More proof of God
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
whatshisname is Kyle and he is an athiest. He was making fun of the site.
And rightly so. It's a 2 millenia old hoax, and I hope you figure it out too soon!
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
I hope you lose your stubborn pride and embrace the truth that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. If I were you, I wouldn't wait too long.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Who could argue with this? http://www.raptureready.com/health/11.html[^] From the site: In most cases, the rejection of the Creator does not result from logical conclusions. The average atheist, if he or she is honest, will cite an emotional motivation for lack of faith in God. The late Isaac Asimov once wrote: “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” Now that Mr. Asimov is dead, I suspect he wishes he would have invested time into proving the existence of God. Most people who do not think God exists betray their stance by arguing with Him. If God is not real, there is no need to be hostile toward Him or toward anyone who believes in Him.
"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." Free Inquiry (Spring 1982) As one can see, the OP has taken it somewhat out of context, and distorted it's meaning and significance.
-
"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." Free Inquiry (Spring 1982) As one can see, the OP has taken it somewhat out of context, and distorted it's meaning and significance.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
As one can see, the OP has taken it somewhat out of context, and distorted it's meaning and significance.
Are you really too stupid to realize that I just copied and pasted that from the site I linked to?
Actually, my post was not intended for you, but for digital man, since he asked for the cite. CP just hiccuped again and put it at the wrong level. So what (aside from astounding arrogance) makes you thing you are the OP referred to? Perhaps you were confused about the meaning of the abbreviation - it stands for ORIGINAL poster, not Obnoxious poster.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
holes in the logic
it is however difficult to argue with: Most people who do not think God exists betray their stance by arguing with Him. If God is not real, there is no need to be hostile toward Him or toward anyone who believes in Him. Atheistic arguments against the existence of a god would seem a waste of time, for an atheist. If a believer throws out an opinion in an attemot to prove God's existence, as did whatshisname above, you should treat it like a meaningless stream of words worthy of being ignored - if you're truly an atheist that is. The point being that you'll never convince whatshisname of the nonexisence and he'll never convince you of the existence, so why bother?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Hmm. CP didn't send me an email that I got a reply. Anyway -
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Atheistic arguments against the existence of a god would seem a waste of time, for an atheist. If a believer throws out an opinion in an attemot to prove God's existence, as did whatshisname above, you should treat it like a meaningless stream of words worthy of being ignored - if you're truly an atheist that is. The point being that you'll never convince whatshisname of the nonexisence and he'll never convince you of the existence, so why bother?
Actually, I agree. That's why you won't find any posts here from me attempting to argue against those who believe. I simply don't see the point. I happen to be an atheist of the 3rd type, the type that is never acknowledged to exist because my type is a massive thorn in the side of those who choose a particular God - because I make no claim that God doesn't exist. Rather, I simply don't hold to any belief in one. I happen to think my position is the only truly rational one (of course, so does anyone else ; nobody would willingly hold what they consider to be an irrational belief) - being that the 10,000 human cultures through all of history have each believed in different Gods, what makes any particular one more real than any other? Any attempt to claim that one god or another is more real simply begs the question. It's not one that can be answered by the human mind. Note I don't say the only reasonable belief - I say the only rational one, that is, the only one based on fundamental logic. This is because I can accept that other humans, being equally capable of making reasonable choices, have chosen to believe in God, and being that I have no rational basis to claim otherwise, I can accept their belief without my own position being inconsistent. Incidentally, so much of the "I hate you, you're wrong" crap comes from people who are incapable of recognizing that their opponent can actually have a reasonable view - that starting position makes any meaningful debate impossible. If you start out assuming that a person's perspective is reasonable, try to discover how they got there, and find along the way that their point of view really is NOT reasonable, then you might have an argument for actually fighting over your disagreement - but very few people actually engage in that intellectual process. It is the height of hubris to claim the existence of non-existence of any God with the purpose of convincing othe
-
Actually, my post was not intended for you, but for digital man, since he asked for the cite. CP just hiccuped again and put it at the wrong level. So what (aside from astounding arrogance) makes you thing you are the OP referred to? Perhaps you were confused about the meaning of the abbreviation - it stands for ORIGINAL poster, not Obnoxious poster.
Rob Graham wrote:
So what (aside from astounding arrogance) makes you thing you are the OP referred to?
The fact that I posted it? The author did not post it on this forum, I did, so that makes me the OP. Perhaps you should learn what an acronym means before you use it, to aviod making yourself look any more retarded.
-
I hope you lose your stubborn pride and embrace the truth that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. If I were you, I wouldn't wait too long.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
If I were you, I wouldn't wait too long.
What happens if he waits too long?
No one is guaranteed tomorrow and it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
No one is guaranteed tomorrow and it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No one is guaranteed tomorrow and it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
Zzzzzzzzzzz. More like just the long dirt nap.
Mongkut to a Christian missionary friend: "What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish".
-
Who could argue with this? http://www.raptureready.com/health/11.html[^] From the site: In most cases, the rejection of the Creator does not result from logical conclusions. The average atheist, if he or she is honest, will cite an emotional motivation for lack of faith in God. The late Isaac Asimov once wrote: “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” Now that Mr. Asimov is dead, I suspect he wishes he would have invested time into proving the existence of God. Most people who do not think God exists betray their stance by arguing with Him. If God is not real, there is no need to be hostile toward Him or toward anyone who believes in Him.
On the weekend I was in Melbourne with my wife ( married 14 years ), and I saw a magazine cover which said 'Jessica Alba - proof that God exists'
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No one is guaranteed tomorrow and it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
Zzzzzzzzzzz. More like just the long dirt nap.
Mongkut to a Christian missionary friend: "What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish".
It's gotta suck for the believers to realize, when they exhale their last breath, that there is nothing afterwards. I wish I could tell each and everyone of them "I told you so!" :)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Religion aside, I still can't get my head around the argument that someone arguing against the existence of X is, in fact, providing evidence for the existence of X.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
Uh. You need to take a Logic 101 course.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
It's just bull*** to say we are right in what we think and by arguing with us are tacitly admitting that we are right, otherwise you wouldn't bother. of course if you remain silent you are also tacitly admitting that you agree with them as if you didn't you would obviously argue with them. In plain english its called arrogance.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
In plain english its called arrogance.
I'd go so far as to call it stupidity. :)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Who could argue with this? http://www.raptureready.com/health/11.html[^] From the site: In most cases, the rejection of the Creator does not result from logical conclusions. The average atheist, if he or she is honest, will cite an emotional motivation for lack of faith in God. The late Isaac Asimov once wrote: “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” Now that Mr. Asimov is dead, I suspect he wishes he would have invested time into proving the existence of God. Most people who do not think God exists betray their stance by arguing with Him. If God is not real, there is no need to be hostile toward Him or toward anyone who believes in Him.
Whether God exists is between me and my theoretical god. Why we inflict our belief on others is for no other reason than power, greed, and control. If people who have the same belief want to get together and create a religion, then fine, but evangelizing that religion to others is as bad as screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" on stage. It's all brainwashing. Marc
-
Whether God exists is between me and my theoretical god. Why we inflict our belief on others is for no other reason than power, greed, and control. If people who have the same belief want to get together and create a religion, then fine, but evangelizing that religion to others is as bad as screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" on stage. It's all brainwashing. Marc
That's just patently untrue. Sure, religion is often used to create power and control people, but, right or wrong, when a person knocks on your door to tell you what they believe, it's surely possible that they believe they have found something that they believe has altered their life for the better, and that they'd like to share it ? I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
That's just patently untrue. Sure, religion is often used to create power and control people, but, right or wrong, when a person knocks on your door to tell you what they believe, it's surely possible that they believe they have found something that they believe has altered their life for the better, and that they'd like to share it ? I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
Because the tennet of my religion is that those who wish to seek should be welcome, rather going out and "harvesting". ;P And, btw, where does this "to know about something good" come from? That's an interesting assumption. Knowing spiritual truth does not necessarily fall into the "good" category. I tend to have the "oh shit, I'm doomed" reaction. Marc
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
Because the tennet of my religion is that those who wish to seek should be welcome, rather going out and "harvesting". ;P And, btw, where does this "to know about something good" come from? That's an interesting assumption. Knowing spiritual truth does not necessarily fall into the "good" category. I tend to have the "oh shit, I'm doomed" reaction. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
those who wish to seek should be welcome
Do you mean 'seek and ye shall find' ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
rather going out and "harvesting
As in 'the fields are white for harvest' ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
That's an interesting assumption.
I see you're toying with me, but obviously pretty much any religion preaches that what they believe is worth knowing, and yields a positive result for the believer. I'm obviously a Christian ( that is, I've made that clear before ), but my comments in this instance are not meant to reflect that, just a general observation of the nature of religion itself, and the possible motives someone could have for telling you about theirs.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
That's just patently untrue. Sure, religion is often used to create power and control people, but, right or wrong, when a person knocks on your door to tell you what they believe, it's surely possible that they believe they have found something that they believe has altered their life for the better, and that they'd like to share it ? I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
That's just patently untrue. Sure, religion is often used to create power and control people, but, right or wrong, when a person knocks on your door to tell you what they believe, it's surely possible that they believe they have found something that they believe has altered their life for the better, and that they'd like to share it ? I mean, why is the religion the one place where it's unacceptable to know about something good, and want to tell people about it ?
I agree with you. Trying to convince others of your beliefs, when you have found them helful, is perfectly natural. More generally, discussions and debates about religion, human origins, ethics and all the rest of it are a normal expression of our humanity; life would be much poorer without them. People who want to live in a bubble, sealed off from hearing any opinions they might not agree with, have a real problem.
John Carson
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
those who wish to seek should be welcome
Do you mean 'seek and ye shall find' ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
rather going out and "harvesting
As in 'the fields are white for harvest' ?
Marc Clifton wrote:
That's an interesting assumption.
I see you're toying with me, but obviously pretty much any religion preaches that what they believe is worth knowing, and yields a positive result for the believer. I'm obviously a Christian ( that is, I've made that clear before ), but my comments in this instance are not meant to reflect that, just a general observation of the nature of religion itself, and the possible motives someone could have for telling you about theirs.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
see you're toying with me,
Damn. You're "on" today. :)
Christian Graus wrote:
but obviously pretty much any religion preaches that what they believe is worth knowing, and yields a positive result for the believer.
And no, I'm not really toying with you, but I am being a bit "casual". The point though is that with knowledge comes responsibility. One may very well argue that ignorance is bliss, and that certain spiritual knowledge can actually be detrimental without the proper strength of character. Hence many of the "secret societies" in the late 1800's, which only revealed esoteric knowledge after sufficient training and demonstration of character. Another angle is that we're all on our own spiritual paths. Imagine taking a VB programmer and showing them C++ or, heaven forbid, assembly language. It really wouldn't do the VB programmer any good to be introduced to that stuff until they were spiritually ready for it, metaphorically speaking.
Christian Graus wrote:
just a general observation of the nature of religion itself
I agree, what you said is the nature of religion as man has created it. It is not, IMO, the nature of "true" religion. A person from a "true" religion does not evangelize, but rather demonstrates his character by his deeds, which then draws people to ask about his convictions. And no, I'm not pulling your leg. I do truly believe that. Marc
-
Christian Graus wrote:
see you're toying with me,
Damn. You're "on" today. :)
Christian Graus wrote:
but obviously pretty much any religion preaches that what they believe is worth knowing, and yields a positive result for the believer.
And no, I'm not really toying with you, but I am being a bit "casual". The point though is that with knowledge comes responsibility. One may very well argue that ignorance is bliss, and that certain spiritual knowledge can actually be detrimental without the proper strength of character. Hence many of the "secret societies" in the late 1800's, which only revealed esoteric knowledge after sufficient training and demonstration of character. Another angle is that we're all on our own spiritual paths. Imagine taking a VB programmer and showing them C++ or, heaven forbid, assembly language. It really wouldn't do the VB programmer any good to be introduced to that stuff until they were spiritually ready for it, metaphorically speaking.
Christian Graus wrote:
just a general observation of the nature of religion itself
I agree, what you said is the nature of religion as man has created it. It is not, IMO, the nature of "true" religion. A person from a "true" religion does not evangelize, but rather demonstrates his character by his deeds, which then draws people to ask about his convictions. And no, I'm not pulling your leg. I do truly believe that. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
A person from a "true" religion does not evangelize, but rather demonstrates his character by his deeds, which then draws people to ask about his convictions.
OK - I would say that someone who doesn't 'live' their belief has no credibility when they tell people about it, but I also believe that playing some game of trying to create reasons and situations for people to approach you about your religion is kind of silly. I mean, I don't believe for a second that being a Christian gives me any guarentee that I am capable of being a better person than any non-Christian on earth. So, how can my behaviour be expected to prove my beliefs ? All it can really do, is disprove it. That is to say, if I behave in a certain way, it could belie my claim to Christianity. No behaviour that I can think of, that doesn't involve directly saying I am a Christian, or discussing it in some way, or attending a 'Christian' gathering such as a church, can show I am a Christian, to the casual onlooker.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )