Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A though on the religious threads

If there was clear evidence to support the existence of God, whatever the version may be, there would be little or no dispute. As it is, the believer goes on what is written in their bible, Quran, Gita, etc, in the assumption that this is evidence of truth.

Interesting.

I believe, and that belief is between God and I.

Furthermore I do not really care if others believe or not, nor do I care about proof of either my belief or what leads to it.


What I DO care about is cunts pushing THEIR beliefs on to me...I won't have it.

Fair enough. Your belief is your own business. Nobody has to discuss their belief or their lack of conviction. It's up to the individual.

If there was clear evidence to support the existence of God, whatever the version may be, there would be little or no dispute. As it is, the believer goes on what is written in their bible, Quran, Gita, etc, in the assumption that this is evidence of truth.

Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.

I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.

One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.

Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.

I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.

One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.

Surprised you didn't just say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"...and stick your tongue out.


Because that is what you typed amounted to.

Evidence of supper is on the plate for anyone who is present to see. To lack convinction is a matter of insufficient evidence rather than a 'denial of God.' Justification is the issue. Your culture and circumstances brought you to Christianity, other cultures and other circumstances bring people to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever the case may be....

Surely you noticed I referenced Law courts which require
evidence of varying degree without the requirement of
meeting the std. of your 'beyond any doubt'.
Let's begin with;
Beyond a reasonable doubt , which is the legal burden
of proof required to affirm a conviction...meaning one must
convince a jury that there is no other reasonable explanation
that can come from the evidence presented.
Then we have the lower standard of proof called;
Preponderance of Evidence.
Like I said earlier , we don't know how far down
the path of rational explanations you have explored
for Israelis winning the war and establishing Israel,
before adopting your supernatural belief.
Put it this way , if you were on a jury where
the defendant was claiming ,the 'hand of God'
forced them to kill someone , what would it take
you to buy their story? .Would you believe it as
easily as you do supernatural intervention on
behalf of Israel?

Interesting.

I believe, and that belief is between God and I.

Furthermore I do not really care if others believe or not, nor do I care about proof of either my belief or what leads to it.


What I DO care about is cunts pushing THEIR beliefs on to me...I won't have it.

Be nothing wrong with having you for a neighbour...something that cannot be said for a lot of others.

Tight definition? Science cannot function if each researcher has their own definition or idea of what evidence is. The Law does not work on the principle of what is considered evidence one day but not the next.

Evidence is not something that works one moment but not the next.

The laws of physics don't alter for the benefit of a believer, this one moment, that the next.

The world is what it is regardless of who believes what.

If someone has evidence for the existence of their version of God, anyone should be able to examine that evidence. What the believer feels is evidence may be mistaken. What it says in our holy books is not evidence for the truth of their claims.

DBT, again we have the evidence based faith types in CCCC raising their heads...they don seem to have any consistent std. of evidence they go by with the aim of constituting proof.

Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion hs not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.

They never provide evidence there is no GOD. We have hope.They have hope. We have a prayer. They dont.

I am interested in what you believe. We know what you disbelieve.

... All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion has not been about science - it has been about faith...

Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions. That was the quality of the evidence and the quality of the interpretation of said evidence matter. It's also why I as for "good evidence" and not just "evidence". Let me give a example from an actual call in T.V. show. A lady calls in claiming she can prove the existence of God. He proof? She was driving down the road and low tire pressure warning light went on. She wasn't close to home was worried about being able to safely drive her vehicle, so she prayed to God for a solution. At the next exit she pulled into a gas station, and the gas station attendant aired up her tires for he. This was her "proof" God existed. I'd seriously question both the quality of this evidence and her interpretation, and if it's anywhere nearly sufficient to prove her extraordinary claim.

That's the issue with so much of what theist consider "evidence". They present poor interpretations of poor evidence, and often, it's the worst possible kind of evidence, that which cannot be independently verified. This evidence is even worse than that in the example above, because even though her argument is so terrible, at least we could verify the existence of the gas station and gas station attendant if we cared to go interview him just after the event.

Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion hs not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.

Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions.