Author Topic: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?  (Read 6492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #87 on: January 05, 2014, 06:55:32 PM »
I could ask questions like that of anything in the bible (and have), but it doesn't negate the belief that the bible is inspired by God.  Why didn't God divinely give us a cure for the bubonic plague instead of letting millions of people suffer and die?  I think there is a reason.

That you think there is a reason doesn't make your conclusion accurate. I think that the black plague was caused by flea bites from insects infected with the bacteria Yersinia pestis. Humans tasked with the job of finding solutions have come up with a class of antibiotics that help stave off infection. That is because we humans don't enjoy necrosis and painful death as much as your god, I guess.

I'm gonna take a wild-assed guess and say that your god is pretty pissed that we've found ways to prevent people from dying of one his favorite diseases. That's probably why he sicced Duck Dynasty on us. At least I think that's the reason.

Unless he doesn't exist. Which would mean humans actually came up with the idea for that TV series. Which disappoints me greatly. But it is the most likely explanation if he isn't real. And the Bubonic Plague is probably just something that evolved, since that is how all life got here. There was never any guarantee that different living things wouldn't conflict with each other. So yea, I'll go with that one.
No offense really.  But you sound bitter.  Or just feel intellectually insulted that there are people who believe in God.  Is that accurate? 

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #88 on: January 05, 2014, 06:58:44 PM »

Genesis 1:14 is good enough for me to believe He created everything. 

So you are inclined to believe it is true because it is in on old book of monsters, magic, and deities that was popular in the place and time where you were born....just like every other believer in every other theistic school of thought. There is nothing to separate you from some islander savage talking about ancient scroll and a volcano god. Good to know.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 07:05:26 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2014, 07:06:02 PM »
I admit these things will not likely convince someone who against even the idea of a biblical God.

It isn't the idea that i, as an atheist am against. It is the mismatch between reality and the bible that I am concerned about. They can't both be true.
What if reality is somewhat different than you imagine that it should be?  What if you were able to have insight into something beyond this 3 dimensional world and it suddenly made more sense to you?  Not even in a scientifically provable way.  Can you imagine a scenario where you'd believe?
I tend to think that people's expectations of what God should be like, decide whether they will believe or not.   

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2014, 07:12:51 PM »
I could ask questions like that of anything in the bible (and have), but it doesn't negate the belief that the bible is inspired by God.  Why didn't God divinely give us a cure for the bubonic plague instead of letting millions of people suffer and die?  I think there is a reason.

That you think there is a reason doesn't make your conclusion accurate. I think that the black plague was caused by flea bites from insects infected with the bacteria Yersinia pestis. Humans tasked with the job of finding solutions have come up with a class of antibiotics that help stave off infection. That is because we humans don't enjoy necrosis and painful death as much as your god, I guess.

I'm gonna take a wild-assed guess and say that your god is pretty pissed that we've found ways to prevent people from dying of one his favorite diseases. That's probably why he sicced Duck Dynasty on us. At least I think that's the reason.

Unless he doesn't exist. Which would mean humans actually came up with the idea for that TV series. Which disappoints me greatly. But it is the most likely explanation if he isn't real. And the Bubonic Plague is probably just something that evolved, since that is how all life got here. There was never any guarantee that different living things wouldn't conflict with each other. So yea, I'll go with that one.
No offense really.  But you sound bitter.  Or just feel intellectually insulted that there are people who believe in God.  Is that accurate?

No, not bitter. Tired. Of theists seeming to assume that we atheists take their god seriously, we just don't believe in him. Your problem is that you were the third theist today who spoke of their god as if we atheists assume he is real, despite our beliefs.

So no, not bitter. Just astonished that theists don't know where we atheists stand. Or at least don't talk as if they do.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2014, 07:13:53 PM »

Genesis 1:14 is good enough for me to believe He created everything. 

So you are inclined to believe it is true because it is in on old book of monsters, magic, and deities that was popular in the place and time where you were born....just like every other believer in every other theistic school of thought. There is nothing to separate you from some islander savage talking about ancient scroll and a volcano god. Good to know.
Yeah, I just believe in monsters and magic.  Never read anything showing the authenticity of the bible.  Too bad there's nothing out there.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2014, 07:22:16 PM »

Genesis 1:14 is good enough for me to believe He created everything. 

So you are inclined to believe it is true because it is in on old book of monsters, magic, and deities that was popular in the place and time where you were born....just like every other believer in every other theistic school of thought. There is nothing to separate you from some islander savage talking about ancient scroll and a volcano god. Good to know.
Yeah, I just believe in monsters and magic.  Never read anything showing the authenticity of the bible.  Too bad there's nothing out there.

Seen stuff claiming authenticity, never anything SHOWING authenticity. Now some stories do mention real people and events, similar to the Iliad, but the magic, monsters and deities...nothing SHOWING authenticity, just like the Iliad.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2014, 07:28:47 PM »
I could ask questions like that of anything in the bible (and have), but it doesn't negate the belief that the bible is inspired by God.  Why didn't God divinely give us a cure for the bubonic plague instead of letting millions of people suffer and die?  I think there is a reason.

That you think there is a reason doesn't make your conclusion accurate. I think that the black plague was caused by flea bites from insects infected with the bacteria Yersinia pestis. Humans tasked with the job of finding solutions have come up with a class of antibiotics that help stave off infection. That is because we humans don't enjoy necrosis and painful death as much as your god, I guess.

I'm gonna take a wild-assed guess and say that your god is pretty pissed that we've found ways to prevent people from dying of one his favorite diseases. That's probably why he sicced Duck Dynasty on us. At least I think that's the reason.

Unless he doesn't exist. Which would mean humans actually came up with the idea for that TV series. Which disappoints me greatly. But it is the most likely explanation if he isn't real. And the Bubonic Plague is probably just something that evolved, since that is how all life got here. There was never any guarantee that different living things wouldn't conflict with each other. So yea, I'll go with that one.
No offense really.  But you sound bitter.  Or just feel intellectually insulted that there are people who believe in God.  Is that accurate?

No, not bitter. Tired. Of theists seeming to assume that we atheists take their god seriously, we just don't believe in him. Your problem is that you were the third theist today who spoke of their god as if we atheists assume he is real, despite our beliefs.

So no, not bitter. Just astonished that theists don't know where we atheists stand. Or at least don't talk as if they do.

I don't assume that at all.  I completely realize that you don't believe that there is a god, so it's ridiculous to even talk about it.  Yet, you are here.  Why?  Entertainment?  Proselytizing your own beliefs?  Seems conflicting to be on this board in that frame of mind, making comments, egging me on with questions about a being that you don't believe in. 
I'm being asked to give answers from my perspective, so I'm giving that out.  That's all there is to it.  You should take the belief seriously, because it affects a lot of people.  When the gospel is lived out the way Jesus taught it is life changing and transformative in a good way.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2014, 07:31:43 PM »
I admit these things will not likely convince someone who against even the idea of a biblical God.

It isn't the idea that i, as an atheist am against. It is the mismatch between reality and the bible that I am concerned about. They can't both be true.
What if reality is somewhat different than you imagine that it should be?  What if you were able to have insight into something beyond this 3 dimensional world and it suddenly made more sense to you?  Not even in a scientifically provable way.  Can you imagine a scenario where you'd believe?
I tend to think that people's expectations of what God should be like, decide whether they will believe or not.

First of all, I have no illusion about my perceptions being accurate. The most we humans can hope for is perception that is good enough for us to survive. There are so many unknowns in this universe, including an almost infinite number of things that we will never know. So I sort of see a need to a) make a note of those things that seem consistent and real and b) not make everything else up.

The likelihood of ancients having a better handle on whatever the truth may be than us is unlikely. A god being involved is even more unlikely. So I am not going to have any expectations of your god, or any other, until something far more likely than a several thousand year old book is the source of such claims.

In the meantime, the mysteries of existence, both real and imagined, shall fascinate me. But I'll wait for the folks with the best track record to do the explaining, when there is explaining to do. And the unexplained? I shall calmly accept that not everything has or will have an explanation, and go on with my life, happy to know enough to survive for awhile.

But then, I ain't limping, so I don't need crutches.

Edit: egregious spelling error
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:11:48 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2014, 07:46:56 PM »


First of all, I have no illusion about my perceptions being accurate. The most we humans can hope for is perception that is good enough got us to survive. There are so many unknowns in this universe, including an almost infinite number of things that we will never know. So I sort of see a need to a) make a note of those things that seem consistent and real and b) not make everything else up.

The likelihood of ancients having a better handle on whatever the truth may be than us is unlikely. A god being involved is even more unlikely. So I am not going to have any expectations of your god, or any other, until something far more likely than a several thousand year old book is the source of such claims.

In the meantime, the mysteries of existence, both real and imagined, shall fascinate me. But I'll wait for the folks with the best track record to do the explaining, when there is explaining to do. And the unexplained? I shall calmly accept that not everything has or will have an explanation, and go on with my life, happy to know enough to survive for awhile.

But then, I ain't limping, so I don't need crutches.

Once again he, like just like every theist if the argument goes long enough, ends up engaging in what I call "Underwear Gnomes Theism"

1)Find something the science does not have the answer to, is unclear on, or the explanation is over the heads of most people.
2) Shrug
3) Declare the god of Christendom exists.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6313
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2014, 07:48:22 PM »
I don't assume that at all.  I completely realize that you don't believe that there is a god, so it's ridiculous to even talk about it.  Yet, you are here.  Why?  Entertainment?  Proselytizing your own beliefs?  Seems conflicting to be on this board in that frame of mind, making comments, egging me on with questions about a being that you don't believe in. 
I'm being asked to give answers from my perspective, so I'm giving that out.  That's all there is to it.  You should take the belief seriously, because it affects a lot of people.  When the gospel is lived out the way Jesus taught it is life changing and transformative in a good way.

Thanks for asking and answer my question within a couple of paragraphs. It makes my job much easier.

I am here because it is place for me to discuss my concerns about religion and its byproducts. The various versions of belief effect my government, my economy, the social structure I live in. Religion kills my friends (in Iraq), my friends friends (on 9/11), and on a much more trite level, litters my front porch with bullshit and pamphlets.

If the gospel, fake as it is, indeed affected everyone in a positive way, my attitude might be much different. But the many christians I know have included thieves, liars, cheats and abusive parents. At a much higher rate than my non-theists friends and acquaintances. I of course have known some wonderful and honest people who were believers, but I've little doubt that they would have been just as wonderful and just as honest without a god in their lives. And while you have every reason to be proud that your forebearers finally stopped burning people at the stake and such, that doesn't mean that they started doing everything else right too.

Ancient ideas, highly modified by more recent adherents, foisted off on an unsuspecting planet, used as an excuse to kill or damn or just plain be unfriendly, and you want me to allow for it? I would, if beliefs could stay in the background. But when they are forced on us in the form of legislation, when adherence is expected of us in otherwise innocuous social situations, and when you guys want your  morals to be our morals, I have to speak up. And this site helps me abreast of the situation.

And of course, since I've only converted on theist to atheism here so far, I'm always on the lookout for number two.

Added: If I were proselytizing, I'd go to a believers site. I'd be harmless here if you guys didn't show up every once in awhile.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:13:21 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2014, 09:04:30 PM »
I don't assume that at all.  I completely realize that you don't believe that there is a god, so it's ridiculous to even talk about it.  Yet, you are here.  Why?  Entertainment?  Proselytizing your own beliefs?  Seems conflicting to be on this board in that frame of mind, making comments, egging me on with questions about a being that you don't believe in. 
I'm being asked to give answers from my perspective, so I'm giving that out.  That's all there is to it.  You should take the belief seriously, because it affects a lot of people.  When the gospel is lived out the way Jesus taught it is life changing and transformative in a good way.

Thanks for asking and answer my question within a couple of paragraphs. It makes my job much easier.

I am here because it is place for me to discuss my concerns about religion and its byproducts. The various versions of belief effect my government, my economy, the social structure I live in. Religion kills my friends (in Iraq), my friends friends (on 9/11), and on a much more trite level, litters my front porch with bullshit and pamphlets.

If the gospel, fake as it is, indeed affected everyone in a positive way, my attitude might be much different. But the many christians I know have included thieves, liars, cheats and abusive parents. At a much higher rate than my non-theists friends and acquaintances. I of course have known some wonderful and honest people who were believers, but I've little doubt that they would have been just as wonderful and just as honest without a god in their lives. And while you have every reason to be proud that your forebearers finally stopped burning people at the stake and such, that doesn't mean that they started doing everything else right too.

Ancient ideas, highly modified by more recent adherents, foisted off on an unsuspecting planet, used as an excuse to kill or damn or just plain be unfriendly, and you want me to allow for it? I would, if beliefs could stay in the background. But when they are forced on us in the form of legislation, when adherence is expected of us in otherwise innocuous social situations, and when you guys want your  morals to be our morals, I have to speak up. And this site helps me abreast of the situation.

And of course, since I've only converted on theist to atheism here so far, I'm always on the lookout for number two.

Added: If I were proselytizing, I'd go to a believers site. I'd be harmless here if you guys didn't show up every once in awhile.
Well I'm sorry to hear that "christians" that you know account for more bad morals than the non-christians.  Those people sound like they've adopted the name but not the lifestyle.  That is NOT my experience where I live.  Not saying that Christians are perfect, but the Christians that I know are respectable people who give to the poor, do not steal, or hurt people intentionally, and are very good and loving parents.  The Christians that I know to be (Christians), are self evaluating types, who, when made aware that they've made a mistake or wronged someone, are contrite and are good about making things right.  That is what is preached at the pulpit of my church and what is talked about in my Christian circles.
Yes, I am serious.  I know a lot of good conscientious Christian people, who are not perfect but encapsulate these characteristics.   I meet meet with over 100 men every week who's goal is to live out this type of life.  I meet individually other men on the weekend, and our goal is to build each other up as men and believers in Christ.  Living out the gospel in humility and love for others.   

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2014, 10:19:13 PM »
I agree with PP for many reasons. And he responded to you in a similar manner that I would have myself.

The USA is supposed to be a country with Freedom of Religion and the belief in a god should not be a requirement to hold office. No one religion should be held in a higher regard of any other in this melting pot nation.

Christians demand prayer in school and those who do not participate, become harassed by students and faculty alike. Christians demand favors, and if anyone says they shouldn't be forced to participate in Christian Dogmatic Religious Rituals in a public government funded school. Christians cry out how they're being "persecuted." Christians in the US have no idea what persecution is. If christians want their forced upon school prayer instead of just a moment of silence for reflection/prayer, then what about the other religions whose voices are silenced, and not allowed representation by those very same "persecuted" Christians?

How would you feel if instead of a neutral free approach, like if you want bacon you can buy it if you want to, and no government official can demand you to buy it, but accomodate every religion[1] so what you'll get is this:
Bacon, Ham, Pork all outlawed because it violates Muslim beliefs.
Beef/Steak outlawed because it violates Hundu beliefs.
Anything with something that has been fermented in it, outlawed[2].
Everything must be Kosher.

This is just the food! This isn't about forcing religious morality on those who do not share those beliefs. Yet, Christians want to legislate thier morality upon everyone. So, should we accomadate every religion's morality? Or does religious morality and dietry issues have no busiess in legislature? Atheists aren't angry with God. They're angry when some believer tries to pass laws that make Santa and the Easter Bunny happy.

God has his reasons, eh? The, "I'm God and you're not, so just shut up and put up!" reason? His "reasons" and his "'plan"[3] mean nothing if he's not willing to share them. What good is it if only the director of a movie knows the script, when he calls out, "Action!"? Sure the director has his "reasons" but people would be more understand and willing if he shared them. In an emergency, life or death situation, reasons can be left for later or can become apparent later, but god having a "reason" to kill 1/3 of Europe in horrific deaths? Not including those in the trail from Asia. I think you're trying to rationalize why an All-Powerful, All-Loving God would pick a terrible way to do something instead of applying Occams Razor.
 1. cause if you support one, you've gotta support them all in a free nation
 2. already been tried once, we all should know how that worked out.
 3. I know you didn't say anything about "his plan" but I hear about it from Christians a lot.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 10:36:35 PM by Ivellios »

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #99 on: January 06, 2014, 03:49:01 AM »
... (something doesn't come from absolutely nothing)... 
No?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #100 on: January 06, 2014, 04:01:29 AM »
So that doesn't make me an idiot.  I'm not alone in my belief that human evolution may not be the case.  There are plenty of very smart people who don't believe in human evolution.   Your statement makes you sound rude, arrogant, and unwilling to have civil discourse. 
I was polite to you and never resorted to calling you names even though I disagree with you.   If you are able to present your views without name calling then we can continue.  If not, then tell me now and we can be done.

Oh purleease, get over yourself. When it comes down to human evolution, you and all these "very smart people" are idiots. I'm also an idiot about a plethora of things. I'm an idiot with regards to rocket science, with regards to electronics. Jeez, I'm even an idiot with regards to putting the washing machine on. If you can't handle being pulled up for being idiotic about a specific topic, and hide behind the typical, "oh you're just rude and can't have a civil discussion" tosh, then that's your beef. You should take the positives from being called stupid or idiotic, as it makes you reevaluate your current position.
I personally encourage being called out for it, and have no problem with calling others out for it either. I will not be covering you with fluffiness and lightness in order to appease your sensitivities. I would rather be honest with you.

Quote
It sounds like a lot of your objections are based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
I never said that there is human life without a soul.  You were suggesting that human life cannot exist without a soul to animate it.  I don't believe that is ever the case for human beings.  I base my belief on what the bible says, that God breathed life into Adam in the garden.  I take that to mean more than just a breath of O2 followed by a heartbeat.  I say that because the bible also speaks over and over about life after death.

Well I asked you a series of questions in my previous post so that you could clarify your position to aid understanding and perhaps make you think deeper about the position you hold, but you've not bothered to even attempt answering them.... and then have the gall to say I misunderstand you. I find your complete ignorant dismissal of civilly asked questions, and to cut out a vast amount of my post in your response, to be ruder than the "brutality" of being called an idiot.

Anyway, I'm still misunderstanding what you are saying here, as you appear contradictory as you've strewn what you've said with a double negative. You're now saying that you don't believe that it's ever the case that humans can't exist without a soul to animate it, which means you think that humans can exist without a soul, so therefore I was right to say that humans in this world currently have two lives? I think it would be better to just answer yes or no to the question of whether humans can be alive with just a body and no soul. So...?

Then there is again the question of why you would base your beliefs on what the bible says. It holds authority and is reliable because....... "it's god's word"? And you can come to that conclusion by doing what exactly?
 
Quote
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Kssssssssssshhhhh <white noise>

Quote
As far as animals go.  What I meant by "Soulish" qualities is that some animals can relate to human beings better than others.  It doesn't mean soul in the context that animals have eternal life.  So don't read more into that statement.  I don't know that the bible teaches anything about animals having souls like humans or an "analog" version of a soul.

Relate better in what way? I'm guessing it's to the qualities you regard as soul dependent, rather than say, for example, the ability to digest food. I only say this because, you see, I can get on fine with my life without a dog, but remove the bacteria from my gut and I'm screwed.

Perhaps you could also make a list of these soul qualities and explain, with evidence, why these qualities can't be a product of the nature you believe your god created.

Quote
Regardless, "nature alone" doesn't do anything without the Creator.

That's your assertion. Do you have any evidence that nature can't do anything (which would include existing) without a creator, or are you just basing this solely on your incredulity?

Quote
So I don't buy into the nature idea as if nature has a mind or a will to create something.  That is ridiculous to me, and in a negative way points me away from atheism to begin with.  It just goes against my common sense that a mindless, faceless, invisible quality that many people dub as "nature", can create things and produce the physical complexity that we can observe in our world, without an intelligent force behind it.  Sounds an awful lot like belief of something greater than ourselves like we find in religion.  If I choose religion, then I will call it that.  Since I do, then I choose Christianity for the reasons stated it the beginning of this thread.

Well we're back here again at your inability to envisage complexity arising without intelligence, yet you simultaneously believe that something that's simple in comparison, the soul, is also in need of an intelligence in order to exist - and the problem here is that this intelligence is also a soul. So what created god?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 04:04:49 AM by Ataraxia »
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2014, 05:04:35 PM »

Oh purleease, get over yourself. When it comes down to human evolution, you and all these "very smart people" are idiots. I'm also an idiot about a plethora of things. I'm an idiot with regards to rocket science, with regards to electronics. Jeez, I'm even an idiot with regards to putting the washing machine on. If you can't handle being pulled up for being idiotic about a specific topic, and hide behind the typical, "oh you're just rude and can't have a civil discussion" tosh, then that's your beef. You should take the positives from being called stupid or idiotic, as it makes you reevaluate your current position.
I personally encourage being called out for it, and have no problem with calling others out for it either. I will not be covering you with fluffiness and lightness in order to appease your sensitivities. I would rather be honest with you.

Well I asked you a series of questions in my previous post so that you could clarify your position to aid understanding and perhaps make you think deeper about the position you hold, but you've not bothered to even attempt answering them.... and then have the gall to say I misunderstand you. I find your complete ignorant dismissal of civilly asked questions, and to cut out a vast amount of my post in your response, to be ruder than the "brutality" of being called an idiot.

Anyway, I'm still misunderstanding what you are saying here, as you appear contradictory as you've strewn what you've said with a double negative. You're now saying that you don't believe that it's ever the case that humans can't exist without a soul to animate it, which means you think that humans can exist without a soul, so therefore I was right to say that humans in this world currently have two lives? I think it would be better to just answer yes or no to the question of whether humans can be alive with just a body and no soul. So...?

Well we're back here again at your inability to envisage complexity arising without intelligence, yet you simultaneously believe that something that's simple in comparison, the soul, is also in need of an intelligence in order to exist - and the problem here is that this intelligence is also a soul. So what created god?
Re: Your quote (in bold above)………. That’s exactly my point.  I didn’t say that.
Here’s my earlier quote: "I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive.  But the soul never dies. The body dies"
This statement does NOT say that the body dies without the soul.  As you misunderstood.  The soul only departs the body after the body is dead.  I don’t have any reason to think that God creates a human body without a soul or takes a soul out of a body before the body dies.   Part of what makes a human being (from a spiritual perspective) is that we always have a soul. 

Now, I answered you despite your attempt to rationalize name calling.  There’s no need for it. 
You should look up the word idiot vs. the word ignorant.  You should also look up the word “gall”, since it didn’t fit your sentence either.   

What makes you think a soul is simple in comparison to the complexity of physical life?  What basis would you arrive at that conclusion?   

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2014, 05:13:34 PM »
Ah, yes, Patrick but what are you calling dead. Medical science can keep people alive for years with machines but with thier brain non-functioning they are dead, completely, just with a heart beating. Like Ariel Sharon who has been 'dead' for 8 years. Does god have a soul hanging in there with an animated dead body for years on end?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2014, 05:32:08 PM »
Does the soul leave the body when the breathing stops, when the heart stops or when the brain stops?

It occurs to me that this question is a less fun version of "If a dying Vulcan puts his katrya into a dolphin, will it forget how to swim?" I swear, talking to religious people reminds me of being at the Star Trek conventions back in the 70's and 80's when I was a Trekkie. Main difference being that most of us Trekkies knew that the Star Trek universe was made up, and that we were all just pretending to believe in it for the weekend.

Wait a minute... ;D

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4588
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2014, 07:49:17 PM »
Ahhhh PH like the other Christians who contribute on these boards I was wondering how long it would take for you to declare other Christians as Christian in name only.

 We can look back through the ages at Christianity and see a simple pattern,as we impove our situation  through innovation the old ways become less appealing and useful. The acts of Christians also become less disturbing. Slavery murder,torture become things that disgust the modern Christian,yet were part of Christian life at a time in its history.

 You can't win with this "true Christian" argument  because you can't clearly define Christianity,it is forever changing entity. As we move forward as a species,Christianity must also move along with humanity. If Christianity still held slavery,witch burning,sexism,racism among other practices it has ABANDONED long ago,would it still be here today?

 Of course you can look at the fastest growing religion,currently Islam who have embraced sexism,racism,torture,murder and wonder if Christianity did the right thing staying current to the changes in the modern world.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4588
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2014, 07:52:45 PM »
Ah, yes, Patrick but what are you calling dead. Medical science can keep people alive for years with machines but with thier brain non-functioning they are dead, completely, just with a heart beating. Like Ariel Sharon who has been 'dead' for 8 years. Does god have a soul hanging in there with an animated dead body for years on end?
there are no Jews in heaven are there? Heaven is a Christian construct. Funny how he forgot to include his original followers in the eternal bliss of heaven.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2014, 01:17:21 AM »
Ah, yes, Patrick but what are you calling dead. Medical science can keep people alive for years with machines but with thier brain non-functioning they are dead, completely, just with a heart beating. Like Ariel Sharon who has been 'dead' for 8 years. Does god have a soul hanging in there with an animated dead body for years on end?
there are no Jews in heaven are there? Heaven is a Christian construct. Funny how he forgot to include his original followers in the eternal bliss of heaven.
If so, then why did Jesus tell the story of the rich man and Lazarus?  He was speaking to Jews who understood the idea of an afterlife.
Why did Paul say that Abraham (patriarch of Jewish people) was saved or "counted as righteous"?  Why was the gospel first preached to the Jews, then to everyone else?  The first Christians were Jews converted to the gospel, but not leaving their belief in God as one God.  Christ fulfilled the law, and revealed that He was eternal with God.  Therefore, the Jewish believers could understand that belief in Him as Messiah, Son of God, didn't contradict their original belief of monotheism. 

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2014, 03:43:39 AM »

You're now saying that you don't believe that it's ever the case that humans can't exist without a soul to animate it, which means you think that humans can exist without a soul

Re: Your quote (in bold above)………. That’s exactly my point.  I didn’t say that.

You didn't need to as it can be extrapolated that this is the case from what you have said.
 
Quote
Here’s my earlier quote: "I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive. But the soul never dies. The body dies"

So the human body can be alive without the soul, otherwise it's meaningless to say that the body dies when the soul doesn't. Death is the cessation of life. You've put it that the soul and body are joined as long as the body is alive, not that the body is alive as long as there is a soul joined to it. What else is there to conclude apart from that what you actually believe is that the human body can be alive without a soul.

Quote
This statement does NOT say that the body dies without the soul.  As you misunderstood.  The soul only departs the body after the body is dead.  I don’t have any reason to think that God creates a human body without a soul or takes a soul out of a body before the body dies.   Part of what makes a human being (from a spiritual perspective) is that we always have a soul.

All I'm trying to establish is whether or not you believe the human body is classed as living by itself, without a soul. With your continued use of saying that "the body dies", you are inadvertently saying that the body can be alive. So, as I have said before, humans are alive twice in this world, with a living body and a living soul which can continue to be alive even when the body is no longer living. Therefore, the human body does not need a soul to animate it in order for it to be alive.
Whether humans always have a soul or not is irrelevant to whether the body is alive with or without one.
 
Quote
Now, I answered you despite your attempt to rationalize name calling.

Is this where I'm supposed to feel privileged?

Quote
There’s no need for it.

This is an internet forum, not a formal debate. True, I can easily still make my point by saying that you are mistaken, but I find it that monumental that I consider you idiotic. It's personal preference, I suppose. Like I said, I have no problem with mild ad homs as I'd rather tell you straight than give you a sugar coated version.
 
Quote
You should look up the word idiot vs. the word ignorant.

Why? Is this you admitting that you are ignorant towards the knowledge gained  regarding human evolution via natural processes?

Quote
You should also look up the word “gall”, since it didn’t fit your sentence either.

Yes it does. Perhaps but this down to dialect, as it is common parlance for me.   

Quote
What makes you think a soul is simple in comparison to the complexity of physical life?  What basis would you arrive at that conclusion?

Due to the idea that it's believed that because physicality is so complex that it requires an intelligence behind it - an intelligence that therefore can't be physical itself otherwise it would suffer from the same problem of complexity and also require an intelligence behind it. There would have to come a point where something is so simple that it wouldn't require an intelligence to be behind it - that would be your unmoved mover, the eternal being...., god.
If you believe differently and you don't think the soul is simple in comparison to physical life (and there you go again finding life without a soul), then fair enough, but that leads you to the complexity conclusion you have drawn where a soul would also require a designer. Perhaps you don't believe god is a soul, or if he is, then he's a different kind of soul to the ones he creates for humans, but then I'd like to see you justify that without special pleading.
However, if you do believe souls are simple, then you're complexity argument falls flat on its face, because you simultaneously believe that even simple things require an intelligent designer.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4588
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2014, 01:10:20 PM »
PH ... That's all NT stuff reffering to a heaven  trying to get old followers away from  God and over to Jesus requires an incentive. Had the NT been written as the life of the messiah unfolded or shortly after  "death and resurrection " of this messiah Jews  would be Christians now.  The fact that books of the NT were written centuries after Jesus may be in fact why Jews  are still Jews
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2014, 01:15:22 PM »
there are no Jews in heaven are there? Heaven is a Christian construct. Funny how he forgot to include his original followers in the eternal bliss of heaven.

It is all so confusing.  I mean, most of you know much more about the bible than I do.  But didn't Jesus turn water into wine at somebody's wedding, so that the guests would all have a good time?  I mean, they were all jews.  Seems kind of odd that he would give them a good, wine-filled party, and then condemn them to hell.  Doesn't it? 


Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1266
  • Darwins +380/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #110 on: January 08, 2014, 11:53:23 PM »
So in order to understand my points for belief in God, you would first have to accept something that I believe is true.  That mankind is made up of more than just the physical.  We have other dimensions to us.  Love, music, art, self sacrifice, laughter, sadness, and all of these expressions (and more) tell me that we are more than just tangible.  We have qualities like higher level thinking and a consciousness that causes us to ask why am I here?  Where did I come from?  Where am I going?

These are the basic questions that every philosophy and religion in the history of the world has wrestled with, and proposed answers to.  I don't see any reason to make the immediate leap from "Huh.  Fascinating questions" to "Therefore, the Bible must be true!"  It would be quite the stroke of luck if the predominant religion of the region and culture you just happened to be born in also just happened to be the one with all the correct answers to the questions of life!  Wouldn't it?  If you are uncomfortable with the "random chance" element of evolutionary theory, shouldn't you also be uncomfortable with the idea of assuming that American Protestantism is true just because you happened to be born into the milieu of American Protestantism? 

Obviously, taking the answers of the local predominant religion doesn't work as a method of discovering truth because...think of all those other poor bastards born in other places and times, with other predominant religions and philosophies!  If you had been born under the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III, I guarantee you, "Christianity!" would not have been the answer to those questions you would have found.

So, the first thing that must be done when beginning a process of inquiry into these questions, is to seek out a method or methods that work for the purpose of answering questions, discovering facts, and identifying errors in one's own thinking.  "Defend the religion I was born into" demonstrably does not work, as shown by the existence of all those people born into religions and philosophies you think are wrong, wrong, wrong.  So far, the methods that have shown themselves to work best are: observation, logic, and science practiced under a rubric of reciprocal accountability.  "Reciprocal accountability" is the process by which ideas (world views, political polices, scientific theories, products for sale, claims that a given person is guilty of a crime, etc.) are subject to the critical scrutiny of others, who are free to shoot them down. 

This is the underlying principle of how the world's most successful science (peer review, replication of observation and experiments by skeptical scientists), courts (adversarial trial-by-jury with guaranteed access to professional legal representation), government (political leaders regularly subject to democratic elections, checks-and-balances, and debate of their policy proposals), and markets (free competition by multiple enterprises with a government referee to prevent the formation of cartels, monopolies, systematic cheating by the powerful, etc.) work.  Of course these things don't work perfectly.  Nothing human does.  But...the way we find out they don't work perfectly, and try to make them work better is: science, logic, and reciprocal accountability. 

Have you noticed that religions as a rule, never use these tools?  How they always try to put something or someone (or both) above questioning and criticism?
 
Observations like this leads me to believe that we are more than just evolved beasts.  That we are not random chance beings whose ancestors crawled out of a primordial soup and eventually become man.  I don't see the evolutionary reason or even the possibility of evolution "needing to" create those intangible qualities (as if evolution itself had a brain and a motive).

I could just as easily say, "Observations like this lead me to believe that we are more than just automatons made to tend a garden (Gen. 2:15).  That we were not made to just munch fruit and obey orders, or herd goats in the desert.  I don't see the design reason or even the possibility of a deity 'needing to' create those intangible qualities [e.g. ability to perform calculus or build spaceships] in order to have people to bow down to it and sing its praises."  And the truth is, I don't.  Any deity capable of creating a hundred billion galaxies with a thought has no conceivable use for human sycophants.

1. I see evidence of good and evil

This does not provide evidence for Christianity.  The "Argument From Evil" is actually one of the main evidences against the existence of an all-powerful, all-good creator deity with omnimax attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence).  Leaping straight to Christianity here also represents a fallacy of Locating the Hypothesis.  More on this below. 

2. I have reason to believe in the authenticity of the bible

Not sure what you mean by "authenticity of the Bible" here.  If you're arguing something along the lines of, "The Bible said that Nineveh was real; the archaeologists thought it was a myth until they found it, therefore the Bible is God's infallible Word!," that is no more to the point than assuming that because Troy and Mycenae were found, therefore the Goddess Athena must exist.  Again, you're jumping straight to the Bible for no apparent reason.  Have you tested the Upanishads for authenticity?  Locating the Hypothesis again.


3. The bible also admits the problem of good and evil
4. The bible states that the ability for good and evil exists in people.  Which I see evidence of.

Outside of, maybe, a few hand-wringing French Existentialists and postmodernist academics, you'd have a hard time finding any philosophical or religious text that doesn't admit the problem of good and evil, and state that good and evil exist in people.  If you're guessing that I'll mention "Locating the Hypothesis" again here, you'd be right.

 
5. The bible states that mankind needs to be taught what good and evil are.  Otherwise, if left to their own devices, man will deviate into a place where he hurts and destroys himself and others around him. I see evidence of this throughout history and in today's world.

See my response to #4 above.

But ultimately a society without God's rules for living written in their hearts, will decay.  Therefore God in the bible shows us that we are lost without Him.

And yet, somehow, the Japanese, the Swedes and Finns and Danes manage just fine without ordering their societies along the lines of a Biblical Sharia.  In terms of measurable criteria of social health (crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, happiness levels, social equality, infant mortality, etc.) such secular societies routinely outperform religious societies like the U.S.  Within the U.S., the more secular "blue" states outperform the more religious "red" states.  As far as we can tell from actual observation, we are better off "without Him."  For that matter, the ancient Egyptians, Minoans, etc.--not to mention hunter-gatherer cultures that measured their continuation in tens of thousands of years--seem to have managed alright without the Bible.

Furthermore, what exactly are "God's rules for living" anyway?  No eating shrimp wrapped in bacon?  No use of blended-fiber cloth?  Picking up sticks on a Saturday should be a capital offense (Numbers 15:32-36)?  No, wait, we ignore all that stuff nowadays, don't we?  You know, the places where the Bible actually lays out a code of law and jurisprudence.  Instead, we come up with a set of "rules for living" we like better (don't be gay, don't be a woman, and cut taxes on the rich) and then say those are in the Bible as "God's rules for living."  How many Christians these days actually obey the things the Jesus of the Gospels said about money?   Well, if we're going to come up with our own rules anyway, we might as well use the methods I outlined above and stop using Yahweh as a ventriloquist dummy.

Locating the Hypothesis

I mentioned the concept of "Locating the Hypothesis" a few times.  When we are trying to answer a question, and are confronted with a large possibility space of potential answers, it is fallacious to select one particular hypothesis out for focused attention without having sufficient evidence to do so.  Over and over again, you leap straight to [your interpretation of] the Bible without first providing any evidence that it, and not some other ancient holy book or none, should be privileged as the one worthy of consideration.

Quote
To see the problem of privileging the hypothesis, suppose that the police in Largeville, a town with a million inhabitants, are investigating a murder in which there are few or no clues - the victim was stabbed to death in an alley, and there are no fingerprints and no witnesses.

Then, one of the detectives says, "Well... we have no idea who did it... no particular evidence singling out any of the million people in this city... but let's consider the possibility that this murder was committed by Mortimer Q. Snodgrass, who lives at 128 Ordinary Ln."

If the detective does not have evidence already in hand to justify singling out Mortimer for such special and individual attention, then this is, or ought to be, a violation of Mortimer's civil rights.

You have provided no reason to immediately select "the Bible" as the one hypothesis worthy of consideration, no evidence that you ever went through any process of inquiry where you considered the merits of the Vedas and the Pyramid Texts and the Pupul Vuh and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics[/url] and the writings of Confucius, etc. before finally hitting upon the Bible as the best and most rational understanding.  You've shown no evidence of having a method of inquiry that lead you to choosing "the Bible" other than "being born at a particular place and time." 

6. Other religions are self serving in that they try to control their followers.  If practiced correctly, Christianity allows people to choose.

Oh, sure.  But if you "choose" wrong, you BURN FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER IN EXQUISITE FIERY TORMENT!!!!  Nice soul ya got there.  It'd be a shame if something happened to it.  Capiche?

As Joshua said "choose for yourself this day whom you will serve".

Joshua, the Adolf Hitler of the Bible, whose sword (if the legends were true) dripped with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people, including women, children, and infants killed for the "crime" of "choosing" (well, being born into) a different religion, offering people a "choice?"  Do you really, honestly think that anyone in his audience would have felt (much less actually been) safe to say, "Actually, now that you mention it, I think I'd rather go worship Asherah in that sacred grove of trees over there.  Thanks, bye"?


Jesus said "behold I stand at the door and knock, if any one opens the door I will come into Him and dwell".

*Knock knock*
"Who's there?"
"It's Jesus.  You need to let me in so I can save you!"
"From what?"
"From what I'm gonna do to you if you don't let me in!"


7. There is a law of nature that says all sin must be paid for with a price.  Similar to the first law of thermodynamics in physics, there is a spiritual law in a sense that we can see manifest itself here in the natural realm.  If people steal, lie, covet, murder, there is a price to be paid, by someone.  Either the victim or the perpetrator pays the price of the activity. 
8. Christ came to pay the price for the sins of the world.

So, if somebody murders a loved one of yours, but then they "accept Jesus," you're OK with them serving no jail time for the murder, right?  Because Jesus "paid the price" for their "sin," obviously you can't be still "paying the price" as measured in the loss of your loved one, and we can't expect the perpetrator to "pay the price" as measured in a life sentence in jail.  Right?

Of course I expect you won't agree.  That's because what you're doing here is conflating actual things (real costs incurred as a result of crime) with religious abstractions like "sin" and "Jesus paying a price" by "dying" (but not really--there was never only two members of the Trinity, right?) in a story.  The two are not the same at all, and it doesn't work to treat them that way.  So no, the Bible doesn't get to be a new principle of thermodynamics.

9.  The offer of salvation being a free gift through faith,

Bollocks.  You earn your "salvation" the exact same way you used to earn an A in school.  If Christian "salvation" was actually a "free gift," then the blank in the following sentence: "In order to be saved, you must ___________" would stay blank.

is not something that I see men who wrote books in the bible at different points in time, could have come up with on their own, without collaboration.

Because there's no freakin' way the guys who wrote the later books could ever have read the earlier books, right?

It is not self serving especially when considering the time and culture in which they lived.

Bollocks.  Getting your "salvation" for "free" (by having the right set of beliefs, i.e., getting the right answers on the Celestial Quiz), you get the best of both worlds.  You get to be part of the extra-special in-group that's going to Heaven while all of "those people" (the pagans, gays, Jews, uppity women, Vile Heretics who believe most of the same things you do but disagree on a few doctrines, etc.) Burn In Hell.  But you don't have to actually work at it to earn the privilege.  Jews had to obey a long list of rules in order to be on the Inside Track.  If the Gospels are to be believed, Jesus came along and made Judaism even harder--it wasn't enough just to not commit fornication, you had to not even think about it!  But then along comes Saul of Tarsus, and he says nah, don't worry about any of that, just believe The Right Things, and you're golden!

Nah, that's not self-serving at all!  Guys who wanted to worship the Goddess Cybele had to chop. their. balls. off!  Talk about a religion "nobody would make up!"

10.  Christ had a huge impact on the world.

No he didn't.  During his (alleged) existence, nobody noticed he was even there except for his tiny band of followers.  No contemporary writer mentions him or any "huge impact" he had.  He doesn't even have a "huge impact" in the New Testament.  Just compare how much space is taken up with his words (a red letter Bible is helpful here) vs. how much space is taken up with the words of Paul, a guy who never even met the man.  Or for that matter, all the space taken up with painstaking descriptions of the Tabernacle, the bowls and furniture and altars to be used in it, the garments of the priests, and so on.  In his 33 years of life, Jesus never had anything else to say that might have been more deserving of "making the cut" than all that stuff?  Really?

The world's calendar for example is based on His birth. Major holidays around His birth and resurrection.

The major holidays (Saturnalia, Easter, etc.) existed prior to their assimilation into Christianity.  The dominance of the Gregorian calendar in today's world is due to Guns, Germs, and Steel, not how awesomesauce Jesus was.  Native Americans: "Hey, this Jesus fellow was really great, wasn't he?  Let's toss our calendar and adopt his!"  Sorry, but that never happened.

 
11.  Men who knew Him where martyred and persecuted because of their faith in Him.

Stories--and I might add, Roman Catholic stories that aren't in the Bible, say that Jesus' disciples were martyred because of their faith in him.  Also, lots and lots and lots of people die for their religions.  That doesn't make their religions true.

     
12.  I have had sin in my own life and Christ has changed me.  My belief in Him has caused me to love God for the free gift of salvation that He has given me. This in turn gives me a desire to avoid sin and things that lead to sin.  Because of a love for God.

This is nice, but Christianity is hardly the only belief-system that can be "life-changing."  Realizing that Jesus was not "in control," heading up to the Bridge to see that he wasn't at the wheel, and taking control and responsibility for my own life was the best thing I ever did.  I wish I had made that realization, and that decision much earlier.  Atheism has changed me and turned my life around.  Does that make atheism true?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 12:05:22 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6412
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #111 on: January 09, 2014, 04:45:23 PM »
Aaaaaaaaand resounding silence from PH.

I think we have to declare kcrady the winner. Pass the awesomesauce. :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1260
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #112 on: January 10, 2014, 02:38:58 AM »
Massively excelent post kcrady.

is not something that I see men who wrote books in the bible at different points in time, could have come up with on their own, without collaboration.

Because there's no freakin' way the guys who wrote the later books could ever have read the earlier books, right?

Man, this in particular, you just HAVE to love.
You guys remember venomfangx, right, the youtube nutcase?
There used to be this video, which got conveniently lost on one of the occasions of him leaving youtube for good, where he explains that he first was a jew, then became an Atheist[1] and then discovered all these 'fullfilled' prophecies, was astounded by the fact that the people who wrote the gospels also knew how to read[2] and turned christian.
Seriously, that's the reason one of the most notorious creationist on youtube became christian in the first place ... because people who write can also read.

The world's calendar for example is based on His birth. Major holidays around His birth and resurrection.

The major holidays (Saturnalia, Easter, etc.) existed prior to their assimilation into Christianity.  The dominance of the Gregorian calendar in today's world is due to Guns, Germs, and Steel, not how awesomesauce Jesus was.  Native Americans: "Hey, this Jesus fellow was really great, wasn't he?  Let's toss our calendar and adopt his!"  Sorry, but that never happened.
 1. Because when you're an Atheist, god can't see you sin ... his words, not mine
 2. it's a miracle!!!

Isn't it funny that PH wrote his assertion on the day of the moon? Is he a moon worshipper?
And kcrady answered him on Wodan's day.
Hey, PH, what's your birthday? Hope it's not in the third month, because people might think you worship the Roman gods.

For instance, I'm writing this on Freya's day Janus' month 1010[3] of the year 2014[4] of the Common Era[5] at 810:1410[6] before the passing of the merridian.

So, the world's calendar, or today at least, is one part Norse mythology, one part Roman mythology, half a part Islamic math, half a part Hindu math, one part Christian mythology, two parts Science convention and one part Sumerian math.
(you'll notice I didn't assign credit for the 12 hour system ... there are just too many claimants to list them all)

Edit: annotation system seems to have gone wonky ... can't seem to get it to behave
 3. base ten is of course a Hindu/Islamic construct
 4. Yes!!! finally we have a part of the calendar that IS related to christianity
 5. seriously who uses that AD shit anymore
 6. How many minutes in an hour again? Oh, right, 60 and base 60 arithmatic, we owe to the Sumerians
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 02:45:34 AM by Fiji »
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #113 on: January 10, 2014, 01:47:23 PM »

You're now saying that you don't believe that it's ever the case that humans can't exist without a soul to animate it, which means you think that humans can exist without a soul

Re: Your quote (in bold above)………. That’s exactly my point.  I didn’t say that.

You didn't need to as it can be extrapolated that this is the case from what you have said.
 
Quote
Here’s my earlier quote: "I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive. But the soul never dies. The body dies"

So the human body can be alive without the soul, otherwise it's meaningless to say that the body dies when the soul doesn't. Death is the cessation of life. You've put it that the soul and body are joined as long as the body is alive, not that the body is alive as long as there is a soul joined to it. What else is there to conclude apart from that what you actually believe is that the human body can be alive without a soul.

Quote
This statement does NOT say that the body dies without the soul.  As you misunderstood.  The soul only departs the body after the body is dead.  I don’t have any reason to think that God creates a human body without a soul or takes a soul out of a body before the body dies.   Part of what makes a human being (from a spiritual perspective) is that we always have a soul.

All I'm trying to establish is whether or not you believe the human body is classed as living by itself, without a soul. With your continued use of saying that "the body dies", you are inadvertently saying that the body can be alive. So, as I have said before, humans are alive twice in this world, with a living body and a living soul which can continue to be alive even when the body is no longer living. Therefore, the human body does not need a soul to animate it in order for it to be alive.
Whether humans always have a soul or not is irrelevant to whether the body is alive with or without one.
 
Quote
Now, I answered you despite your attempt to rationalize name calling.

Is this where I'm supposed to feel privileged?

Quote
There’s no need for it.

This is an internet forum, not a formal debate. True, I can easily still make my point by saying that you are mistaken, but I find it that monumental that I consider you idiotic. It's personal preference, I suppose. Like I said, I have no problem with mild ad homs as I'd rather tell you straight than give you a sugar coated version.
 
Quote
You should look up the word idiot vs. the word ignorant.

Why? Is this you admitting that you are ignorant towards the knowledge gained  regarding human evolution via natural processes?

Quote
You should also look up the word “gall”, since it didn’t fit your sentence either.

Yes it does. Perhaps but this down to dialect, as it is common parlance for me.   

Quote
What makes you think a soul is simple in comparison to the complexity of physical life?  What basis would you arrive at that conclusion?

Due to the idea that it's believed that because physicality is so complex that it requires an intelligence behind it - an intelligence that therefore can't be physical itself otherwise it would suffer from the same problem of complexity and also require an intelligence behind it. There would have to come a point where something is so simple that it wouldn't require an intelligence to be behind it - that would be your unmoved mover, the eternal being...., god.
If you believe differently and you don't think the soul is simple in comparison to physical life (and there you go again finding life without a soul), then fair enough, but that leads you to the complexity conclusion you have drawn where a soul would also require a designer. Perhaps you don't believe god is a soul, or if he is, then he's a different kind of soul to the ones he creates for humans, but then I'd like to see you justify that without special pleading.
However, if you do believe souls are simple, then you're complexity argument falls flat on its face, because you simultaneously believe that even simple things require an intelligent designer.

It’s funny to me that you are telling me what I believe based on your flawed logic. 
Here’s the problem with your thinking:  You are equating God, who is an eternal being to all other things which whether complex or not, are made by Him and therefore have a beginning.  If God is material like us, then I could understand your point.  But God is not made, He is the maker.  God is the beginning of all and the end of all.  While finite beings cannot completely understand this, we can conceive it and believe it.  I do by using two things that I perceieve exist…..my brain and my heart.  My brain says that physical matter cannot exist eternally.  My heart, which is that part that is made in the image of God, my soul,  says that there is something bigger than myself and Jesus revealed who that is.  There is another main issue, and that is the issue of sin.  I know that myself and all other humans are sinners.  I can see the results of sin and the damage it does to people.  So being made in the image of God, I realize that I need God but cannot get to him because I’ve sinned against Him.  I therefore need to be reconciled back to Him.  I’m not proving these things in the scientific way that you want me to because that is a box.  There is more to it than the box atheists try to confine this argument to. 

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1265
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #114 on: January 10, 2014, 02:55:23 PM »

It’s funny to me that you are telling me what I believe based on your flawed logic.

You've provided no examples of how Ataraxia's logic is flawed.  Here, let me demonstrate...
 
Quote
Here’s the problem with your thinking:  You are equating God, who is an eternal being to all other things which whether complex or not,

Logical fallacy: special pleading.  why does god get to be the only eternal being?  if you accept in infinitely complex being who created the universe as being causeless, why not accept the possibility of the universe (less complex than god) being causeless?

Quote
are made by Him and therefore have a beginning. 

Logical fallacy: begging the question.  How do you know god created everything?  (actually, this might not be a good example of "begging the question," I'll take corrections here)

Quote
If God is material like us, then I could understand your point.  But God is not made, He is the maker.  God is the beginning of all and the end of all.  While finite beings cannot completely understand this, we can conceive it and believe it.

Ambiguity.  If we can't understand it, wtf???

Quote
  I do by using two things that I perceieve exist…..my brain and my heart.  My brain says that physical matter cannot exist eternally.  My heart, which is that part that is made in the image of God, my soul...

Logical fallacy: begging the question.  How do you know your heart, which contains your soul (apparently) is the part that's made in the image of god?

Quote
  says that there is something bigger than myself

Logical fallacy: anecdotal.  What you think/feel is not evidence of anything except that you think/feel stuff.

Quote
and Jesus revealed who that is.  There is another main issue, and that is the issue of sin.  I know that myself and all other humans are sinners.  I can see the results of sin and the damage it does to people.  So being made in the image of God, I realize that I need God but cannot get to him because I’ve sinned against Him.  I therefore need to be reconciled back to Him.

Ummm...I'm sure there's at least one fallacy in there somewhere, but I can't really understand it, so...

Quote
  I’m not proving these things in the scientific way that you want me to because that is a box.  There is more to it than the box atheists try to confine this argument to.

Logical fallacy: strawman.  We are trying to logically assess your claims of a supernatural being using the only tools at our disposal, rather than resorting to unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims of supernatural intervention.

Edited: stupid quoting errors
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 04:40:09 PM by Boots »
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: for Patrick Henry - what evidence is there that god really exists?
« Reply #115 on: January 10, 2014, 03:22:39 PM »
I slightly disagree Boots


It’s funny to me that you are telling me what I believe based on your flawed logic. 
Here’s the problem with your thinking:  You are equating God, who is an eternal being(1) to all other things which whether complex or not, are made by Him and therefore have a beginning(2).  If God is material like us, then I could understand your point.  But God is not made, He is the maker.  God is the beginning of all and the end of all(1).  While finite beings cannot completely understand this, we can conceive it and believe it(1).  I do by using two things that I perceieve exist…..my brain and my heart(1).  My brain says that physical matter cannot exist eternally.  My heart, which is that part that is made in the image of God, my soul(1),  says that there is something bigger than myself and Jesus revealed who that is(1).  There is another main issue, and that is the issue of sin.  I know that myself and all other humans are sinners(1).  I can see the results of sin and the damage it does to people(1).  So being made in the image of God(1), I realize that I need God but cannot get to him because I’ve sinned against Him(1).  I therefore need to be reconciled back to Him(1).  I’m not proving these things in the scientific way that you want me to because that is a box.  There is more to it than the box atheists try to confine this argument to.(2)


(1)Circular reasoning/Begging the Question
(2)Special pleading
(3)Appeal to ignorance

When I started this I didn't expect almost everything he said to be Circular reason, after the third (1) I marked, it got kind of funny.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 03:25:19 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.