Afterlife stuff

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Uncle Bill!

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

It didn't just sound belittling... go back and read what you actually wrote. Despite what has happened to you in the past, that doesn't give you a free pass to ridicule others' beliefs as you have in this thread... particularly if you truly have the love for others that you profess to have.

Perhaps if you'd find out what "real" Christianity is like, you wouldn't hold such extremist thoughts against it. Not trying to "convert you"... just saying that I don't think you truly understand what it is most of us believe.

No, the feedback thing is that you want people to agree with what you have to say; you don't truly want a debate. In short, you're trolling, particularly when you throw out Dawkins' videos and ask for feedback.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God... at least, not at this point in time. If you'd like to try, I'd like to hear your attempt.

As far as the rest of your post... I have no idea what you're rambing on about. Who can reproduce anything one advocates?? That's absurd. And I dunno what you're going on about regarding limbs growing... what does that have to do with religion?

 

I think that was ment as a micrle. However i point you to Dolly - an exact clone that in the 80's was pure science fiction and the basis of Blade runner...

 

I think you need to check out this website to find out what hes referring too, although im sure from the url you can imagine what the point of the site is.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com

Also just to make a point about the proving or disproving the existence of god, ultimately the burdon of proof lies with religion to prove its claims, it is not up to science to disprove any claim religion makes.

 

Be nice if he included that in his rant.

Our physical bodies are irrelevant. Those who believe in Him also believe that we will have a restored, glorified body when we die, and that our treasures are not here on Earth, but await us in Heaven. In short, he WILL heal amputated limbs - as well as any other diseases or disfigurements - at a time of HIS choosing, not when we childishly demand it.

Besides, just because we want something doesn't mean that God has to give it to us... including the restoration of a limb. I can give my child a Wii... but if I don't give him a Wii even though he wants it, does that make me a bad father? No, even though my child may not understand why, and even though I can buy him one.

Similarly, we don't understand why bad things happen to good people. Some people die young. Some people experience physical or mental pain for their entire lives. Some people never find a mate. Why? Certainly God can stop all of it! So why doesn't he?!?

Here's the thing: God isn't a magical genie who is here to grant our every wish... even those we think we need. We might not understand why, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist because he doesn't heal us when we want him to. Sometimes, our afflictions could be the very things that cause us to rely more on God and to draw us closer to Him.

Just because you pray for something doesn't mean it's going to happen.

So why did Jesus heal people when He was here on earth? Not because the blind HAD to have their eyesight, or the lame HAD to be able to walk... He did it to show His glory - to show that He was indeed the Son of God. You might say that's pretty self-serving... but it's His creation; He can do with it has He pleases. He deserves to, if he created it.

And as for amputated (or deformed) body parts never being restored:

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. --Luke 22:49-51

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. --Matthew 12:9-10,13

But there's no need (or way!) for someone who believes in God to prove anything. If someone is so hell-bent to disprove religion, they should attempt to do so. People who believe don't have to prove their belief.

Put it this way... if it were provable... it wouldn't be called a "belief".

For the record, I don't see science and religion as mutually exclusive.

 

The question then becomes why should he?

as for the burden of proof, the more I think about it the less I believe that the burden rest soley with religion, as with any debate, for and against must both prove their arguments, to this day I have yet to see a reliable god test.

As anyone who has done secondary (high school for are American friends) science will tell you that if a test comes out negative there are two options: firstly the test is correct and the tested item is not present, or the test does not work. Tests are only deemed to work if they are backed up by reliable evidance of it working previously. As I said I know of no scientific test that will prove that there is or isnt a God.

 

Tiger FTW

 

You are right, there is no scientific proof that there isn't a god or superior being.

But that does not mean it has the same rate of credulity than other subjects.

Take for instance what is it called the "teapot theory". People can believe that there is a teapot god orbiting around the sun, we have no way to prove it because it is "faith" and yet we have no way to disprove it because at the present moment we do not have advanced enough technology to see an object as small as a teapot there.

So where do we stand ?

We stand on what is called the plausability rate (other terms exist) that measures the likeliness of such thing being truth or existing.
It is then, as logical as assuming there is a god. Except perhaps that the poor teapot god has not many followers. But we can always sort something out ;)

Let's take that into bible/religion terms.
Today we see people being "changed" through religion in a non physical way, which means the mind (spirit if you want to call it) produced a change in attitude/personality. That is what was said before, that people tend to find happiness, comfort, moral conduct systems, etc...

That is a type of change that if you really want, can happen anyways without the aid of a book/religious belief telling you to.

"Do not kill."
"Do not commit adultery."
"Do not lie."

All these things, if you have a deep thought into it are what can be perceived as naturally bad not because the bible tells us so, but because of consequences they carry.

For example: We should not commit adultery because the person who you are with, has chosen you from all the others to be with you, to love and cherish life together with you and you alone.
And if you commit such things, you are making that person sad and the trust and love bond between each other will fade.

- That is just an example how I think things ought to be. We should be good and do good things because the reactions and consequences of certain actions will affect others directly or indirectly in a negative way.

Going back to the subject of proving and disproving, I am not here to try to disprove and as Kevicho said that is left to religion itself.

I am just curious on the ways it can prove it is "right".

Peace to everyone regardless

EDIT: Funnily enough, what the teapot means can be represented by this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

 

Only problem is that we cannot apply the "Teapot God" theory to Christianity or Judaism. Nobody has ever seen the teapot god, true. But there HAVE been people who lived long ago who DID see the presence of God and who DID experience God's power. Just because you or I haven't seen Him doesn't mean He didn't or doesn't exist.

Perhaps you believe it is nothing more than a story; fair enough. Still, there are references OUTSIDE of the Bible that reference Jesus working miracles AND being resurrected. That too may just be a story to you, but it's a well-documented one.

Some have also been healed physically without any explanation. Whether this is because of a miracle from God or not, I have no idea; I'm not God.

Yes, you are correct that you can change without a book or a religion. Does that mean we should stop?

Why does it bother you so much that people believe in something you believe is a fantasy? Just let us believe what we will and you can believe what you will.

Some people posit that these feelings of right and wrong were given to us by God. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea; I'm not God. But I do believe it to be true.

So what about people who have no problem with adultery? After all, everything is relative, right? Why impose your feelings about adultery on everyone else??? Your argument breaks down in light of this. Either there IS a right and wrong, or everything is relative. Which is it?

But you've said that everything is relative. What might be "good" to you might not be considered as "good" to someone else. What "good" wins? Either there is right and wrong, or there is none... and the argument for "no right or wrong" logically breaks down.

But... that's what you're trying desperately to do.

It cannot; if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it. I can make a good case for it... but I cannot prove it.

If you REALLY want to find out about Jesus, you can do so... that choice is entirely up to you. If you're truly curious, I'd recommend you take a look at "The Case for Christ" and/or "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, a former atheist writer who set out to disprove the existence of Jesus, and over the course of his research, became a believer. In "The Case for Faith", he addresses many of the points brought up in this thread:

1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?
2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?
3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?
4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?
5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?
6) If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?
7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?
8 ) If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?

EDIT: "Funnily enough", the video that you linked to is a rehash of your "Why God Wont Heal Amputees" rant. If you TRULY wanted to debate, you'd address what I've already mentioned regarding God answering prayer. But you don't want to debate - you simply want to troll by throwing out claim after claim without responding to what's been said... and by continuing to respond in such a way, you only weaken your arguments. You probably don't realize how much your posts might be causing people to believe in the one thing you're trying to get them to NOT believe!!!

Go ahead, m3lt... keep posting.

 

Just thinking, reincarnation???? who would want to come back as a tin of evaporated milk lol, sorry could not resist.

I would come back like what i am in bed, im an animal, a panda to be precise, eats shoots and leaves. Thats 2 on the bounce for you lot.

Zx

 

Gee, your god sounds more like a crack dealer !

Glad hes not my god, sounds like a sick child torturing ants.

Suddenly the teapot gods looking rather good...

Melts point was in the videos you chose to ignore. He was saying that unrepeatable unscientifically tested phenomena like miracles generally cannot be proven, and yet religous people insist they happened.

Some people think they've seen David Coperfield fly, if they write a book about it will we be worshiping him in 2000 years time ?

A heavilly edited book which people blindly beleive does not make anything true. Whats even more worrying is the suspension of critical thinking and twisting of reality that opens the door for people to be heavilly manipulated.

No we can't disprove or prove gods existence because every piece of evidence science provides simply allows religion to reinterpret itself. People believe because they want to, not because of any critical rationale or logic. That is what is so dangerous. People used to beleive angels and lived in the heavens above the clouds, now we know that theres an atmosphere and an ozone layer.

Sure there need be no conflict between religion but frankly not everyone sees it that way and in reality its a relatively recent stance by many faiths, look at what happened to Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno.

As I mentioned before, social skills benefit pack animals. Some animals from different species even have symbiotic relationships, god is not required to explain this.

Theres evidence of many types of society in our history, ones that don't involve marriage or monogomy. It does seem that a one to one relationship is easiest to maintain and given human beings are complex, its not surprising that its simpler with two.

Having shades of grey does not preclude right or wrong or better or worse. Fuzzy logic does not preclude absolutes, it just allows us to deal with situations which don't involve absolutes much better.

 

Good post Dmarsh, very much agree. Watch out that the wrath of the mighty quote meister does not strike thee down though!

 

Im sorry I absolutely disagree, say I come to you with a claim saying I can make you rich easily and without work, would you ask for proof or some sort of evidence to back up these claims?

Why should religion or indeed paranormal claims receive special treatment, which goes against one of the very methods of discovery that has lead to advancement of the human race in technology, medicine, education and so forth, and turn convention on its head and say I make a claim, you prove me wrong?

With regards science and religion, some people see science as a quasi religion which is wrong, or bash science due to their religious beliefs, which again is wrong, science is a tool, a method, a means that we as Human beings look to increase our understanding of what is around us and measuring, observing life itself.

Unfortunately these kind of debates usually get dragged down to science versus religion which is completely sidetracking from the real issues which are:

Is religion beneficial to society overall. (To me i think it can be for individuals, but it also can be damaging)
Does it increase or decrease a persons individual responsibility to others?
Should religion be publically funded or Tax excempt.
Should religion have political influence.
Should religion be taught in schools.
Does religion teach important values that cannot be learned elsewhere.
Does religion cost lives.
Who benefits from religion.
Has religion slowed down human progress and values.

 

No, that's my point - it makes you an expert on scientology, not the world.
And if someone doesn't rate scientology that much, they are never going to win an argument with you about scientology being any good.

You're an expert remember, and they are just a disinterested ley person.

Of course, if they were also an expert in scientology or some other related field then an interesting and productive debate might ensue.

Unfortunately there don't seem to be any deeply commited atheists on the forum to do that in this case.

Does being the world's leading expert on scientology do you any good?
I imagine it would do - you would have dedicated your life to something that you believe in to the point that you have been recognised as the world's leading expert in the field.
I would have thought that would be quite rewarding.

 

I am trying not to get drawn into this debate too much as I have had it too many times, no one comes out a winner and im sure if there is a God then i am sure he wouldnt want his "children" debating and wasting the precious gift he has given to them, likewise if there isnt a God then again we are wasting the precious gift and the remarkable combination of factors that give us this opportunity to be involved in existance, so I am going to say this in closing.

As an Atheist, I have to be willing to accept the possibility that there may be a god, and after all all Atheism by definition is only a lack of belief in a God figure (not necessarily tied to a specific religion) usually brought about by a lack of evidence or looking at the evidence and saying that is not good enough, or too many ifs, buts, maybe's and leaps of faith to say I will follow a certain belief.
It doesnt affect any other part of my life and personally it frees me up to follow what I believe is right for me and the people around me, I have no conflicts of interests in any part of my life.

As a Christian/Muslim/Pagan/Jew, you have to be willing and disciplined enough to accept no possibility of there not being a God and also the "gods" of other religions are false, or indeed inferior rehashing of your own religion, you have to be willing to defend the rationale of the only "evidence" being in the form of a series of stories authored by persons unknown, nearly 2000 years ago, and memorise (or google) obscure quotes, which in credit is an impressive feat.

The observation of these debates is that they are not about facts, they are more to do with the peoples debating skills, and are a frustrating tango of wordplay and double meanings from both sides.

In closing after we have had a former atheist author held up as a convert, allow me to introduce Matt Dillahunty, who after years of being a fundamentalist Christian is now the host of an Atheist TV show after his studies into religion turned him the other way

http://www.atheist-experience.com/

A show ive enjoyed in the past

 

Oh, and a cat by the way.

Not a big scarey one that might get hunted.
Not an interesting or rare one that might end up in a zoo.

Just a moggy that can come and go as he wishes, sleep 22 hours per day and walk along a fence without falling off.

 

In that case, can I come back as Denise Richards push up bra ?

 

Sounds like hard work...
I'm coming back for the easy life.

 

No. As an Atheist you don't believe in God period. What you're describing is Agnosticism (a layman's definition of which would be 'willing to believe that there may be a God, but that it needs to be proven beyond doubt before you do so').

I think that means you're an agnostic, not an atheist. Yay you!

 

Im an Atheist as I dont believe what im trying to say is that if there is proof that does come out that 100% confirms the existance of a god then obviously ill accept it.

An as you say agnostic is someone who is undecided by the whole thing, im convinced there isnt a god, but obviously if something somehow proves otherwise then I will have to accept that proof.