You're taking a chance!

[Deavonreye]

nothing to add really, just letting deavonreye know I am still praying for his "experience".

hehe

 

[kenan]

Atheists believe the evidence supports "there is no God."
Theists believe the evidence supports "there is a God." (= faith)
Agnostics don't believe the evidence is conclusive either way.

All three world views are based upon evidence - the difference is in individual conclusions.

"Agnostic" is a qualifier, such that one is either an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic pragmatic atheist or the like. One who identifies as an agnostic is probably a pragmatic atheist, meaning that God is simply a non-issue to them.

I am a pragmatic atheist: there is no reason for me to believe in a God or gods, given the utter lack of evidence short of the question of "where did everything come from" (which isn't evidence at all, merely the beginnings of an ontological argument, the value of which is restricted to splotchy, elderly individuals in recliner chairs with glasses of port), and therefore the question is simply a non-issue until more evidence arises. As Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Also: there's no reason why one holding one of these world views doesn't do so because of compelling evidence - sure, they're not likely to be taken seriously in a debate if they can do little more than call their opponent wrong and not show why, but there are atheists and theists the world over who simply reject the notion of the other position being true, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Now that I think about it, "evidence" is undefined for the purposes of this debate: what do you mean by "evidence?" Physical, empirical evidence? - or a contrived confirmation bias? Naturally, anyone holding the latter position must be considered to have an invalid argument in a logical debate.

I don't believe we need evidence to believe. Children believe simply because they are taught to believe or because of Spiritual influence, not evidence. Jesus said, have the faith like that of a child. In other words just believe. No proof, no evidence, no convincing, just plain unconditional belief.

Then we've no reason to believe what you do, nor do you have any reason to question our beliefs without providing a valid opposing position.

The Bible is itself evidence of God

This is akin to saying that the Harry Potter series is evidence of the existence of wizards.

 

[Oats]

"Agnostic" is a qualifier, such that one is either an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic pragmatic atheist or the like. One who identifies as an agnostic is probably a pragmatic atheist, meaning that God is simply a non-issue to them.

I am a pragmatic atheist: there is no reason for me to believe in a God or gods, given the utter lack of evidence short of the question of "where did everything come from" (which isn't evidence at all, merely the beginnings of an ontological argument, the value of which is restricted to splotchy, elderly individuals in recliner chairs with glasses of port), and therefore the question is simply a non-issue until more evidence arises. As Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Also: there's no reason why one holding one of these world views doesn't do so because of compelling evidence - sure, they're not likely to be taken seriously in a debate if they can do little more than call their opponent wrong and not show why, but there are atheists and theists the world over who simply reject the notion of the other position being true, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Now that I think about it, "evidence" is undefined for the purposes of this debate: what do you mean by "evidence?" Physical, empirical evidence? - or a contrived confirmation bias? Naturally, anyone holding the latter position must be considered to have an invalid argument in a logical debate.


Then we've no reason to believe what you do, nor do you have any reason to question our beliefs without providing a valid opposing position.


This is akin to saying that the Harry Potter series is evidence of the existence of wizards.

If you mean to say the Bible is unreasonable logically, then say so and make a claim to defend that premise...

you will be hard pressed to do so

 

[kenan]

If you mean to say the Bible is unreasonable logically, then say so and make a claim to defend that premise...

you will be hard pressed to do so

You're straying from the issue at hand: "the bible is evidence of God" implies circular reasoning. Why is the bible evidence of God? Because God said so in the bible?

And the bible is very logically unreasonable. Here is an unseen, supernatural being who is his own father that created man out of dirt and women out of the rib of a man, who judges these men and women based on an arbitrary list of dos and don'ts after we were convinced to eat a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree by a talking snake (hyperbole of the century, but you get my drift. This is the stuff of fairy tales).

I'm not buying it unless you can present something better than a series of writings written in a multitude of languages thousands of years ago and compiled circa 300 CE by a few hundred celibate men who were being led, again, by an unseen, supernatural being who somehow proceeded from this self-fathered entity (with the idea of whether it proceed from the Father God or the Son God resulting in a major schism at the beginning of the second millennium).


And I may have just committed the unforgivable sin (interpretation is rife though). Guess I've gone off the deep end 2

 

[Oats]

You're straying from the issue at hand: "the bible is evidence of God" implies circular reasoning. Why is the bible evidence of God? Because God said so in the bible?

And the bible is very logically unreasonable. Here is an unseen, supernatural being who is his own father that created man out of dirt and women out of the rib of a man, who judges these men and women based on an arbitrary list of dos and don'ts after we were convinced to eat a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree by a talking snake (hyperbole of the century, but you get my drift. This is the stuff of fairy tales).

I'm not buying it unless you can present something better than a series of writings written in a multitude of languages thousands of years ago and compiled circa 300 CE by a few hundred celibate men who were being led, again, by an unseen, supernatural being who somehow proceeded from this self-fathered entity (with the idea of whether it proceed from the Father God or the Son God resulting in a major schism at the beginning of the second millennium).


And I may have just committed the unforgivable sin (interpretation is rife though). Guess I've gone off the deep end 2

i'll address your points

Now what I mean by the bible being proof of God is eexactly that--


It is a historical document that portrays Gods interactions with man, it is historically accurate.

Those celibate men you refered to, that is called conviction


And yes the Bible seems a bit extreme, but we are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being-- your standards are to low

 

[old_tractor]

i'll address your points

Now what I mean by the bible being proof of God is eexactly that--


It is a historical document that portrays Gods interactions with man, it is historically accurate.

Those celibate men you refered to, that is called conviction


And yes the Bible seems a bit extreme, but we are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being-- your standards are to low

Why are you even bothering with their ilk? Their religious beliefs are plain to see. Consider the signature of one of them

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." -- Karl Marx

This is, of course, their atheist religion - and one that is far less rational or evidence-based than our Christian faith. Just consider this part of their creed: all history is simply class-struggle. Therefore, no one ever did anything out of pride, anger, love, practicality, fear, charity, pity, ad infinitum. Obviously, peoples, tribes and cultures came about for many different reasons and with different aims. Therefore, their atheist belief system is demonstrably false.

Consider how childish (not even child-like with connotations of innocense) their beliefs are. Marx and those of the same ilk posting here believe once the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, a "workers' paradise" will spring forth - an earthly "heaven". The fact that everywhere the dictatorship of the proletariat has been created, it murders millions (100 million plus in only half a century, thus making atheists the greatest mass-murderers in history) and creates a standard of living significantly lower than what it replaced doesn't bother them in the least. That's because it is a faith-based religious belief system. You see, it doesn't require proof and the beliefs are retained despite all evidence disproving them.

Any time you hear people of their ilk talking about evidence or rational thought, know it is a lie. Remember, we are told in the Bible: "Thinking themselves wise, they became as fools."

 

[kenan]

them

How condescending of you.

This is, of course, their atheist religion

Oh please. Atheism isn't a religion, and neither is Marxism - the latter is a philosophy, which I'd gladly refine given sufficient reason to do so.

and one that is far less rational or evidence-based than our Christian faith.

No, sir, that is a lie (or you are simply ignorant. Either way, you are incorrect).

Just consider this part of their creed: all history is simply class-struggle. Therefore, no one ever did anything out of pride, anger, love, practicality, fear, charity, pity, ad infinitum.

You've misunderstood Marxism, which is system that is theoretically based on historical materialism and philosophically based on dialectical materialism.

Obviously, peoples, tribes and cultures came about for many different reasons and with different aims. Therefore, their atheist belief system is demonstrably false.

This is not an atheist belief system. It is an irreligious philosophy though. In any case, you use "atheist belief system" as if this is a bad thing.

Consider how childish (not even child-like with connotations of innocense) their beliefs are.

Oh *deity*, if I were only on reddit and a little more inebriated I would waste my time on something so ridiculous.

Marx and those of the same ilk posting here believe once the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, a "workers' paradise" will spring forth - an earthly "heaven".

No, we don't believe that at all. And what's with all these quotes? - are you trying to build a straw man?

The fact that everywhere the dictatorship of the proletariat has been created, it murders millions (100 million plus in only half a century, thus making atheists the greatest mass-murderers in history)

and creates a standard of living significantly lower than what it replaced doesn't bother them in the least.

The USSR abolished homelessness. That is what I have to say to that. And in advance: you've no grounds to deduce anything from this other than that the USSR abolished homelessness - should you point and say "look! He supports the USSR," I'll be disappointed and have to reject your claim.

That's because it is a faith-based religious belief system.

It is not. It is based on historical observations.

Remember, we are told in the Bible: "Thinking themselves wise, they became as fools."

How ironic. Here, have a verse: 1 Corinthians 13:11

So your post was basically one big smear?

 

[kenan]

It is a historical document that portrays Gods interactions with man, it is historically accurate.

But that's the point. It isn't historically accurate. The sources of its various books are contested, its claims are overwhelmingly either rejected or ignored by other sources, and in some cases it seems to be a rehashed version of an existing text (see the Epic of Gilgamesh - calling the source of the older book "misled" shows a subjective bias).

And are you saying that the Torah is a series of historical documents and not a collection of books directly handed to Moses from the LORD?

And yes the Bible seems a bit extreme, but we are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving being-- your standards are to low

What do you mean my standards are too low? You don't mean they're too high? - that I've no reason to believe the outrageous claims made in the bible because I have high standards for an apparently all-powerful God?

 

[Pebbles]

My lack of belief enables me to ask questions about what is actually happening with the phenomenon of the universe without automatically presuming something without any proof only blind faith.

 

[WIP]

Then I might as well believe anything someone tells me

The Bible is itself evidence of God

Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit

Is not a piece of fruit evidence of a tree?

There's a difference between what people tell me and what God impresses upon my heart and mind. God has given us all the truth. We just keep rejecting it.

 

[Deavonreye]

There's a difference between what people tell me and what God impresses upon my heart and mind. God has given us all the truth. We just keep rejecting it.

I keep hearing about this "truth", . . . . but never see anything credible/compelling being submitted. :

 

[roger_dodger]

Why are you even bothering with their ilk? Their religious beliefs are plain to see. Consider the signature of one of them



This is, of course, their atheist religion - and one that is far less rational or evidence-based than our Christian faith. Just consider this part of their creed: all history is simply class-struggle. Therefore, no one ever did anything out of pride, anger, love, practicality, fear, charity, pity, ad infinitum. Obviously, peoples, tribes and cultures came about for many different reasons and with different aims. Therefore, their atheist belief system is demonstrably false.

Consider how childish (not even child-like with connotations of innocense) their beliefs are. Marx and those of the same ilk posting here believe once the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, a "workers' paradise" will spring forth - an earthly "heaven". The fact that everywhere the dictatorship of the proletariat has been created, it murders millions (100 million plus in only half a century, thus making atheists the greatest mass-murderers in history) and creates a standard of living significantly lower than what it replaced doesn't bother them in the least. That's because it is a faith-based religious belief system. You see, it doesn't require proof and the beliefs are retained despite all evidence disproving them.

Any time you hear people of their ilk talking about evidence or rational thought, know it is a lie. Remember, we are told in the Bible: "Thinking themselves wise, they became as fools."

You got it right, dude. The only belief system wackier than marxism/communism is anarchism. That one is a real hoot! We don't need no stinkin' government!

As soon as you attack their delusions, they go ballistic! It's funny to watch. Yes, you are right, they have a "belief system". That's obvious in the case of marxists and anarchists. It never occurs to them that whenever their nutty beliefs are put into practice it's a disaster then there must be something wrong with those beliefs.

But, no, they don't. They continue to cling to their beliefs. Why? They're looking for a man-made heaven on earth - the "worker's paradise". Talk about religious fantasies!

 

[Gendou Ikari]

You got it right, dude. The only belief system wackier than marxism/communism is anarchism. That one is a real hoot! We don't need no stinkin' government!

As soon as you attack their delusions, they go ballistic! It's funny to watch. Yes, you are right, they have a "belief system". That's obvious in the case of marxists and anarchists. It never occurs to them that whenever their nutty beliefs are put into practice it's a disaster then there must be something wrong with those beliefs.

But, no, they don't. They continue to cling to their beliefs. Why? They're looking for a man-made heaven on earth - the "worker's paradise". Talk about religious fantasies!

What about Catalonia in Spain in the late 1930's?

Marxism is in a sense anarchistic. Marx envisioned once the state (dictatorship of the proletariat) took control of the means of production, that after a grace period, the state would wither way.

 

[Jake]

You got it right, dude. The only belief system wackier than marxism/communism is anarchism. That one is a real hoot! We don't need no stinkin' government!

As soon as you attack their delusions, they go ballistic! It's funny to watch. Yes, you are right, they have a "belief system". That's obvious in the case of marxists and anarchists. It never occurs to them that whenever their nutty beliefs are put into practice it's a disaster then there must be something wrong with those beliefs.

But, no, they don't. They continue to cling to their beliefs. Why? They're looking for a man-made heaven on earth - the "worker's paradise". Talk about religious fantasies!

:yes
Exactly! These ideologic ideas are all rooted in communism, what a paradise that is. haha
agnostics are non-committal and atheists are committed to every vain and shallow idea that pops up, neither have any deep roots, swaying to and fro.

 

[old_tractor]

:yes
Exactly! These ideologic ideas are all rooted in communism, what a paradise that is. haha
agnostics are non-committal and atheists are committed to every vain and shallow idea that pops up, neither have any deep roots, swaying to and fro.

That's probably all too true. They reject the idea of God, and yet they will throw themselves into ideological concepts and continue to believe in them even after they fail repeatedly...every time. Now, that takes more faith than believing in God. ;)

I think another component is that most of these people consider themselves to be learned and intelligent. They tend to view live to varying degrees as simply an engineering problem - if we move X resources from Y people to Z people, they will be equal and everyone will be happy! But, life doesn't work that way because people don't act as the "learned" believe they should.

 

[jasoncran]

That's probably all too true. They reject the idea of God, and yet they will throw themselves into ideological concepts and continue to believe in them even after they fail repeatedly...every time. Now, that takes more faith than believing in God. ;)

I think another component is that most of these people consider themselves to be learned and intelligent. They tend to view live to varying degrees as simply an engineering problem - if we move X resources from Y people to Z people, they will be equal and everyone will be happy! But, life doesn't work that way because people don't act as the "learned" believe they should.

kinda like when we rebuild a nation. we teach them what to do and they dont do that thing we say to do. just the opposite. the only exception were europe and japan. those are that way because they had some level westernation in them. But just look at iraq/aghanistan and even the balkan states.

old tractor.lol engineers are into another world all unto themselves. if you know one you will know that is the truth. somehow engineers cant differiate theory from aplication as in reality things seldom work like the book says they do

 

[Oats]

But that's the point. It isn't historically accurate. The sources of its various books are contested, its claims are overwhelmingly either rejected or ignored by other sources, and in some cases it seems to be a rehashed version of an existing text (see the Epic of Gilgamesh - calling the source of the older book "misled" shows a subjective bias).

And are you saying that the Torah is a series of historical documents and not a collection of books directly handed to Moses from the LORD?


What do you mean my standards are too low? You don't mean they're too high? - that I've no reason to believe the outrageous claims made in the bible because I have high standards for an apparently all-powerful God?

They are accurate

The Jews are the best history keepers in human history, in and out side of the Bible.

Just saying

 

[Oats]

Checkable Biblical Accuracy - Table - Does God Exist?

follow that link.

and this one please

How Accurate is the Bible? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

read them then we can discuss, i'll read something of yours

 

[theLords]

That's probably all too true. They reject the idea of God, and yet they will throw themselves into ideological concepts and continue to believe in them even after they fail repeatedly...every time. Now, that takes more faith than believing in God.

I think another component is that most of these people consider themselves to be learned and intelligent. They tend to view live to varying degrees as simply an engineering problem - if we move X resources from Y people to Z people, they will be equal and everyone will be happy! But, life doesn't work that way because people don't act as the "learned" believe they should.

Keep in mind that most of those who hold these believes do so strictly because of textbook learning. Most haven't even hit 25 yet! It's easy for the affluent to hold these convictions.

 

[jasoncran]

What about Catalonia in Spain in the late 1930's?

Marxism is in a sense anarchistic. Marx envisioned once the state (dictatorship of the proletariat) took control of the means of production, that after a grace period, the state would wither way.

you mean? where is it. yup that was real peaceful at quick glance.done by violence, just strike and bring down capitalism for no reason other then because its evil, yet have no organisation to deal with the transition. nice. is spain a socialist nation? nope. once more a failure.

Anarchism in Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia