Jesus..

[hulkster]

hmmm, true in a sense. but when there is abundant evidence of one and a notable lack of evidence of the other, well...

depends on what you say is evidence.

[paigeoliver]

how will you know? i thought it was automatically your responsibility to spread the word?

All are called to that, but few are called to be missionaries.

Most Christians have their hands more than full simply with their acquaintenances and family members.

[danny_galaga]

edit: (reference to hulkster) thats a very old stand by. you can't see love therefore if you were logical it doesnt exist. they used to say that about not being able to see atoms. people have gone quiet about that one lately. wonder why? what i am contending is that there is no historical proof that jesus existed. i assume youre not suggesting that jesus was just an emotion?


oh, and i think it was seamonkey that suggested that since only the egyptians contemporaneously (i thik thats the right word) wrote about building their pyramids (and then only ambiguously) that how do we trust anything thats to said about pyramids? one clue is:

[danny_galaga]

that is to say, its hard to dispute that the pyramid exists. a better example would be to say that since no one contemporaneously wrote about Atlantis, how do we know it existed. Or the collossus of Rhodes (although a less fanciful idea) the answer? we don't. there's no evidence or proof of it.

[danny_galaga]

how will you know? i thought it was automatically your responsibility to spread the word?

All are called to that, but few are called to be missionaries.

Most Christians have their hands more than full simply with their acquaintenances and family members.

i'll stop badgering you now! i accept what you have to say about missionaries

[SeaMonkey]

Nobody disputes they exist. But their history is all second hand. There are no kings names inside of them, yet we attribute them to certain kings.

Then I said, I believe the accepted history of them. Historical inference, and reliance on historians is either valid...or it is not. I believe it is valid. So do scientists.


Much of their history is inferred. You better read my post again, I think.

[Dexter]

i believe in Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again.

[clanggedin]

Nuff said....

Let this thread die. If you want to talk to somene about religion then wait a few days or so I'm sure they'll come knocking on your door. 

[clanggedin]

BTW if there is a Post Hell on this board, what do I need to do to get post sent to Post Heaven?

[shmokes]

He calls people of faith "god people" then calls them dangerous. General judgements of a group of people, I think is biggotry.

SeaMonkey,

My question is:  When you were typing that indictment of me and you decided to deliberately mislead people into thinking that I made any such blanket statement, was the holy ghost whispering any discouragement?  Or is dishonesty okay if its for God?

I think the words "so many of" in my post have significance.  If I remember right I even gave a pretty compelling example of exactly which type of god people I was referring to.   Something about 9/11 (though there are plenty of Christian examples).

...and after I try so hard to be Christ-like.

[Dartful Dodger]

I think the words "so many of" in my post have significance.

[shmokes]

Jesus, whether historical or fictional, had a good message.  Much of the bible doesn't, but Jesus was cool.  I was specifically referring to a comment about someone appreciating Christians' "endless enthusiasm" for influencing people to think the way they think.  If you look at my original post you will see that it is this endless enthusiasm that I was insulting, and along with it Christians who display this endless enthusiasm.  I said that the endless enthusiasm was dangerous, not all Christians.

I don't hate religion, per se.  I think it's often foolish, but as long as it's benign I don't hate it anymore than I would "hate" it if somebody believed that Santa was real or that they possessed powers of telekenesis.  It's mainly proselytizing that I hate.  I have virtually no beef with Bhudism, Hinduism, Wiccanism (or whatever it would be called).   

Satan will always love me.

[Dexter]

[Since this topic is called "Jesus" I'll just speak for Jesus.

When I read that I just got a wicked flashback to comedian Bill Hicks impersonation of the evangelical christian: "I think what Gawd meant to say....."

[Grasshopper]

hmmm, true in a sense. but when there is abundant evidence of one and a notable lack of evidence of the other, well...

depends on what you say is evidence.  to me the Bible is all I need for evidence, and then the rest of the Earth and the love of Jesus in my heart (i know its corny, but its true) then thats all the "evidence" i need. 

and i won't debate that. i think i said earlier that i had no doubt jesus was in your heart. faith, being like love is something that no one else can decide for someone else. you may bear witness to jesus, and thus be a christian. but i bear witness only to the physical world, not meta-physical and thus i am a scientist. the nearest other definition would be athiest. but just as a thiest believes there is a god, an athiest believes there IS no god. but that is not truly rational. a scientist would say 'i have not seen any evidence of god, and so i can't say it exists. nor will i postulate that a god DOES exist since that is but one possibility out of an infinite spectrum of what may or may not exist'.

thus i am a 'scientist' 

I believe the correct term is agnostic.

[shmokes]

Agnostics are just atheists without the balls to admit it. 

[Grasshopper]

Agnostics are just atheists without the balls to admit it. 

Lol, maybe so, but from the perspective of a religious person, you're still an unbeliever!

When people ask me what religion I am, I normally start off by saying I'm an atheist because not many people seem to know (or indeed care) what the term agnostic means.

It's only when someone then says something along the lines of "but surely atheists must also have faith because it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist?" that I say that technically I'm an agnostic.

[Dexter]

Agnostics are just atheists without the balls to admit it.

[jbox]

Firstly, this is really bugging the heck out of me: A THEORY IS A STATEMENT FOR WHICH THERE IS A REPEATABLE TEST WHICH COULD DISPROVE IT. A FACT IS A STATEMENT FOR WHICH THERE IS A REPEATABLE TEST FOR PROVING IT. 

Forget about what the media, society or your friends say, if you can't test it, then it isn't a theory, it's just noise. People love to mix up scientific terms to confuse an argument, but that doesn't make them any "righter" than before. This is also the time to mention that the absence of proof is not proof of absence, and if you don't know what Occam's razor is LOOK OUT FOR THE GIANT INVISIBLE PINK BUNNIES BEHIND YOU! 

Secondly, people need to work on disambiguating between what they are attacking. I HATE religion, but I think faith is the bee's knees. People who don't feel they have any reason to get up in the morning are definately living on borrowed time.  People who think that religion X is perfect need to *seriously* READ. Catholic priests (not) getting marriaged is a perfect example of something that has changed over the centuries for various reasons, not something that was set in stone by scripture. 

Thirdly, let me repeat the cliche "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".  This is one of the problems I see with institutes of any kind (clam bake anyone?) that do not have an external renewal process as part of their administration. If your celebrant can't be fired, but you still believe that for some reason they know god's will better than you do, and they start to believe they know god's will better than you do, then you are asking for trouble down the line.

And lastly, blaming religion for Evil(tm) is just silly.  People who want power will use whatever lever they can over the people they want to manipulate. I could just as easily blame captilism for terrorism, since taken to its extreme ends it teaches people that there are no rules which should stop you from making the most money (the free in free market).

So, argue about the existance of gods if you like. Argue about what you think gods want from us. And argue about religious institutions and their effect on our world if you like. But please respect each other enough to make it clear which ones you are arguing about, because there are nice atheists and evil people who believe in gods too. 

[Mameotron]

Dexter, I must have a different bible than you.

[SeaMonkey]

[shmokes]

No, it's not really like that.  "God people" has no inherent negative conotations.  It's just a funny way of referring to people who believe in a god, regardless of what particular god they believe in.  You're just so thin-skinned that you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill (which is kind of godlike in and of itself, if you think about it).  Lighten up.

Anyway, why would I call black people names.  They just bare the mark of Kain, that's all.  One day, if they're righteous enough, they can be white like me.

[SeaMonkey]

My point exactly. "Black People" ins't a negative term either...but let's compare phrases:

It's that endless enthusiasm to influence others that make so many of the "god people" so dangerous

Let's say instead of 911 I was critiquing what might have led to the L.A. riots, and said,
"It's that endless enthusiasm to portray themselves as victims that make so many "black people" so dangerous"

I just changed the people and the situation, but not the structural context.

[shmokes]

So what?  I could do that with any name.  Check this out:

"It's their hunger for power and lack of empathy that make so many Men intolerable."
Uh oh..... it looks like the category Men is off limits too.

Still, that sentence is fundamentally different than mine, because, well, for one thing there's probably not a lot of truth to it when generalizing the entire male population.

If, however, someone were to say, "I can sure appreciate the violent nature of white supremecists,"  And I responded by saying, "It is that violent nature that makes so many of them so dangerous,"  you could certainly come in here and say, "hey....many white supremecists don't believe in violence.  Maybe they were just raised to believe that white people are superior, but would never hurt someone.  You're generalizing and categorizing.  That's bigoted." 

To that I would say, "Whatever."  Which is what I say to you about this.   

Christianity and Islam HAVE and element of action built into them.  Certainly there are those that do not proselytize within those religions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an officially sanctioned, encouraged and often required element of those religions.   It is the Christian's or Muslim's duty to convert the world to their respective faiths.  There are more than enough missionaries alone, discounting your average neighborhood zealot, to warrant my "so many" statement.

As for calling you'all "god people".....I guess I'm just not a nice guy.  I also refer to hardcore Star Trek fans as "Trekies".  Maybe in a perfect world they could be "Peoples Being Highly Partial to Goods and Services Associated with a Star Trek(TM) License."

[danny_galaga]

hmmm, true in a sense. but when there is abundant evidence of one and a notable lack of evidence of the other, well...

depends on what you say is evidence.

[Grasshopper]

hmmm, true in a sense. but when there is abundant evidence of one and a notable lack of evidence of the other, well...

depends on what you say is evidence.  to me the Bible is all I need for evidence, and then the rest of the Earth and the love of Jesus in my heart (i know its corny, but its true) then thats all the "evidence" i need. 

and i won't debate that. i think i said earlier that i had no doubt jesus was in your heart. faith, being like love is something that no one else can decide for someone else. you may bear witness to jesus, and thus be a christian. but i bear witness only to the physical world, not meta-physical and thus i am a scientist. the nearest other definition would be athiest. but just as a thiest believes there is a god, an athiest believes there IS no god. but that is not truly rational. a scientist would say 'i have not seen any evidence of god, and so i can't say it exists. nor will i postulate that a god DOES exist since that is but one possibility out of an infinite spectrum of what may or may not exist'.

thus i am a 'scientist' 

I believe the correct term is agnostic.

a 'gnostic' believes he knows god. an 'agnostic' believes you cannot know god. my use of the word 'scientist' means that if given proof of existence then i would be happy to accept it. i have seen no real proof of (for some examples) atlantis, god, or ufos. if we find real evidence of any of those then i would be happy to accept it. although i must admit that if i was shown evidence of god i would probably assume ive just gone crazy and STILL wouldnt believe (if i did think i went crazy then i would be an agnostic)

Hmm, food for thought.

I've just done a google search on the word agnostic, and it appears there is more that one definition:

   1.
         a.   One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
         b.   One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
   2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I took this from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agnostic

I would describe my beliefs/philosophy using definition 1b, although I lean heavily towards being a true atheist.

I think from what I've just read, your definition (1a) is probably closer to what Thomas Huxley intended when he first coined the word.

With regards to whether 1a is a valid belief system, I think it probably depends upon how you define god. The middle eastern religions all seem to define god as being the ultimate creator, so by their definition no one actually created god, he was always there. If you accept that definition then it might be difficult to prove the existence of god.

Even if you were able to obtain scientific evidence for the existence of a being/entity that had created the universe you would still not know for certain whether that being had always existed or had in fact been created by another god undetectable by science. So you could never be totally certain that the god you had discovered was the true god as defined by christianity/judaism etc.

Here's another interesting link:

http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm

[subzero23]

Two things (not that I dont have a plethora of religious-hate on my mind but can't express)

one time in catholic school they told us we had to love god more than our own parents. that was a crock

and a lot of religious people are always conservative and mean to people who are different and not the society's "norm"... certainately different than what "jesus would have done"

either way, those are just a couple of things that i can't stand about religion

[danny_galaga]

Hmm, food for thought.

I've just done a google search on the word agnostic, and it appears there is more that one definition:

[subzero23]

I always say I'm an atheist even though I'm probably agnostic... cuz who can really ever truly know?
Atheist carries a society-fo-paw or whatever, it's kinda got a negative aura around it and i have kinda taken to it, it express i do NOT like religion etc..
 

[danny_galaga]

Nobody disputes they exist. But their history is all second hand. There are no kings names inside of them, yet we attribute them to certain kings.

Then I said, I believe the accepted history of them. Historical inference, and reliance on historians is either valid...or it is not. I believe it is valid. So do scientists.


Much of their history is inferred. You better read my post again, I think.

[shmokes]

I always say I'm an atheist even though I'm probably agnostic... cuz who can really ever truly know?

Naw, subzero,  that's atheism.  Atheism isn't all or nothing.  It's just a current belief that there isn't a god.  You can be an atheist today and a Christian tomorrow if presented with new evidence.  There is nothing else in life that you would be agnostic about with absolutely no evidence.  If someone said to you, "Hey, do you have HBO?  There's a big fight on tonight," you wouldn't say, "I don't know," simply because for all you know a neighbor might have ordered cable and due to a mistake by the cable company they hooked you up instead.  You would just say, "No..I don't have HBO."  Technically you can't KNOW that you don't have HBO unless you are sitting right there at the TV, but you still don't become agnostic about it every time you leave the house.

If you don't think that there is a God, you're an atheist, even if you turn out to be wrong later on.

[subzero23]

I don't see any reason why I CANT change what i choose to label myself on a whim

but i currently "Dont know" but "highly highly doubt" there is any religious or god elements in life currently.
BUT open to the possibility

[danny_galaga]

I always say I'm an atheist even though I'm probably agnostic... cuz who can really ever truly know?

Naw, subzero,

[thrash242]

An atheist is a person without a belief in a god.  It is not necessarily someone who believes that there is no god.  Look at the root of the word "atheism".  "Theism" means a belief in one or more gods, and the "a-" prefix means without.  Thus "atheism" means "without a belief in god".

Whether someone believes in a god can and does change.  In fact, everyone is born an atheist.  They learn about religion later and either decide to accept it or not...or do both over a period of time, like many people do.

If, like me, you are a proud atheist, you won't care about any negative connotations about the word.  If you just don't like religion guilting you into behaving a certain way, but don't know whether a god exists or not, you may be more iffy about the label.  You might be what is called a passive atheist: you don't actively choose to believe in a god.  An active atheist is one who actively chooses to believe that there is no god.

If you're interested in all this, there is a good book by George H. Smith called Atheism: The Case Against God.  It explains the difference between an atheist and an agnostic (which most people get wrong) as well as presenting a strong case against the existance of a god.

[subzero23]

"If, like me, you are a proud atheist, you won't care about any negative connotations about the word.  If you just don't like religion guilting you into behaving a certain way, but don't know whether a god exists or not, you may be more iffy about the label.  You might be what is called a passive atheist: you don't actively choose to believe in a god.  An active atheist is one who actively chooses to believe that there is no god."

I'm a proud atheist as well, pure natural uncircumcised thinking (I mean that in a literal sense too lol)

About the negative connotations (Exactly the word i was looking for had my memory been functioning. Maybe it's cuz i've been sick), I actually ENJOY them. I like the idea of saying I'm an atheist and their response being shock or anger. It's just sort of cool being different in a way.

One time someone asked me if I knew my friend from a church they go to, I said no so he said "so what church DO you go to?" gosh

[Dexter]

Ta for the definition. I guess that makes me an Agnostic. The only religious belief I know to be sure is that NO religion has all of the answers, and anybody who thinks that their way is perfect and other religions are not is a fool. Only by accepting what we don't really know will we ever move towards enlightenment one way or the other.

Some of the most gifted minds in the world state that it is almost a certainty that life exists on other worlds, what would a visit from a vastly more advanced race say about catholocism, evangelism and the like?? Might ruffle a few feathers eh?

Dexter

[jbox]

Some of the most gifted minds in the world state that it is almost a certainty that life exists on other worlds, what would a visit from a vastly more advanced race say about catholocism, evangelism and the like?? Might ruffle a few feathers eh?
Dexter

If Marklar here wants to bring all his Marklar to Marklar that would be fine. You marklars must leave. ["But you will all burn forever in eternal hellfire!"] Yes, that's nice, thank you for stopping by.

[patrickl]

I once saw a "documentary" of a bible addict trying to convince people that dinosaurs never existed since the bible makes it impossible that they did exist. I nearly fell of my chair laughing. Apparently there is a huge consipiracy to bury all these bones all over the planet. I guess it's the same bunch of hooligans that purposely bent the earth so that it no longer was flat. Or the criminals who flipped the universe so that it no longer rotates around the earth.

The week after that they explained that all the people beleiving in other gods than "the one God" must be mistaken. Funny that for people believing in god x it's so clear that god y cannot exist, but for the people believing in god y it's just as clear that god x doesn't exist. In effect, for any god there are more people who do not belief in that god then there are people who do belief in that god. Weird huh?

When people couldn't explain lightning they invented a god of lightning. Similar for fire, wind, water etc. Now all we have left is the explanation of life. Hence we have only one god left. Luckily for the believers I doubt that one will ever be explained.

There are so many clues that god is just a made up character that it amazes me that so many people still "believe".

[Dartful Dodger]

There are so many clues that god is just a made up character that it amazes me that so many people still "believe".

Hence the meaning and use of the word faith.

Why do those that have no faith care?

Is it because you are worried that you are wrong, and you're hoping God grades on a curve, so the more nonbelievers the better? 

You are, God doesn't.

So sorry, thanks for playing.

[danny_galaga]

There are so many clues that god is just a made up character that it amazes me that so many people still "believe".

Hence the meaning and use of the word faith.

Why do those that have no faith care?

Is it because you are worried that you are wrong, and you're hoping God grades on a curve, so the more nonbelievers the better?

[Bones]

Why do those that have no faith care?

Is it because you are worried that you are wrong, and you're hoping God grades on a curve, so the more nonbelievers the better?