|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
Given our limited understanding of the universe, we don't know what the probability of the existence of the universe is.
It may appear improbable to us, yet the universe exists and unlike God - whatever that's supposed to be - we have abundent evidence for its existence.
Unlike 'God,' a word without references or evidence, we need no faith to accept the reality of the universe. You have exactly the same evidence of God as you have of the universe. You have not personally seen or experienced the universe. You don't know of anything outside your own experience except from what others tell you. You simply choose what you are willing to believe. The only difference is that the belief of the universe beyond your personal experience has not been believed nearly as long, or by as many people as the existence of God. Nah, the universe, unlike God (whatever that is supposed to be), provides abundent evidence for its own existence. When it comes to the countless versions of God or gods, it is the priests and what is written in old scrolls that tell us what we are supposed to believe. Often the carrot and stick ploy, believe this or suffer the consequences. Santa Claus for adults, get your reward or lack faith and miss out. It's time we grew up and dropped our fairy tales.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
Faith is trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true.
Many signs of historical criteria provide evidence of the historicity and reliability of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Signs of historical criteria like multiple attestation and eyewitness testimony, the criterion of embarrassment, textual overlap with independent ancient Jewish historians, and the presence of early oral creeds all testify that Jesus was a real Jewish person who lived in Judea, had followers, and was crucified (which is the scholarly consensus), as well as the finding of an empty tomb by women, followed by post-crucifixion appearances. It’s enough to more than get the attention of honest skeptical scholars. Biblical faith is considered to be a trust and confidence in God based on evidence but without total proof. Jesus Himself said to “believe on the evidence.” But among all definitions of faith, the common theme is trust. I think Antlers is right on that point. Depends on how you define 'evidence.' If you define evidence as something written in old scrolls, then there is plenty of evidence for all sorts of wonders. I think it is a form of evidence, but not sure if it would be "admissible evidence" as you can't cross-examine the author. Especially since the Gospel authors were anonymous and written at least decades after the alleged events. Which is not evidence at all, just someone writing down whatever was believed by that group in that time and place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530 |
Like moths to a flame, like flies to sticky strips, like hungry rodents - - - - the atheists, God deniers, Christian-baiters, devil reps and angry others seem to scramble onto threads like this. And, for what reason? Dang! Lots or name calling here. Fine example of some moral standards to follow? The title of this thread asks a question, one that all can answer. The believers are just as drawn to this as the non-believers, probably more so. Seems that you all take offense to the fact that others don’t share your beliefs in a super natural being. scoony, I welcome your comments as important. Many answered the title question directly and simply, as did I. The tension grows when others deride or attack some of those responses. It is my observation that most of the believers do not take offense because others don't share their beliefs, but rather due to the nature of some posts - sometimes quite a few negative posts. The example you cited above was my observation, ending with a question regarding the reason for that. To understand how the name-calling develops in some of these threads one has to go back through the posts and find the roots - where it starts and by whom (usually predictable). Then, due to some of our human tendencies, others fight fire with fire. I don't see it as an example of a moral standard, but do think it is generally ineffective and useless, and not a good example to set. If that amounts to a mea culpa in the eyes of some, so be it. But, that question about reason is cogent, and it remains.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
It seems like the defence of theism is offence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960 |
Like moths to a flame, like flies to sticky strips, like hungry rodents - - - - the atheists, God deniers, Christian-baiters, devil reps and angry others seem to scramble onto threads like this. And, for what reason? Dang! Lots or name calling here. Fine example of some moral standards to follow? The title of this thread asks a question, one that all can answer. The believers are just as drawn to this as the non-believers, probably more so. Seems that you all take offense to the fact that others don’t share your beliefs in a super natural being. scoony, I welcome your comments as important. Many answered the title question directly and simply, as did I. The tension grows when others deride or attack some of those responses. It is my observation that most of the believers do not take offense because others don't share their beliefs, but rather due to the nature of some posts - sometimes quite a few negative posts. The example you cited above was my observation, ending with a question regarding the reason for that. To understand how the name-calling develops in some of these threads one has to go back through the posts and find the roots - where it starts and by whom (usually predictable). Then, due to some of our human tendencies, others fight fire with fire. I don't see it as an example of a moral standard, but do think it is generally ineffective and useless, and not a good example to set. If that amounts to a mea culpa in the eyes of some, so be it. But, that question about reason is cogent, and it remains. Lets check the tape and see where it started on this thread: I don't. I was raised Catholic because of my Mom, at around age 14 we could make our own decision. Both of my sisters did the same thing. My Father a retired Earth scientist has always been an atheist. My first day in catechism, which I believe was in fourth grade. The teacher started telling the story of Noah's Ark. Even at that age I thought this is a bunch of bullshit!  My Father never ever influenced me and I didn't know about his beliefs until 16-17 years old. My folks are both 88 and are Highschool sweethearts and have been married 69 years. My Father has always supported her on everything. I doesn't bother me that People practice religion. It's just extremely upsetting of the devious side of it. Alway's wondered how many members feel the same. Yes, I absolutely believe in God! And what you are saying is your opinion and nothing more. The world would be be much better place if we all followed Christian morals Then the call out for hierocracy. I don't. I was raised Catholic because of my Mom, at around age 14 we could make our own decision. Both of my sisters did the same thing. My Father a retired Earth scientist has always been an atheist. My first day in catechism, which I believe was in fourth grade. The teacher started telling the story of Noah's Ark. Even at that age I thought this is a bunch of bullshit! My Father never ever influenced me and I didn't know about his beliefs until 16-17 years old. My folks are both 88 and are Highschool sweethearts and have been married 69 years. My Father has always supported her on everything. I doesn't bother me that People practice religion. It's just extremely upsetting of the devious side of it. Alway's wondered how many members feel the same. Yes, I absolutely believe in God! And what you are saying is your opinion and nothing more. The world would be be much better place if we all followed Christian morals Get the Christians to follow the morals first....then see who follows. A Christian calls out Catholics: I was raised catholic also so I understand what a bad first experience about religion you had. Catholic is a joke, it has nothing to do with Jesus or God. Find a good church that preaches the Bible, your life literally depends on it. Too not believe in God is foolish. Here's my first post: And here's the "Christian" response to it: You've stated you don't many times. Move along with the rest of the fools. You have a very selective memory.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,672
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,672 |
I take issue with TwoTall. I am Catholic. Catholicism is the first Christianity. The first church. The church is actually the body of believers. Sadly the Catholic Church has had more than its share of bad actors but Catholicism itself is just fine thank you.
The way life should be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484 |
The defense of atheism is clearly to simply deny the evidence for God’s existence.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
The defense of atheism is clearly to simply deny the evidence for God’s existence. Not true. What you call evidence does not relate to how evidence is defined in logic, law, science or philosophy. You use your own special definition. Evidence is a body of information that anyone can examine, test and verify. What is written in old scrolls about the gods and prophets cannot be verified. Plus what is written about creation in genesis and other traditional stories is falsified by what we know about the universe, star and planetary formation and evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484 |
The atheists clearly just simply deny the evidence for the historicity and life of Jesus as well.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,699
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,699 |
The atheists clearly just simply deny the evidence for the historicity and life of Jesus as well. Is that OK?
Conduct is the best proof of character.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,507
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,507 |
Plus what is written about creation in genesis and other traditional stories is falsified by what we know about the universe, star and planetary formation and evolution. I don’t think so. The big bang theory involves pure-energy expanding from nothingness, which is comparable to light-alone. "Let There be light" . Also, the teachings of Genesis were 5,000 years ago to people wo had no concept of history or science. What is stated in Genesis was more general, but consistent with, creation over time-i.e. evolution of various life forms. It is interesting that Genesis got it correct that life formed in the seas before on land. Could be a coincidence, but there was no science or fossil record back then to support that. The text got it right back then with no science back then to back it up. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,652 |
Like moths to a flame, like flies to sticky strips, like hungry rodents - - - - the atheists, God deniers, Christian-baiters, devil reps and angry others seem to scramble onto threads like this. And, for what reason? Dang! Lots or name calling here. Fine example of some moral standards to follow? The title of this thread asks a question, one that all can answer. The believers are just as drawn to this as the non-believers, probably more so. Seems that you all take offense to the fact that others don’t share your beliefs in a super natural being. scoony, I welcome your comments as important. Many answered the title question directly and simply, as did I. The tension grows when others deride or attack some of those responses. It is my observation that most of the believers do not take offense because others don't share their beliefs, but rather due to the nature of some posts - sometimes quite a few negative posts. The example you cited above was my observation, ending with a question regarding the reason for that. To understand how the name-calling develops in some of these threads one has to go back through the posts and find the roots - where it starts and by whom (usually predictable). Then, due to some of our human tendencies, others fight fire with fire. I don't see it as an example of a moral standard, but do think it is generally ineffective and useless, and not a good example to set. If that amounts to a mea culpa in the eyes of some, so be it. But, that question about reason is cogent, and it remains. What a pathetic, groveling, suck-arss P.O.S. Don't think you're going to talk your arss out of things on Judgement Day before God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484 |
The atheists clearly just simply deny the evidence for the historicity and life of Jesus as well. If one refuses to accept verifiable facts and verifiable reality, that’s OK with me. But refusing to accept verifiable facts and verifiable reality is essentially an irrational action and position.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 21,171
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 21,171 |
Lotsa week minded desperate folks folks here.
I’m not sorry.😘😆
Ping pong balls for the win.
Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable
I keep my circle small, I’d rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
Ain’t easy havin pals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,484 |
The assertion that you get all truth and evidence from logic, law, science or philosophy is a self-defeating claim. Very little from history can be repeatable; you can’t go into the lab and repeat history. We can’t go into the lab and stab Caesar again. If we’re gonna try and discover what happened in the past, we’ve got to rely on the testimony of the eyewitnesses and those who were there. We can’t go back in time and repeat the event itself. We cant go into the lab and kill Jesus again and then resurrect Him again.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
The atheists clearly just simply deny the evidence for the historicity and life of Jesus as well. If one refuses to accept verifiable facts and verifiable reality, that’s OK with me. But refusing to accept verifiable facts and verifiable reality is essentially an irrational action and position. What are these 'verifiable facts' you speak of? Can you give examples and explain how they are verified. I'd say you are bluffing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
Plus what is written about creation in genesis and other traditional stories is falsified by what we know about the universe, star and planetary formation and evolution. I don’t think so. The big bang theory involves pure-energy expanding from nothingness, which is comparable to light-alone. "Let There be light" . Also, the teachings of Genesis were 5,000 years ago to people wo had no concept of history or science. What is stated in Genesis was more general, but consistent with, creation over time-i.e. evolution of various life forms. It is interesting that Genesis got it correct that life formed in the seas before on land. Could be a coincidence, but there was no science or fossil record back then to support that. The text got it right back then with no science back then to back it up. Coincidence? That you don't think so means nothing when the creation account in genesis is compared to the scope, scale and age of the universe as science has discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,630 |
The atheists clearly just simply deny the evidence for the historicity and life of Jesus as well. What you call evidence is simply what priests and scribes wrote on parchment. Something that's not testable or verifiable is not evidence, just stories. You invoke the word evidence without regard for the truth, that what is written cannot be verified.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530 |
Like moths to a flame, like flies to sticky strips, like hungry rodents - - - - the atheists, God deniers, Christian-baiters, devil reps and angry others seem to scramble onto threads like this. And, for what reason? Dang! Lots or name calling here. Fine example of some moral standards to follow? The title of this thread asks a question, one that all can answer. The believers are just as drawn to this as the non-believers, probably more so. Seems that you all take offense to the fact that others don’t share your beliefs in a super natural being. scoony, I welcome your comments as important. Many answered the title question directly and simply, as did I. The tension grows when others deride or attack some of those responses. It is my observation that most of the believers do not take offense because others don't share their beliefs, but rather due to the nature of some posts - sometimes quite a few negative posts. The example you cited above was my observation, ending with a question regarding the reason for that. To understand how the name-calling develops in some of these threads one has to go back through the posts and find the roots - where it starts and by whom (usually predictable). Then, due to some of our human tendencies, others fight fire with fire. I don't see it as an example of a moral standard, but do think it is generally ineffective and useless, and not a good example to set. If that amounts to a mea culpa in the eyes of some, so be it. But, that question about reason is cogent, and it remains. Lets check the tape and see where it started on this thread: I don't. I was raised Catholic because of my Mom, at around age 14 we could make our own decision. Both of my sisters did the same thing. My Father a retired Earth scientist has always been an atheist. My first day in catechism, which I believe was in fourth grade. The teacher started telling the story of Noah's Ark. Even at that age I thought this is a bunch of bullshit! My Father never ever influenced me and I didn't know about his beliefs until 16-17 years old. My folks are both 88 and are Highschool sweethearts and have been married 69 years. My Father has always supported her on everything. I doesn't bother me that People practice religion. It's just extremely upsetting of the devious side of it. Alway's wondered how many members feel the same. Yes, I absolutely believe in God! And what you are saying is your opinion and nothing more. The world would be be much better place if we all followed Christian morals Then the call out for hierocracy. I don't. I was raised Catholic because of my Mom, at around age 14 we could make our own decision. Both of my sisters did the same thing. My Father a retired Earth scientist has always been an atheist. My first day in catechism, which I believe was in fourth grade. The teacher started telling the story of Noah's Ark. Even at that age I thought this is a bunch of bullshit! My Father never ever influenced me and I didn't know about his beliefs until 16-17 years old. My folks are both 88 and are Highschool sweethearts and have been married 69 years. My Father has always supported her on everything. I doesn't bother me that People practice religion. It's just extremely upsetting of the devious side of it. Alway's wondered how many members feel the same. Yes, I absolutely believe in God! And what you are saying is your opinion and nothing more. The world would be be much better place if we all followed Christian morals Get the Christians to follow the morals first....then see who follows. A Christian calls out Catholics: I was raised catholic also so I understand what a bad first experience about religion you had. Catholic is a joke, it has nothing to do with Jesus or God. Find a good church that preaches the Bible, your life literally depends on it. Too not believe in God is foolish. Here's my first post: And here's the "Christian" response to it: You've stated you don't many times. Move along with the rest of the fools. You have a very selective memory. Where was the name-calling?
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530 |
Like moths to a flame, like flies to sticky strips, like hungry rodents - - - - the atheists, God deniers, Christian-baiters, devil reps and angry others seem to scramble onto threads like this. And, for what reason? Dang! Lots or name calling here. Fine example of some moral standards to follow? The title of this thread asks a question, one that all can answer. The believers are just as drawn to this as the non-believers, probably more so. Seems that you all take offense to the fact that others don’t share your beliefs in a super natural being. scoony, I welcome your comments as important. Many answered the title question directly and simply, as did I. The tension grows when others deride or attack some of those responses. It is my observation that most of the believers do not take offense because others don't share their beliefs, but rather due to the nature of some posts - sometimes quite a few negative posts. The example you cited above was my observation, ending with a question regarding the reason for that. To understand how the name-calling develops in some of these threads one has to go back through the posts and find the roots - where it starts and by whom (usually predictable). Then, due to some of our human tendencies, others fight fire with fire. I don't see it as an example of a moral standard, but do think it is generally ineffective and useless, and not a good example to set. If that amounts to a mea culpa in the eyes of some, so be it. But, that question about reason is cogent, and it remains. What a pathetic, groveling, suck-arss P.O.S. Don't think you're going to talk your arss out of things on Judgement Day before God. Not only is your post vulgar and disrespectful, but it again reeks of assumed superiority and pretend control of God's actions. And - it's beginning to seem like you are an Aussie.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
634 members (17Hunter, 007FJ, 10Glocks, 1936M71, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 68 invisible),
2,704
guests, and
1,312
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,602
Posts18,473,605
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
