The evangelical christian idea of ''saving faith'' is very difficult, for a person not sure whether jesus existed ! I don't know what the answer is. But note that, ''faith without works is dead'', and active believers in most christian denominations would probably suggest at first ''doing'' things, after which sincere faith will come ....... But, as a fence sitter myself, i don't know what the answer is.
Getting to Heaven
15 of 27
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“I don't know why that urban myth continues .. the overwhelming majority of religious threads are started by atheists.”
“I don't know why that urban myth continues .. the overwhelming majority of religious threads are started by atheists.”
oh, and exactly how do you know that ? And,why on earth would they, what's the point ?
Originally Posted by jra:
“Just don't use Southern Trains (as per thread title).
But seriously. It's hard to believe that in 2016 people still believe in a God, heaven and hell etc.
And if God does exist, he/she did make everyone imperfect sinners. Why, you might ask and he/she does very little to prevent it. So, we still are all dishonest, aggressive, liars, cheats, greedy, exploitative etc. (one or more of the previous) and that's the relatively good aspects we have. Then we have the murderers, serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, war criminals, gangsters, con-artists, corrupt governments that let their own populations starve etc., yet God does little to prevent these things.
Hardly the attributes of a supreme human being, more like a temp office worker.
Yeah and another thing. If God is all powerful, why does he/she always have trouble managing money.
The only thing people should worship is the Sun (maybe Jupiter as well), not a God. You can see the Sun and Jupiter (at least at certain times). Tends to lend to the credibility.”
“Just don't use Southern Trains (as per thread title).
But seriously. It's hard to believe that in 2016 people still believe in a God, heaven and hell etc.
And if God does exist, he/she did make everyone imperfect sinners. Why, you might ask and he/she does very little to prevent it. So, we still are all dishonest, aggressive, liars, cheats, greedy, exploitative etc. (one or more of the previous) and that's the relatively good aspects we have. Then we have the murderers, serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, war criminals, gangsters, con-artists, corrupt governments that let their own populations starve etc., yet God does little to prevent these things.
Hardly the attributes of a supreme human being, more like a temp office worker.
Yeah and another thing. If God is all powerful, why does he/she always have trouble managing money.
The only thing people should worship is the Sun (maybe Jupiter as well), not a God. You can see the Sun and Jupiter (at least at certain times). Tends to lend to the credibility.”
Would you rather that God made robots.
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
Isnt that what god originally wanted. People who would blindly obey him without considering the god and evil of the consequences????
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
I presume you aren't a killer or a gangster. Are you a robot ?
Originally Posted by belly button:
“I presume you aren't a killer or a gangster. Are you a robot ?”
“I presume you aren't a killer or a gangster. Are you a robot ?”
Hopefully not. But then I don't perceive myself as determined by blind forces.
Originally Posted by Fairyprincess0:
“Isnt that what god originally wanted. People who would blindly obey him without considering the god and evil of the consequences????”
“Isnt that what god originally wanted. People who would blindly obey him without considering the god and evil of the consequences????”
If that were the case, there wouldn't be free will.
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“If that were the case, there wouldn't be free will.”
“If that were the case, there wouldn't be free will.”
What difference would it make to you if there wasn't such a thing ?
Originally Posted by belly button:
“What difference would it make to you if there wasn't such a thing ?”
“What difference would it make to you if there wasn't such a thing ?”
I would be a robot and I wouldn't be able to genuinely reflect on myself as I do now.
A placebo can't cure a physical illness, only a psychosomatic one (ie an imaginary one). As as alternative to dummy pills, homeopathic medicine can have the same effect on some people with the same types of illness, even though there are absolutely no active ingredients in them.
The robot analogy is ****ing stupid. Really, really, really ****ing stupid. And people make themselves look ****ing stupid when they use it.
Originally Posted by belly button:
“I would say that it wasn't miraculous that the little girl survived because it states the fact that she was held above above the water by the seat belt is the reason she is still alive.”
“I would say that it wasn't miraculous that the little girl survived because it states the fact that she was held above above the water by the seat belt is the reason she is still alive.”
Excellent answer. The fact that they heard a voice didn't save the child. In fact the rescuer said it only served as extra motivation. So, an unexplained voice is not evidence of a miracle.
Since noone else has joined in, and I can't be arsed to dialogue to the point I wanted to make anyway, I shall cut to the chase.
Even if the child would have died without the unexplained voice, no atheist would accept that a miracle had occurred - only that that there had been an unexplained voice. Now we know that people hate unexplained things so will go to desperate lengths to offer some sort of explanation. If all else fails you can always deny the event happened at all - people just lied.
But ... let's say the voice was recorded or something and there is proof positive that noone alive could have been that voice. Still .... no miracle ..... just something unexplained. And why not a miracle? Because miracles come from God and where's the proof that the unexplained voice came from God?
So there you have it. The request for evidence of miracles is just a thinly disguised variation on the 'prove to me God exists' request. And we know that if God is not part of your world view vocabulary then no proof is possible.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God - it is a worldview that defines God as a non existent thing.
So the discussion is pointless.
Originally Posted by spiney2:
“oh, and exactly how do you know that ? And,why on earth would they, what's the point ?”
“oh, and exactly how do you know that ? And,why on earth would they, what's the point ?”
Seriously??? You can't think of any reason why an atheist would start a thread questioning religious principles? Verily thou pullest my plonker..
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
“Would you rather that God made robots.”
I'm an atheist. God isn't going to be making anything. And again, even if God exists, look at the amount of trouble via religion past and present that has caused.
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“A placebo can't cure a physical illness, only a psychosomatic one (ie an imaginary one). As as alternative to dummy pills, homeopathic medicine can have the same effect on some people with the same types of illness, even though there are absolutely no active ingredients in them.”
“A placebo can't cure a physical illness, only a psychosomatic one (ie an imaginary one). As as alternative to dummy pills, homeopathic medicine can have the same effect on some people with the same types of illness, even though there are absolutely no active ingredients in them.”
A psychosomatic illness isn't an imaginary one.
It's one in which psychological distress causes real symptoms. The pain in psychosomatic illness is real pain. Depression is real.
Placebos can relieve symptoms of Parkinson's disease, that is a real biological condition.
There is further the well known case of "Mr Wright" whose cancer remitted or not based on his belief in the medication.
Originally Posted by jra:
“I'm an atheist. God isn't going to be making anything. And again, even if God exists, look at the amount of trouble via religion past and present that has caused.”
“I'm an atheist. God isn't going to be making anything. And again, even if God exists, look at the amount of trouble via religion past and present that has caused.”
Then why bother to talk about 'if' God exists if he doesn't.
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“Excellent answer. The fact that they heard a voice didn't save the child. In fact the rescuer said it only served as extra motivation. So, an unexplained voice is not evidence of a miracle.
Since noone else has joined in, and I can't be arsed to dialogue to the point I wanted to make anyway, I shall cut to the chase.
Even if the child would have died without the unexplained voice, no atheist would accept that a miracle had occurred - only that that there had been an unexplained voice. Now we know that people hate unexplained things so will go to desperate lengths to offer some sort of explanation. If all else fails you can always deny the event happened at all - people just lied.
But ... let's say the voice was recorded or something and there is proof positive that noone alive could have been that voice. Still .... no miracle ..... just something unexplained. And why not a miracle? Because miracles come from God and where's the proof that the unexplained voice came from God?
So there you have it. The request for evidence of miracles is just a thinly disguised variation on the 'prove to me God exists' request. And we know that if God is not part of your world view vocabulary then no proof is possible.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God - it is a worldview that defines God as a non existent thing.
So the discussion is pointless.
Seriously??? You can't think of any reason why an atheist would start a thread questioning religious principles? Verily thou pullest my plonker..”
“Excellent answer. The fact that they heard a voice didn't save the child. In fact the rescuer said it only served as extra motivation. So, an unexplained voice is not evidence of a miracle.
Since noone else has joined in, and I can't be arsed to dialogue to the point I wanted to make anyway, I shall cut to the chase.
Even if the child would have died without the unexplained voice, no atheist would accept that a miracle had occurred - only that that there had been an unexplained voice. Now we know that people hate unexplained things so will go to desperate lengths to offer some sort of explanation. If all else fails you can always deny the event happened at all - people just lied.
But ... let's say the voice was recorded or something and there is proof positive that noone alive could have been that voice. Still .... no miracle ..... just something unexplained. And why not a miracle? Because miracles come from God and where's the proof that the unexplained voice came from God?
So there you have it. The request for evidence of miracles is just a thinly disguised variation on the 'prove to me God exists' request. And we know that if God is not part of your world view vocabulary then no proof is possible.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God - it is a worldview that defines God as a non existent thing.
So the discussion is pointless.
Seriously??? You can't think of any reason why an atheist would start a thread questioning religious principles? Verily thou pullest my plonker..”
I didn't join in because of what you say, impossible to prove that something was caused. by divine intervention. The default of the non believer is 'hoax.'
I did offer a modern miracle, here:
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/mirac...rvention-video
In that this atheist is sure he had that experience. And it wasn't something he would have been inclined to experience.
There are also studies of how spouses can experience the intent of their partner. That hadn't been accepted by science as possible.
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“A psychosomatic illness isn't an imaginary one.
It's one in which psychological distress causes real symptoms. The pain in psychosomatic illness is real pain. Depression is real.
Placebos can relieve symptoms of Parkinson's disease, that is a real biological condition.
There is further the well known case of "Mr Wright" whose cancer remitted or not based on his belief in the medication.”
“A psychosomatic illness isn't an imaginary one.
It's one in which psychological distress causes real symptoms. The pain in psychosomatic illness is real pain. Depression is real.
Placebos can relieve symptoms of Parkinson's disease, that is a real biological condition.
There is further the well known case of "Mr Wright" whose cancer remitted or not based on his belief in the medication.”
i believe a small number of cancer cases get ''spontaneous remission'', in apparent defiance of the usual outcome. With no clear explanation ( it's been suggested that an exploratory bioposy sometimes co
mpletely removes the tumor). There is no clear explanation of why this sometimes happens. I would agree that ''invoking god'' isn't really an explanation of these few lucky people ......
Originally Posted by droogiefret:
“Excellent answer. The fact that they heard a voice didn't save the child. In fact the rescuer said it only served as extra motivation. So, an unexplained voice is not evidence of a miracle.
Since noone else has joined in, and I can't be arsed to dialogue to the point I wanted to make anyway, I shall cut to the chase.
Even if the child would have died without the unexplained voice, no atheist would accept that a miracle had occurred - only that that there had been an unexplained voice. Now we know that people hate unexplained things so will go to desperate lengths to offer some sort of explanation. If all else fails you can always deny the event happened at all - people just lied.
But ... let's say the voice was recorded or something and there is proof positive that noone alive could have been that voice. Still .... no miracle ..... just something unexplained. And why not a miracle? Because miracles come from God and where's the proof that the unexplained voice came from God?
So there you have it. The request for evidence of miracles is just a thinly disguised variation on the 'prove to me God exists' request. And we know that if God is not part of your world view vocabulary then no proof is possible.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God - it is a worldview that defines God as a non existent thing.
So the discussion is pointless.
Seriously??? You can't think of any reason why an atheist would start a thread questioning religious principles? Verily thou pullest my plonker..”
“Excellent answer. The fact that they heard a voice didn't save the child. In fact the rescuer said it only served as extra motivation. So, an unexplained voice is not evidence of a miracle.
Since noone else has joined in, and I can't be arsed to dialogue to the point I wanted to make anyway, I shall cut to the chase.
Even if the child would have died without the unexplained voice, no atheist would accept that a miracle had occurred - only that that there had been an unexplained voice. Now we know that people hate unexplained things so will go to desperate lengths to offer some sort of explanation. If all else fails you can always deny the event happened at all - people just lied.
But ... let's say the voice was recorded or something and there is proof positive that noone alive could have been that voice. Still .... no miracle ..... just something unexplained. And why not a miracle? Because miracles come from God and where's the proof that the unexplained voice came from God?
So there you have it. The request for evidence of miracles is just a thinly disguised variation on the 'prove to me God exists' request. And we know that if God is not part of your world view vocabulary then no proof is possible.
Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God - it is a worldview that defines God as a non existent thing.
So the discussion is pointless.
Seriously??? You can't think of any reason why an atheist would start a thread questioning religious principles? Verily thou pullest my plonker..”
i accept that's a reasonable explanation, but u were stating it as known fact. My point was, it's typical of evangelicals to ''witness'' in this way ........
Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Neither will books on Greek Mythology. Do you think all that happened?”
“Neither will books on Greek Mythology. Do you think all that happened?”
No
Originally Posted by Keyser_Soze1:
“The creation of the Devil was merely a get of of jail free card for Yahweh - and not a very convincing one either.
Mind you at least Satan never wiped out an entire planet with a flood or sent Azrael to slaughter the innocent firstborn of the Egyptians (for example).
This is what the LORD says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."
— Exodus 11:4–6
Lovely.
”
“The creation of the Devil was merely a get of of jail free card for Yahweh - and not a very convincing one either.
Mind you at least Satan never wiped out an entire planet with a flood or sent Azrael to slaughter the innocent firstborn of the Egyptians (for example).
This is what the LORD says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."
— Exodus 11:4–6
Lovely.
”
We have to assume that The reigning Pharaoh was not a first born
Originally Posted by Flash525:
“That's because you're devoted to your faith.
I never suggested that he didn't he people; I merely stated that he likely didn't do it by the way of a miracle. If Jesus was a healer, he would have used natural aids, and not divine ones.
It is more than possible that Jesus was a healer, but it's the distinction is between whether he healed people with miracles, or he didn't heal people at all, I'm going with the latter.
The Bible (and similar books) could be argued under a Mythology section, but then they include elements of history. The problem with religious books, is that they're made out (in some minds) to be whole truth, and nothing but, when the likelihood of that is unrealistic. You have to be blind to faith to truly think that everything written in the bible actually happened the way it is said to have.
It's cool.
”
“That's because you're devoted to your faith.
I never suggested that he didn't he people; I merely stated that he likely didn't do it by the way of a miracle. If Jesus was a healer, he would have used natural aids, and not divine ones.
It is more than possible that Jesus was a healer, but it's the distinction is between whether he healed people with miracles, or he didn't heal people at all, I'm going with the latter.
The Bible (and similar books) could be argued under a Mythology section, but then they include elements of history. The problem with religious books, is that they're made out (in some minds) to be whole truth, and nothing but, when the likelihood of that is unrealistic. You have to be blind to faith to truly think that everything written in the bible actually happened the way it is said to have.
It's cool.
”
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water
Originally Posted by Flash525:
“
I personally do not believe that Jesus healed a blind person, or fed 5000 people with enough food that he initially had for 5. As mentioned earlier, everything we think we know we do so only because we've read about it, and historical writings are no guarantee of historic event accuracy, despite what you may choose to believe.”
“
I personally do not believe that Jesus healed a blind person, or fed 5000 people with enough food that he initially had for 5. As mentioned earlier, everything we think we know we do so only because we've read about it, and historical writings are no guarantee of historic event accuracy, despite what you may choose to believe.”
But you haven't actually read about it or you would know there were not 5,000 people
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Then why bother to talk about 'if' God exists if he doesn't.”
“Then why bother to talk about 'if' God exists if he doesn't.”
Because I don't just talk about things I believe exist. Should be self-explanatory. If God exists (I don't happen to believe they do), then I asked a few pertinent questions above, to which you replied mentioning robots. Another poster told you what a ridiculous response that was.
The exact number of those at ''feeding the 5000'' isn't relevant, the point being, lots of food appeared from nowhere. As with all jesus' reported miracles, it's demonstrating a particular theological point .........
Originally Posted by jra:
“Because I don't just talk about things I believe exist. Should be self-explanatory. If God exists (I don't happen to believe they do), then I asked a few pertinent questions above, to which you replied mentioning robots. Another poster told you what a ridiculous response that was.”
“Because I don't just talk about things I believe exist. Should be self-explanatory. If God exists (I don't happen to believe they do), then I asked a few pertinent questions above, to which you replied mentioning robots. Another poster told you what a ridiculous response that was.”
It's not ridiculous just because some poster thinks that. If we are fully determined by natural selection how can we have free will? We are limited by what we inherited. Aren't you aware of those who think even our consciousness of self is an illusion?
Originally Posted by spiney2:
“i believe a small number of cancer cases get ''spontaneous remission'', in apparent defiance of the usual outcome. With no clear explanation ( it's been suggested that an exploratory bioposy sometimes co
mpletely removes the tumor). There is no clear explanation of why this sometimes happens. I would agree that ''invoking god'' isn't really an explanation of these few lucky people ......”
“i believe a small number of cancer cases get ''spontaneous remission'', in apparent defiance of the usual outcome. With no clear explanation ( it's been suggested that an exploratory bioposy sometimes co
mpletely removes the tumor). There is no clear explanation of why this sometimes happens. I would agree that ''invoking god'' isn't really an explanation of these few lucky people ......”
I didn't say that invoking God isn't really an explanation though. I said it can't be proven.
So pointless to argue it.
There is the case of someone who visualized his bladder cancer away. If there was a spontaneous remission he seems to have contributed to it:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/03...cer.mind.body/
Originally Posted by Fairyprincess0:
“Isnt that what god originally wanted. People who would blindly obey him without considering the god and evil of the consequences????”
“Isnt that what god originally wanted. People who would blindly obey him without considering the god and evil of the consequences????”
Only if you believe the Creation story in Genesis
Originally Posted by spiney2:
“The exact number of those at ''feeding the 5000'' isn't relevant, the point being, lots of food appeared from nowhere. As with all jesus' reported miracles, it's demonstrating a particular theological point .........”
“The exact number of those at ''feeding the 5000'' isn't relevant, the point being, lots of food appeared from nowhere. As with all jesus' reported miracles, it's demonstrating a particular theological point .........”
But you are missing my point. You should not make a criticism based on a false premis
15 of 27
