Proof: For the belief in G_D.

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by YHWH2

 

I chose not to read through the thread. My fault. Anyways, atheists don't have to listen to your talk about God. I am not an atheist. But they can be contained in their small real of ignorance toward God.

And how do you propose to 'contain' atheists?

Dude, your possibilities for that disappeared some centuries ago; maybe you're not quite up to date. Like referring to science a century past best-sales-day.

reply to post by YHWH2


DID GOD create us out of universal star dust???

Seeing as know so much then lets here what you have to say about this.

Can you provide me some answers PLEASE..

How do you know God exists? is it a feeling ? What does he look Like? Does he provide equality?
Does God help everyone ? Why do you think God designed the earth? how did he make Man? were we created or did we evolve? can you answer any of these questions .. seriously I am not trying to be a crack pot ok I have been asking these questions for a lifetime ?? people who believe that we came from primates by the way make me want to gag. .can you prove creationism prove evolution

What’s So Great Up There in Heaven? Posted by Vincent Bugliosi on March 26, 2011
www.disinfo.com...

But we really don’t need god to give us a brain .. Thanks to Science :
Scientists Create Artificial Brain With 12-Second Memory
Sayswww.disinfo.com...

No, Reverend, That’s Not What The Bible
www.disinfo.com...

Who gets to go to Heaven ,,
please have your luggage packed and plenty of snacks and lots of water .. cause this is going to be one hell of a ride..

Beliefnet's faith-by-faith guide to how major world religions view heaven, hell, and the concept of salvation.
Read more:

www.beliefnet.com...

Arguments for and against the existence of God
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by YHWH2

Originally posted by YHWH2
Name one such New Atheist which has stated such a line, please?

Why do you keep labeling people with such a dishonest title? They're not new! You can go back from the modern day all the way to ancient Greece and you'll get an atheist that is alive and well known.

As for a proper answer: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet (collectively referred to as the four horsemen).

Prof. Lennox says:"If you teach people that faith is believing where there's no evidence, then you don't have to consider any evidence because by definition it doesn't exist, but belief in God and faith in God is not simply faith in a theory about God. It's trust in a person."

Well, that's a dishonest and/or stupid thing of him to say, being a professor he should know better.

The first bit is wrong and a straw man. The definition of faith is belief in spite of a lack (relative or absolute) of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

To move a bit further, we do have to consider evidence and to say that any atheist that is in the public sphere doesn't consider evidence is dishonest. We actively ask to be shown the evidence. Dawkins has proclaimed that he'd be the first person to accept a deity in the face of evidence.

Now, to say it's trust in a person is stupid. Why? Well....people are things that we can verify. Deities aren't. So...faith is trust in a person who you think exists because you trust that it's being honest to you about its existence even though you have to have faith in its existence...
That's an awfully circular position he has there.

reply to post by bogomil

Hello Bogomil...Its been awhile since we last talked. And as always, I have questions. One statement that I posted to YWHW2 was ...Why did God wait until Humans learned to write before presenting himself to us in a book?
This is truly confusing to many Christians I know. So modern humans have been around for at least 35,000 years and had no word from God to go by, but were on their own? They sacrificed their children to appease an angry god, or gods whom they thought were punishing them with all kinds of misery. I have no idea what they thought their crime was!!
If the bible is truly God's Word, then this question certainly raises eyebrows among some that I know, including myself.
If the bible is just a long written ancient history by the Prophets of Israel and a growing concept of a God of their own .... and it is obvious in the Old testament that God's favorite children was the Chosen. That was their God..., until Jesus came and changed that.

So if it is just a History book, where does that leave us...are we like the ancients and on our own?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by YHWH2

 

Originally posted by YHWH2
Name one such New Atheist which has stated such a line, please?

Why do you keep labeling people with such a dishonest title? They're not new! You can go back from the modern day all the way to ancient Greece and you'll get an atheist that is alive and well known.

Stop being immature and get over it, New Atheists attack religion actively, atheists before the four horsemen haven't dones so, actively. In any case, you haven't quoted either one of them.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

As for a proper answer: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet (collectively referred to as the four horsemen).

Prof. Lennox says:"If you teach people that faith is believing where there's no evidence, then you don't have to consider any evidence because by definition it doesn't exist, but belief in God and faith in God is not simply faith in a theory about God. It's trust in a person."

Well, that's a dishonest and/or stupid thing of him to say, being a professor he should know better.

The first bit is wrong and a straw man. The definition of faith is belief in spite of a lack (relative or absolute) of evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

To move a bit further, we do have to consider evidence and to say that any atheist that is in the public sphere doesn't consider evidence is dishonest. We actively ask to be shown the evidence. Dawkins has proclaimed that he'd be the first person to accept a deity in the face of evidence.

Now, to say it's trust in a person is stupid. Why? Well....people are things that we can verify. Deities aren't. So...faith is trust in a person who you think exists because you trust that it's being honest to you about its existence even though you have to have faith in its existence...
That's an awfully circular position he has there.

The definition of faith, nevertheless, is trustworthiness of a person. I take your point that it doesn't sit comfortable with you, but allow me to explain what I believe Prof. Lennox is saying, in my own words and with my own understanding.

A Christian such as I and Prof. Lennox, can verify that Jesus Christ, a biographical person, existed, Son of G_D, part of the Trinity. So, He is a person we as Christians can verify, and also a deity we worship.

Do we agree about our definition of faith, now, or am I just being stupid?

Please, proceed...

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by YHWH2

 

I chose not to read through the thread. My fault. Anyways, atheists don't have to listen to your talk about God. I am not an atheist. But they can be contained in their small real of ignorance toward God.

Thank you for your inference of support.

It's easier for New Atheists to attack religion and G_D, and say such things as I'm delusional for believing in G_D.

I think what you are saying is that in the philosophical argument, concerning the G_D Delusion Debate, the atheists position and therefore what they are saying, is being contained.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by YHWH2

 

If you don't think I'm deluded for believing in G_D than we have no argument as you don't hold the same position as Prof. Dawkins.

End of discussion.

No, I don't think you are deluded for believing in God, but not for the reasons that you think, and I'll get to that later.

Sorry you were misled, it was not my intention to mislead anyone.

Eh... Using the word "Proof" in Theological arguments is a Pet Peeve of mine... It just... bugs me..

Please email this line to prof. Dawkins, I'm sure he would enjoy reading it.

Nah... I'll pass.

My apologies for your not doing the research which would have been appropriate to understand the context of my position.

Again, I'm not misunderstanding you... I merely have a semantic disagreement with you, that I feel I should bring your attention to, because it could help you to alleviate some of the problems that you seem to be having with these discussions, and as I said before, I will get to that in a minute....

You have asked this already. Answer stated.

Ok, point taken... However....

That people who believe in G_D are not delusional as Prof. Dawkins contends...

That is correct; People who believe in God are *NOT* delusional.. I agree with you.

However (and this is the point I have been leading up to...)

because there is proof for the belief in G_D.

This is the problem.


And no, I don't think you understand my position on this one.

First, I'm going to define "Delusional"

delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

A delusion is a belief in something *DESPITE* evidence to the contrary.

This is why I agree with you that a Belief in God is not delusional.... Because It is impossible to PROVE that god does not exist.

Without proof to contrast your Belief to, Your belief cannot, by definition, be delusional.


Now, This should not be read as me saying that There *IS* proof that God Exists... Because There is not, and Can *NEVER BE*

The Concept of God, Exists BEYOND the concept of Proof, necessarily because God exists OUTSIDE of the observable universe, and has qualities and attributes that are IMPOSSIBLE to observe.

Therefore, While No proof can possibly exist of God's Existence....

There can Also be *NO* proof of God's Non-Existence either.


So, since a Delusion is a Belief that can be PROVEN wrong; Believing in god CANNOT be a delusion.

Just don't attempt to claim that you have proof that God Exists.... because that is impossible, by definition.

So, when you were saying that:

because there is proof for the belief in G_D.

What you are essentially saying, Quite literally, is that you have PROOF, that BELIEFS exist.

And this is a meaningless statement, since what you are actually ARGUING, has nothing to do with whether or not you believe something.... only with weather or not it can be disproven.

So, if you understand what I mean.... and use this knowledge for your future arguments, You will be on much stronger ground.

So, anyways.... Good luck, and all.

edit on 19-6-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: spelling

Look, I appreciate your assistance, you have really put some good research into the matter, but if I was to use your knowledge for future arguments, I wouldn't stay in the debate for long. My ground is solid enough, but you have formed and presented a fair understanding of an argument which is a step or two below the one Prof. Lennox and Prof. Dawkins are engaged in.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by YHWH2

 

DID GOD create us out of universal star dust???

Seeing as know so much then lets here what you have to say about this.

Can you provide me some answers PLEASE..

Yes, I can attempt to offer you my opinions on the questions you have posed to me, but this thread is concerned with a different subject matter to your questions, so I will come to your questions with answers of my own, when the discussion of the thread's subject matter is exhausted, or nearer to a conclusion. Is that alright with you?

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


You wrote:

["A Christian such as I and Prof. Lennox, can verify that Jesus Christ, a biographical person, existed, Son of G_D, part of the Trinity. So, He is a person we as Christians can verify, and also a deity we worship."]

So now it is out, finally; it took some time.

But HOW do you verify this (I hope you know, what verifying means in the standard usage).

Until then I will consider you delusional.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by bogomil


I never proposed to contain atheists. I just stated that they can be ignorant towards others preaching their beliefs toward them.

reply to post by Warpthal


I can understand your point of view. For us, who want to believe, we don't really want to hear any thing that is contrary to what is in the Bible.
I have read the bible 3 times in my life, but I have skipped around in some books for years, trying my best to make sense of it.
Trying my best to see our Creator as the loving merciful God that Christians have visioned Him to be.
Many will say ..You can't question God, He is the Almighty and his ways are not our ways.. But the more I read the Bible, I see that His ways are exactly like ours, only on a much larger scale and that scares me to death!!!
Many will say... The people He killed deserved to die, because they were wicked and see what they did to the Chosen. Well, the Chosen did the same to their enemies.That is scary too. Because ..these enemies were His children too, for goodness sakes and people reading this just can't see the forest for the trees.

Killing infants or sucklings because their parents are the enemies of the Chosen!?
I always thought God to be a supernatural Being. Able to do things with a snap of His finger. Killing with a snap of his finger would have been more merciful than all the really gruesome killings in the Bible. And I am sure these enemies learned nothing being dead.
Christians I know..overlook all this and can't give any answer except the one above. You can't question the Creator for what He does to these people.
God even threatened to kill Moses and that was His chosen leader for His Chosen people.

reply to post by ellieN


Very intresting point of view you take. I am a Buddhist, but learning about the ways of God is very intresting.

reply to post by CharterZZ


I'm done with this thread .the OP makes no sense... and no I wont pray for a person like this .. actually its because he thinks he has all the answers and our minds really clash about faith and beliefs ..
So I wouldn’t even think a prayer would help.
I don’t understand and never will why Christians wont answer your questions they avoid you like the plague .. yet they claim that they have proof of God ..
That’s funny but God only was real to Christian man according to bible literalists, using timelines from the bible, say they would have been created about 6,000 years ago. and this is about 1000 years after Sumerians started making glue....
So I guess that makes everything else extinct prior to this this assumed date.. Like the dinosaurs and other forms of life.
Isn’t it lame
For someone one to start a thread about defending his belief in God and that proving he is not delusional, but openly says he only believes in parts of the Bible ?..This is like hand picking the best apples off a tree and selling them to public LOL
OK OP you can and will take all the things out of books and videos that you know of that will prove your not delusional

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by YHWH2

 

Im gonna prey to my own God for your delusions

Doesn't faze me in the slightest.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by CharterZZ

 

OK OP you can and will take all the things out of books and videos that you know of that will prove your not delusional

NorthStargal52 -- isolated in this thread through some imagined attrition rate. Hence, I'm not delusional.

Peace,
YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

So now it is out, finally; it took some time.

But HOW do you verify this (I hope you know, what verifying means in the standard usage).

Until then I will consider you delusional.

Scripture is the word of G_D. As a Christian that is what I believe, and it corresponds to reality, and it does a fair job of explaning things to me. Incidentally, Newton believed in G_D and he was the person who discovered the law of gravity.

Are you suggesting Jesus Christ is mythology? Are you asserting there was no resurrection for Jesus?

In the New testament there are four biographies of Jesus. But it's Paul who addressed the philosophers Stoics and Epicureans, and I think some others, who said: "There's going to be a judgement, G_D has already appointed the judge."

That is evidence for me on which faith can be based.

Am I still delusional?

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by ellieN

 

Very intresting point of view you take. I am a Buddhist, but learning about the ways of God is very intresting. [/quote

Best if you read the Bible yourself. I am learning some on Buddhism now. I think mine and your signatures about say it all.

Sorry kinda messed up on this one.

edit on 20-6-2011 by ellieN because: Opps

reply to post by YHWH2


You wrote:

["Scripture is the word of G_D.]

Scripture (I take it, you mean one of the bibles) is the alleged word of an alleged 'god'.

Quote: ["As a Christian that is what I believe, and it corresponds to reality, and it does a fair job of explaning things to me."]

You still operate with the mix of two positions. That of the 'christian perspective' (which is subjective) and that of 'reality' (which relates to objectivity).

The bible does NOT describe reality, actually it's so far from reality, that it's one of the theist sources, which can give ground to 'gnostic atheism' (= DISPROVING theist claims).

I usually use genesis 1 (to some extent gen. 2 also) as an example. Its content is not influenced by historical data, source-validation or the 'soft' methodology of social sciences.

Genesis 1 is about hard physical manifestations, which this day and time can be evaluated objectively. Such an evaluation concludes with genesis 1 being nonsense.

Quote: ["Incidentally, Newton believed in G_D and he was the person who discovered the law of gravity."]

Incidentally, there have been scientists from all camps on the theist question. So....?

Quote: [" Are you suggesting Jesus Christ is mythology?"]

Yes, in an agnostic sense. Mythology isn't necessarily an indication of truth or non-truth. Troy (Troja) DID exist. Though this does not make the greek 'gods' (from the Iliad and the Odyssey) real.

Quote: ["Are you asserting there was no resurrection for Jesus?"]

Nope, I'm agnostic. I wasn't there, and there's no convincing evidence. So the proper question to ask is: Are YOU asserting there WAS a resurrection? You are making an extraordinary claim, you provide the 'proof'.

If this doesn't suit you, we can bring in the validation needs and the 'logic' concerning the flying spaghetti monster (it's claimed by some, that the FSM actually wrote/inspired the bible as a joke. DISPROVE me).

Quote: ["In the New testament there are four biographies of Jesus."]

On internet, there's a special site with a biography of 'Spiderman'. Does that make him 'real'?

Quote: [". But it's Paul who addressed the philosophers Stoics and Epicureans, and I think some others, who said: "There's going to be a judgement, G_D has already appointed the judge."]

So now you're proving the bible with the bible. It's called circle-argumentation.

Personally I consider the bible-character Paulus as the arch-type of the opportunistic sociopath. I wouldn't trust such a person on the time of the day.

Quote: ["That is evidence for me on which faith can be based."]

Yes, a faith can be based on such.

Quote: ["Am I still delusional?"]

Yes. You say at the start of this post, that your belief/(faith... my insert) corresponds to reality; that makes you delusional.

You are also confused, because you are unable to sort out your two presented positions from each other.

reply to post by bogomil


After posters have come and went on this thread, I realised that in such cases those who were to hang around would reflect the popular saying; 'The cream rises to the top'. Inferring that those left remaining would be the best because of their interest and intelligence in still being engaged to get at the real substance of the discussion, and drill down into its core -- and who would offer a proper and robust examination of the matter at hand with me, hence you.

The one thing you would have learnt from all the video and in the literature, of the debates, from these two opposing sides, is just the respect these men have for each other. It doesn't matter that one is an atheist and the other religious. They get into it for the right reasons, and whilst the occasional quip is thrown in for good measure and to keep the opponent on his toes, there is always the respect for the subject matter; and therefore never lowering the tone of the debate by throwing in Spiderman comments or references unnecessarily, like some two-bit poster has offered, of an earlier appearance, on this thread.

How can I understand that you are going to be fair and proper and respectful in the engagement, when you are so readily willing to lower the discussion at the earliest instance? What do you gain by it, really? Could you not have used a more valid example, when the rest of what you were saying was of such a high standard, or top-shelf?

You raised some good points, and I was excited to see you come back for this exploration when everyone has likely left, and interested to see what we could continue bringing to the debating table -- but I am torn by your immature handling, and I don't want to put the effort in with you, when you will turn around and say something, perhaps nearer conclusion of the thread, something more appropriate to well... an audience at a comic book conference -- then a thread about such important matters as belief in G_D and delusion, and all the other notes included within this broad subject matter.

So, I'm adding so.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2