I know what you are saying with regards to respect. But not being rude and being civil to someone is having respect surely ??

Can you prove that ???

 

Nope.....had our wedding in a vinyard in New Zealand and wrote our own vows which specifically excluded any mention of god.

No kids

 

I very seriously doubt you have ever read it mate. If you can really tell me that the Bible is a good book, full of good morals then you need to see a doctor. If you call ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder, cutting off limbs for sin and incest etc good, you really need psychiatric help.

So I see you are going to indoctirnate your poor children; no choice in the matter.

I can’t believe you believe in something you haven’t researched properly, but take heart; you are not alone, as most religious people know absolutley nothing about what they worship. They just believe in the fluffy passages that are told from the pulpit, parents or wherever they worship.

For the record I was married in registry office.

 

Not really - I can think you a feckless moron with the IQ of a peanut, but I can still speak to you in a civil manner.

I think it stands to reason really. The reason most non-believers are non believers is due to a lack of evidence to convince them otherwise. If there was good evidence they would change their view. If prayer worked for example that would be compelling evidence. Of course my first prayer might be for there to be no god and no religion, that'd be a dilema for him

 

Thats still having respect

Oh b*llox to it. We will start a debate about this next

 

Agree with you on that, but if my experiences are enough evidence for me to believe surely that should be ok with the non-believers ???

That would definately present him with a dilema. But now you have already told him so he will be prepared now

 

Is it?

Seems to me that respect is about holding somebody in high esteem. I can still be civil to somebody I despise.

 

Not really, personal evidence or anecdotes as they are normally known, while compelling to the individual hold no weight in a science / logic discussion. Actually show us that evidence rather than report it and you may have something.

 

Olly clear off

 

What experiences have you had that have lead you to believe? Have you had these corroborated by independent witnesses (not friends)? What kind of things are you talking about, limbs growing back from amputees, people raising from the dead, moving mountains and dropping them in to the see based on faith or curing a terminal illness.

I’d really like to know.

 

But then you are doign what i was saying before, you are now just trying to beat down someone's personal faith rather than discussing religion as a whole. I don't see that as being totally fair.

At the end of the day Paul Habgood was right in saying that there are a lot of people askign for proof God exists but at the same time can't prove he didn't.

Fact is (and i'm not what you'd call a God botherer) no one, i mean no one actually knows how the universe was created and until it can be shown one way or the other we are in a similar situation to Schroedinger's Cat. It is impossible to say without looking but right now, we can't look.

Personally i'm willing to accept that anything might be possible util proved otherwise but i don't feel a need to be at church every sunday.

I would also agree that if you don't believe have anything other than a humanist ceremony for weddings then you are a hypocrite. Likewise funereals, christenings celebrating christmas, easter etc etc. If you don't believe then don't do it.

Also to MarkGT... son of God or not there is actually evidence of Jesus being a real person just because we don't have a birth certificate doesn't mean the man was completely made up.

5t.

 

I agree with some of your points. However let me ask you a question, do you believe in communist daffodils? You can’t disprove 100% that communist daffodils don’t exist but we all know that they don’t as nobody has ever produced one. Hence nobody has ever produced any evidence that there is a God or was a Jesus, period. The whole God hypothesis is based on the bible, without it there are no monotheistic religions.

The Bible has been shown by science that it is full of holes scientifically, genetically etc. and by historians as horrendously incorrect. I mean do you really believe a man can change the colour of a goat by putting palm leaves in front of it? That’s what it says in the bible.

The onus to prove something is true is on the believer, the person making the claims. Can you imagine if our law system was based on faith? Well your honour I have no evidence whatsoever that the man/woman committed the crime, however its ok, I have faith that he did it.

Just because you can’t prove it 100% doesn’t mean it exists. The weight of evidence against a god or Jesus is undisputable. Whether you choose to see it is a completely different matter.

You are correct I’m sure there were thousands of Jesus around at the time. It was a very common name. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jesus of the New Testament ever existed, If there is please show me and the rest of the world it.

I await the evidence with baited breath.

 

Well, as i said i'm not a follower of scripture, i just have respect for whatever faith people have. I'm happy to question religion per say, just not someone's personal beliefs.

As for Jesus there was a big programme on TV about it recently. There is plenty of evidence that certain things, like the attack on the money lenders in the temple did take place. Jesus as a prophet is mentioned in scripture by Jews and in Islamic texts.

Does it prove he was the son of God? Unlikely but the evidence he did exist is there. Agree the bible is full of holes, the fact there is a 'King James Version' is evidence enough of that. Either it is defacto or not, you can't have versions! Bible 2.0 anyone?

The believer has to produce evidence. Ok, there is no God. Show me the proof, from science of how the universe was actually created. You can't so it works both ways. For many years our laws were based on our religous beliefs and many aspects of our life still are today. Religion has always guided law, thou shalt not commit murder....

As for a communist Daffodil... have you ever asked one if it is a communist? Perhaps if we were able to communicate we might find that daffodils work together for a common good and would be happy to say so. We're still in the same situation, you can ask the question but you still do not have the answer and at the moment, can't get it.

5t.

 

Most christians never do. They use the scripture they like, like a salad bar, and ignore the rest.

These people, however, do know their bible (KJV only)!

 

As apposed to a little programme about Jesus existence. The whole Christian movement must have missed that one. I'm sure if prove had emerged we wouldn’t have heard the last of it. How has it been proved? What eye witness accounts have appeared after 2000 years? How can these be substantiated?

As for the daffodil comment, you cant prove 100% that one doesn't exist but a clear thinking mind would tell you to have such a notion is madness. The same can be said for religion.

I think you have missed the point of my previous post. The onus is on the person making the claim.

 

Well that's certianly going to make me think a lot....

Clear thinking mind, i think you'll find a closed off mind actually. Philiosophical and scientific discussion build from the unknown and the fantastic.

I haven't missed the point at all. You are claiming there is no God, same thing as claiming there is a God...Look up Schroedinger's Cat if it isn't something you know about all ready. You may believe a clear thinking mind knows the answer already, the point is, you can't prove it.

5t.

 

Care to produce any evidence that Jesus existed?

Just one single, verifiable source that he existed, that can be cross referenced to other historically valid documents?

I wait with bated breath.

Geezer

 

Checked that site out, Jesus its scary.

However at least they are not hypocrites; that’s what is says in the not so good book and that’s how they will live their lives and have their laws; they adhere to the book like all so called Christians should. It’s the word of god or it isn’t pure and simple. Yes they are as mad as they come and very scary people but they aren’t wishy washy cherry pickers like most of Christianity.

 

You can't "prove" anything with the possible exception of things entirely within the field of maths. Everything else is a best understanding based on ther weight of the available imperical evidence. When it comes to god, there isn't any, and if there isn't any after X thousand years, the chances of any coming along aren't looking good!

 

I'll wait for the writings of Josephus to be wheeled out, and that 1 paragraph is largely considered a forgery anyway.

 

That's what I was expecting too Olly!

Geezer

 

What is wrong with questioning things that don’t provide proof? The person that accepts everything at face value is the one with the closed mind. If you produced proper concrete evidence that a god exists then I'll change my mind. As nobody has ever provided any proof ever then I’m still saying there is 99.9% isn’t one or has ever been one.

Just because it can’t be explained yet by science doesn’t mean you fill in the blanks with a myth. “We don’t know how or why, so God must have done it”.

What’s quantum mechanics got to do with whether god exists or not. I think you are closet theist mate trying to get out.

 

[QUOTE=fivetide;8220285]But then you are doign what i was saying before, you are now just trying to beat down someone's personal faith rather than discussing religion as a whole. I don't see that as being totally fair.
[quote]

Not really. It's trying to get an understanding of why believers believe what they do, whether that's religion or quack medicine. The issue is, as we have seen on here many times, that people are reluctant to expose the foundations of their beliefs as they are concerned they may be ridiculed. If you believe they would be ridiculed then that suggests you don't consider your foundations to be that strong in the first place. I'm quite happy to question my beliefs and non-beliefs and am happy to put them out on a platter for comment. I have changed my mind on various subjects over the years and in some cases come back to my original belief. Believers seem resistent to that "soul" searching, perhaps for fear of loosing their faith, who knows, but if they won't talk about it, we'll never know.

It's a common retort, but it's actually a fallacy:
1) You can't absolutely prove anything (with the exception of maths)
2) You can't prove (in a loser sense) a negative
3) The burden of proof lies with the claimaint - i.e. those claiming the existence of something, be it God or gravitrons.

No, we don't know for certain, but when you compare the evidence for the various options, the big bang is looking pretty good and god is a bit of a non-starter, certainly the abrahimic one.

So you believe in Santa, the tooth fairy and goblins as well then?

I'd agree, with the exception of funerals, and probably not for the reasons you may think. I'll be dead, so it matters not to me, however, if those that I have left behind get comfort from some ceromony or other then let them get on with it.



I'm he will challenge you on this, but without using the bible, what evidence can you offer to support that?

 

You seem to be the one finding the kitchen too warm!

 

Me as well, however I doubt he'll know who he was.

 

I meant the beginning of what we are discussing, ie the start of the universe right from its beginning. I do not disbelieve that there are other universes and worlds, and surely as you say, we must be part of eternity. Are you saying though that time did not exist before the big bang created it?

The whole business is fascinating of course, and we have no real answer to it. All the possibilities are theoretical to a large degree, and no one can prove a positive answer. The big bang theory is based on the expansion of our universe, I wonder if they will ever find something significant at the epicentre of the universe in that case.

J Taylor asked if I was a Deist. To be quite honest I have never thought about that. I suppose I must agree to that to a degree but by no means very deeply.

I am prepared to accept that miracles have been performed, if He is able to set all this in motion, hHe must be a pretty powerful chap and quite able to perform what we would see as a miracle.

I went to what is now called
a faith school and in our 5th form year we had "apologetics" classes in which we had other religions explained to us, that is to say their ideals and teachings as well as the ethics of Atheism and Agnosticism.

This was done in a dispassionate manner and it was left completely to us to make up our own minds about what we thought was right. Absolutely no pressure was used to make us think in any particular direction. Very honest I thought.

I have formulated my own beliefs over the years and am happy with them. I see most religions as a vehicle to teaching people to live what we would recognise to be a good life, this is the basic teachings of these religions. I therefore do not care what religion a person follows, I don't think it is important. It is how he lives his life which is important.

It is always so easy to blame the world's troubles on religion. This is unfair because troubles stemming from so called religious fanatics come from evil people who are using the religion for their own vicious purposes. If religion did not exist. they would find another way.

I believe also that those who feel they have to denigrate and insult those who follow a religion are a bit short on the self confidence stakes and are trying to bolster up what they think they believe.

No harm in having a straight discussion without all that of course, in fact I think that is a good thing.

Les

 

What he said I like having Leslie around

 

No, it didn't.


I think the parlour tricks pupportedly done by Jesus are hardly miracles. Look at David Copperfiled for example, his are far more impressive than anything mentioned in the bible. He made the Statue of Liberty disappear ! OK, we all know it was an illusion, but I think you know what point I am trying to say here.....

If God or Jesus had moved a mountain to another place and left it there, now that would have been impressive and pretty hard to refute. But no, they didn't, they left no evidence of miracles at all.

So, we're left with a bible that was supposedly written before written word came about, in a language that no one would have been able to understand, a horrible, cruel story, full of slavery, murder rape and God knows what else (no pun intended) and a new testament that is historically innacurate, and also a lie because Jesus did not deliver any of his promises.

What's left to believe?

Like I have said before Les, you are a decent bloke, but your values have little to do with Christian teachings, probably more down to having decent parents who cared enough to make sure you didn't turn out like a **** and good friends.

Funnily enough, I know lots of non-believers who turned out the same way!

Geezer

 

So do I Geezer, I am glad to say, and have underlined the importance of one's parents' responsibilities often enough. Yes I was lucky with my parents and so were all my close friends of those times. It was par for the course in those times.

Les

 

Correct, as I understand it, prior to the big bang there was a singularity, all 4 dimensions were one, after the big bang they separated.

Well the expanding universe was a by product of the BB. We can observe and measure it and know that the rate of expansion is still increasing. We can also look back to very close to the time of the big bang via red shift background radiation.

Makes you think, whoever created him must have been even more powerful. Unfortunately that doesn't get you very far, going the other way tends to get you closer to answers.

Ethics of Atheism and Agnosticsm, that would have been a short class, neither say anything about them.

And if people can live a good life without religion, as many do, it just shows that religion is unnecessary baggage, especially when so much of what goes in to religion is not morals and ethics.

Fanatics are certainly a problem today, go back a few centuaries and it was the mainstream that was the problem.

Or maybe they realise how they have been decieved by religion in the past and are justifyably angry, much as you would be if you had been conned in some other way.