Does God exist?

[infoterror]

More accurately the question is, does something beyond the physical exist?

Dualistic, or adualistic?

The latter, definitely: organizational schemes are not physical, but perceptions of order.

 

[Kenneth R.]

So no I don't get it.

how do those similarities prove anything? they don't. you have no way to prove that those fictional correlations ever existed. and once again, i disagree. the Bible is in my opinion a very important historical document.

 

[RookParliament]

It may be an important historical document, but as to accurately portraying history it fails. Its been mistranslated and edited for centuries according to the agendas of men.

What fictional correlations? Do you mean the holidays. Well Christmas Dec 25 was actually the Persian god Mithras holy day. The same Mithras who was the most popular god of the Roman soldiers. Christians took his holy day and put it as their savior's birthday to gain pagan recruits.

Where we diverge is that you take your Bible as the truth. So for you of course all the answers lie in there in the words of (the never proven to have existed) Jesus. However I look at it as the culture itself was patriarichal so the beliefs as they evolved into Judaism had a deity that was characteristically male. The majority of cultures that Christianity took root in its early days were male-dominated patriarchies. So of course the New Testament god would also be a man, whatever interpretation of the Biblical passages you would like to give.

You seem to think that Christianity is a closed belief system that emerged immaculate and has never been influenced by other belief system, and has never changed.

 

[Kenneth R.]

You seem to think that Christianity is a closed belief system that emerged immaculate and has never been influenced by other belief system, and has never changed.

1. very early versions in aramaic have been discovered and translated by scholars so any "editing" over the years has no effect on these original versions that have been found.

2. i am well aware of the customs and dates associated with the religion present in Rome at the time of Christ. don't patronize me as ignorant, you can draw as many correlations as you want, but no number of them can prove that the one is related to the other unless you dig up the ones who set such changes and ask them.

3. about what i quoted above, yes i believe it is self-originating with some Jewish influence as Jesus was a Jew, though it is a seperate entity from judaism. i also believe that it has not changed over time at all. the teachings and meaning of the words on pages and lessons passed down have not changed at all. people have taken to misuse and misinterpret these things for their own selfish desires and THAT is what has changed. it is incompatible with christianity, those who do such things are not christians.

 

[RookParliament]

I suppose I'll just stop now as we are obviously on two completely different wavelengths so to speak. Well I hope it has kept you entertained for a little while at least. :Spin:

Its so strange how I just got sucked into this one thread

 

[Kenneth R.]

indeed, i enjoy debate, likewise.

 

[SoundMaster]

i believe it (Christiantiy) is self-originating with some Jewish influence...

The understatement of a lifetime!

 

[infoterror]

The understatement of a lifetime!

Most Christianity is a yarmulke... Europeans have been trying to fix it for a thousand years now!

 

[Kenneth R.]

i don't see anything requiring fixing about it. i do see a great deal to be fixed with the way people interpret and present it.

 

[SunMontage]

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

 

[Kenneth R.]

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

interesting story. i don't buy it though. besides, posting random links without a word of explanation as to why is hardly a good way to present an argument. i maintan that the problem lies not with christianity but of the misinterpretation and misrepresenation of it to the vast majority of people.

 

[SunMontage]

interesting story. i don't buy it though.

Ha! I doubt you even read it.

besides, posting random links without a word of explanation as to why is hardly a good way to present an argument.

Besides, it's a hardly a random link and contains many years of scholarly research which would place anything you bring to the table to rest.

i maintan that the problem lies not with christianity but of the misinterpretation and misrepresenation of it to the vast majority of people.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god exists.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Ha! I doubt you even read it.

Besides, it's a hardly a random link and contains many years of scholarly research which would place anything you bring to the table to rest.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god exists.

1. i read a good deal, yes. doubt all you like.

2. it IS a random link. i made a statement, and you posted a link in response, with NO explanation at ALL. that is random. what intent? what do you seek to prove with it? it is further only loosely connected to my statement, which enhances the random nature. furthermore i wholeheartedly disagree such an article can "place anything you bring to the table to rest". it does not.

3. nor does your link, nor the current topic of discussion. the thread has strayed from the title topic in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Mormagil]

i maintan that the problem lies not with christianity but of the misinterpretation and misrepresenation of it to the vast majority of people.

I agree somewhat, but if something is misinterpreted and misrepresented by nearly everyone for several centuries, when do you say "enough" and just throw it out?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Well I think the concept of the monothiestic "all powerful, all loving, omnipotent, omnipresent" god is extremely flawed. The bottom line is there can not be a perfect creator in a universe in which inperfection exists, because an imperfect thought is neccasary to create imperfection. How can an perfect mind have a perfect thought? One could argue that our minds are too underdeveloped to understand the "grande scheme" this god has created, but once again this means we would have an imperfect from of comprehension and imperfection would still exist. So yeah I think the whole universality of such a god causes the concept to self destruct.

Personally I don't really believe a given entinity created the universe, though I do tend to believe that the bond between each element in existance is much stronger then it is typically persented as. Pantheism? Perhaps. But I personally don't see any elite seperate "god" that is above and beyond the rest of nature, nor do I see much empyrical or logical evidence for its existance.

 

[bornlivedie]

The saddest thing about the question of the existence of (any) god is that it is far more easy than people pretend it is. God or Creator is a too abstract word and quite much by definition you can't prove or disprove the existance of such a thing. That's where the bloody Christians sneak in and pretend that god=God. The fact that a supernatural force can't be disproven doesn't mean that the Christian God can't be disproven! I take it's secure to say that at least God doesn't exist.

I think it's that easy: The Christian God is proven wrong because the bible is proven wrong. The whole fairy-tale of Genesis can't be true by scientific standards. Don't tell me it's figural. That's only the first step, just speak it out: it's made up = not real! If your answer is: "The bible IS only figurative for the moral and leaves space to scientific research because it's not meant to be scientific.", think twice: You still claim that God is real and NOT only figurative. That's double standard. Either you admit that the Genesis including the Creator is just a fairy-tale or you have to take the whole package: God exists only as the God that made men of clay. A Christian who believes that the stories of the bible are a disguise for for the moral, is one who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

It really goes down to: Who is right - the bible or science? If you believe that science is wrong, then you staring at a screen right now must be an illusion. That we have working computers, tv-sets, satellites, planes and everything is prove enough that science is if not true, then at least "good wrong". Anyhow, it's better than the bible.

If someone still believes the bible to be true opposed to science, that person's either stupid or blind (and stupid). I can't think of anything more to say.

My first point remains: you can't disprove the existance of a supernatural being. But why would you want to prove either? Why waste time on it? I see no reason to believe in such a thing. For me I can say that I'm an atheist. But that doesn't say anything about my belief system. If you say that it takes faith in not believing in God or any god, that's flawed. Then it also takes faith not to believe in unicorns and Hobbits and witches and a giant cucumber that created the world. Whatever you make up that's only part of YOUR belief system, not mine. What I don't believe in doesn't desribe what I believe in.

Concerning Christianity I can only say I find the whole concepts, the commandments, the moral and the rules to be flawed, false, destructive and evil. To quote Steven Wilson: "Fuck you and your fucked up book you can have it back".


The whole punchline is given best by Isaac Asimov:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

 

[NeverIsForever]

To quote Steven Wilson: "Fuck you and your fucked up book you can have it back".

He actually said that?
that guy is awesome

 

[SunMontage]

2. it IS a random link. i made a statement, and you posted a link in response, with NO explanation at ALL. that is random. what intent? what do you seek to prove with it?

I DIDN'T POST IT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR STATEMENT!!! Your statements are rarely worth responding to. I posted it in response to the title of the thread.

it is further only loosely connected to my statement, which enhances the random nature. furthermore i wholeheartedly disagree such an article can "place anything you bring to the table to rest". it does not.

How high, exactly, is the horse that you ride, Christian boy?

 

[Kenneth R.]

I agree somewhat, but if something is misinterpreted and misrepresented by nearly everyone for several centuries, when do you say "enough" and just throw it out?

if it is something worth holding onto, then why not instead set out to strike down the misinterpretations and bring its intended meaning to light? that is one of the charges of christians: to share it with the world, (not to be confused with "convert" the world) so that it is presented and understood as it was meant to be. in that way, those who become affiliated with it do so of their own will, and no clarification would be necessary. unfortunately it is an immensely difficult task to accomplish in today's world.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Well I think the concept of the monothiestic "all powerful, all loving, omnipotent, omnipresent" god is extremely flawed. The bottom line is there can not be a perfect creator in a universe in which inperfection exists, because an imperfect thought is neccasary to create imperfection. How can an perfect mind have a perfect thought? One could argue that our minds are too underdeveloped to understand the "grande scheme" this god has created, but once again this means we would have an imperfect from of comprehension and imperfection would still exist. So yeah I think the whole universality of such a god causes the concept to self destruct.

Personally I don't really believe a given entinity created the universe, though I do tend to believe that the bond between each element in existance is much stronger then it is typically persented as. Pantheism? Perhaps. But I personally don't see any elite seperate "god" that is above and beyond the rest of nature, nor do I see much empyrical or logical evidence for its existance.

actually you are incorrect in your assessment of such "flaws". if one is perfect, one can create imperfection. if God created perfect beings, he would have created peers. instead humanity is imperfect so that they should turn to his perfect nature for guidance. as his peers, they would chance the possibility to seek to overthrow him, and heed not his advice. unfortunately, humanity has become so self-centric that we now consider each man a god of his own, and arrogance rules instead of understanding.