explain all of those people convinced of the existence of a god that is really nothing more than a myth?



Denigrate

Way to represent brother


----------



## atlashunter (May 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Dodge
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What? Folks, please tell me if I dodged or denigrated. Either I've lost my mind or SFD has lost his.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2013)

_
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlashunter View Post
I have no problem acknowledging a lot of people believe in some god or gods. Where we disagree is in what that is actually evidence of.

Dodge

Quote:
Originally Posted by atlashunter View Post
Assuming your numbers are correct 4.1 billion minus 2 billion christians equals 2.1 billion people that believe in a god you don't think is real. How do you explain all of those people convinced of the existence of a god that is really nothing more than a myth?

Denigrate

Way to represent brother _



SFD I think you got your feelings hurt.  Lets discuss this in a dispassionate way then you won't feel denigrated.  

I don't see the dodge or the denigration.  Atlas, Bullet and I will all acknowledge that there are billions of people that believe in some kind of god, of which some percentage believe in the Christian god. Did you want someone to say "Wow. That many people can't be wrong?"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> What? Folks, please tell me if I dodged or denigrated. Either I've lost my mind or SFD has lost his.



I'll be glad to point out your dodge.  

Here is the question posed to you in post 249.

Now here's a specific question for you Sir. Based on the evidence that 2/3 of humanity believes in a God FOR SOME REASON THAT IS TANGIBLE TO THEM, are you capable of acknowledging that EVIDENCE without being dismissive, denigrating, or dodging?

To which you replied in post 250: "I have no problem acknowledging a lot of people believe in some god or gods." You totally dodged the EVIDENCE that their belief is based on something TANGIBLE to them, and its not hard to figure out why.  

When you go around overextending the precept of Atheism which simply states 'There is no God' by making ignorant statements such as "There is no EVIDENCE for a belief in God" or "God has not given mankind any REASON to believe he exists" and then you are confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you end up in positions as you find yourself in now.  You are left in the unenviable position of either having to declare 2/3 of the worlds population delusional, deny/denigrate/dodge the evidence, or do the reasonable and responsible thing by admitting you are wrong and accepting the truth.  It's evident the route you have chosen which is why I said "Way to represent"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I don't see the dodge or the denigration.



So you don't see where calling a concept so many people hold in high regard as true, a myth being denigrating.  Well let me make an analogy.    If you said "My mama is a good woman.", and I said "That's a myth.", would you not find my comment denigrating?


----------



## atlashunter (May 19, 2013)

Sorry SFD but just because someone believes something that doesn't mean there is evidence supporting said belief nor is belief alone any sort of proof that the believer has something tangible to back up that belief. That is true whether we are talking about one person or tens of billions of people. You're now just making a bunch of completely unfounded assumptions and expecting everyone else to go along.

I used the word myth because I was referring to those gods which _you have already acknowledged you don't believe in._ Are you telling us that there is tangible evidence supporting the belief of millions of Indians who believe in the Hindu monkey god Hanuman? If not then how do you explain their fervent beliefs? Could it possibly be that they believe in Hanuman because they were taught to believe from early childhood? Might that play some small role in the beliefs people hold? If so all you have given evidence for is the susceptibility of the human mind to delusion by way of childhood indoctrination.

I understand and readily acknowledge that billions of people have genuinely believed in thousands of different gods throughout the course of history. Now I ask you, is that evidence that these gods are real? Or is it evidence of human fallibility?


----------



## atlashunter (May 19, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Actually sfd it is, as you correctly pointed out, christians who assert Jesus existed and was a deity so the burden of proof is on them. The skeptics burden of proof extends only in so far as pointing out the inability of christians to prove their claims. There is no more evidence that Jesus was a deity than there is for any other man claimed to have been a deity. If there were then there would be no need to resort to faith as an excuse for belief. I can cite any number of men for which we have much better evidence of having actually existed than there is for Jesus having existed that either claimed to be a god or others claimed to be a god which you would reject on lack of evidence. That rejection does not place any burden of proof on you. The burden of proof would still remain on those making the original claim.
> 
> But it gets worse than that for the christians because of what their book says. Personally I don't consider the new testament to be historically reliable but for those who claim it is let's see if the evidence backs that up. In it Jesus is said to have performed many interventions in the natural world. Walking on water, turning water to wine, healing amputations by just taking a cut off body part and sticking it back on, flying through the air like superman, etc... We all know the stories. The NT also says that Jesus said those with faith could and would do all that he did and even more. So his followers should be capable of these feats that are considered to be suspensions of the natural order. That means due to the claims of your own book you don't get to use the excuse that just because the biblical god doesn't do as non-believers think he should that it doesn't mean he isn't real. These expectations are the expectations set by the book that tells us about this god to begin with. If those expectations can't be supported then the book destroys any credibility even the generous minded might try to give it.
> 
> Show us the evidence and make it good. Don't tell us about how you did well on an exam after saying a prayer or how you got that job you needed so bad to keep your home or all the other mundane things that Christians pray for and give god credit for. Show us that your book is true by being the only ones in the world that can make amputated limbs regrow with a prayer to your deity. The only ones that can walk on water, and bring corpses alive to walk out of their graves. The only ones whose faith in god can make them levitate through the air unassisted, and magically turn water to wine, or lead to gold. Show us the acts which defy the laws of nature and can only be described as supernatural. Show us these deeds that you claim your man-god did and who your book claims that you should be able to duplicate and surpass. Do that and you'll have my attention. Until then the bible should be taken no more seriously than any other book of ancient myths.






> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg View Post
> The truth is there is ample evidence for all of the Christian claims. You may say you can't/won't accept them but to say there is no evidence is a lie plain and simple.





atlashunter said:


> Great! What is it? You don't have to give us all of it if that is asking too much. Just give us the best.



So far all you've come up with is lots of people believe in lots of different gods. On that basis there is as much evidence of Hanuman as there is of Yahweh, which is to say _none at all._ Unfortunately for you the bible makes clear the type of evidence we should expect to see if it is true.

John 14
11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let us know when you are performing the miracles Jesus was said to perform. Until then I'll take your false claims of evidence for the lies that they are and your claims of a god as no more worthy of serious consideration than a Hindu's claim of Hanuman.


----------



## Gaducker (May 19, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> TripleXBullies said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you believe that it was an alien craft and not secret human technology?   Also a serious question -[/QUO
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 19, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> So far all you've come up with is lots of people believe in lots of different gods. On that basis there is as much evidence of Hanuman as there is of Yahweh, which is to say _none at all._ Unfortunately for you the bible makes clear the type of evidence we should expect to see if it is true.
> 
> John 14
> 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
> ...



You know the bitterness and arrogance you display toward others is evident in almost every post you type.  Personally I pity you though. It's obvious you despise having to deny daily a truth that is written on your very soul.   I'm sure it's a painful burden to bear.   The very fact that you expend so much effort railing against God and those who believe in him is a testament to depth that it affects you.  I'm sure you don't act with the same denigration and bitterness when someone orders something different off the menu than you did.  Why?  Because their choice isn't personal to you.  The very fact that you can't treat others choices in beliefs as you do their choices from a menu reflects just how personal.
Irregardless of your response, I see no point conversing with you any further.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know the bitterness and arrogance you display toward others is evident in almost every post you type.  Personally I pity you though. It's obvious you despise having to deny daily a truth that is written on your very soul.   I'm sure it's a painful burden to bear.   The very fact that you expend so much effort railing against God and those who believe in him is a testament to depth that it affects you.  I'm sure you don't act with the same denigration and bitterness when someone orders something different off the menu than you did.  Why?  Because their choice isn't personal to you.  The very fact that you can't treat others choices in beliefs as you do their choices from a menu reflects just how personal.
> Irregardless of your response, I see no point conversing with you any further.




More self righteous condescending noise. Try to stay on topic. You are the one that came on here swearing up and down that there is evidence supporting the biblical claims. You are the one that has utterly failed to back up your own statements when challenged to do so. The best you've come up with is to point at the numbers of religious people around the world most of which don't even share your belief. And when that spurious argument is shot down you predictably turn to personal attacks. No skin off my nose. You don't think we really expected you to be able to prove your beliefs are any more justified than a Hindu believing in Hanuman do you? I sure don't. Your game is nothing new here. Make unfounded claims then resort to personal attacks when others point out your own failure to support them.

You're free to choose to believe whatever you want. But you aren't free to choose what is and isn't true.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a pretty prideful position to take for a man who can't afford punctuation marks.  Vanna give him some commas for 30 cents.



By the way, speaking of arrogant this takes the cake coming from someone who uses the term "irregardless". 


Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> By the way, speaking of arrogant this takes the cake coming from someone who uses the term "irregardless".
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:5
> You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.




http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

"Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

Like I said, misguided bitterness and arrogance.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2013)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/irregardless



> Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If that is true, I would suggest that if you put as much time into finding out for yourself if the claims of Christianity is true as you have invested in alien spacecraft you may be very surprised in what you discover.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.



http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

WHO IS OUR?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 10, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm
> 
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> WHO IS OUR?



Father, Son, Holy Spirit.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 10, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Father, Son, Holy Spirit.



So now instead of one Supreme Being that has always been we now have to believe there are/were three?? And if they are all one in the same God refers to himself as a group?

You might not want to think any further into it, but you are going to have to come with a better explanation to convince some others.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 11, 2013)

> and over all the earth,


These folks are probably questioning the whole dominion over the earth part.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/typhoon-ravaged-philippine-islands-slideshow/


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 11, 2013)

How many people believed Y2K was going to be apocalyptic? 

Or the Mayan calendar predicted another apocalypse?

Or in Heaven's Gate?

Or in David Koresh?

Or in Santa Claus, not St. Nicholas, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the monster under the bed? 


Belief in something does not make it true.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Nov 11, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Father, Son, Holy Spirit.



And when does the bible make this OUR reference? Genesis correct? WAY before the son and holy spirit are referenced or anything. Way before the holy spirit and Jesus were ever around in the world


----------

