There is no God.
Bada bing! Problem solved.
Thank you, I’ll be here all week! G’night!
I haven’t seen debating skills like those since the last Hank Hill episode I watched. I guess I’ll have to counter the dreaded “bada bing” assertion in the only manner that is logically valid. Thus, bada boom.
You know, Libertarian, you’re “Jesus is God” argument is so weak it doesn’t deserve any more consideration than the simple “bada bing, you’re wrong” rebuff.
and now for something completely different
“You make me make a phony phone call to Edward Rooney? the man could squash my nuts into oblivion!”
Lolo,
I know there’s a God, I’m just not quite sure if it is His will that you don’t believe in Him or if you’ve chosen not to.
Look back into the times when this was written. Other nations had gods that were just as prominant in the eyes of the Jews, even if they never appeared to them. The whole time the Jews were in Egypt, there’s no reports that Horus or any other Egyption gods showed themselves to them, yet what did the Jews know while they were starving in the dessert after their escape from Egypt? “Yahweh set us free, but that bastard just left us here to starve. At least Ra still feeds the people of Egypt, maybe we should find a new god.” It’s not that they discounted the words of God or His miracles, it’s that they didn’t like the results. They got mana from the sky, water from a rock, but they were still stuck in the dessert drinking dirty water and eating nothing but unleven bread. If you know multiple gods exist, why not start worshiping one that would actually make life easier, as opposed to one that “enjoys watching His people suffer”? That’s why they invented the golden calf. It’s not that they didn’t believe in God, they just thought He was jerking their chain, and they felt they could do better.
Outside the story of Egypt though, God didn’t really provide many huge miracles to the sight of so many. He destroyed Sodom and Ghamora, but only a few people knew that God was responsible, it wasn’t like it was a huge deal that He needed to share with everyone. And he only showed himself to a very small few. So again, it’s not that the ancient Isrealites saw God’s miracles and chose to ingnore them, it’s just when they didn’t get exactly what they wanted, they figured they could look elsewhere for better results. Then they got thrown into slavery.
I’ve said so before in other threads, and I said so in this one, if not in so many words. Blind faith is a BAD thing. You should question things, we have the right to question things, and we are expected to question things. it’s our nature, it’s what we do, it’s how we progress, it’s how we learn. It’s just that ever since science became more and more prominant, people’s perseptions of God and miracles becomes more and more sceptical. Science is being used to study everything from the Bible and either discount it or prove it. The burning bush for example. There’s apparently some type of bush in the dessert that emits a type of gas, that sometimes builds up in high quantities around it, and in the extreme heat, can ignite, thus making the bush “appear” to be on fire. Does this fully discount the story? Who knows, that’s for individuals to decide for themselves.
But take the instance at Fatima. An old roomate of mine and friend from high school saw the miracle as well. And not in 1917 or the 1930s, but in the early 90’s. Apparently that event still occurs today, and it’s still seen by hundreds at a time, and aside from the cite that it can be related to UFO’s (something science doesn’t even validify), science hasn’t managed to disprove the occurance, even if it would be “deprimental to the solar system.” So, if someone else can find information on it, that would be nice too.
As for the weeping icon I mentioned, I have a bit more info, but not too precise just yet. The Maronites are the order I was thinking of, although I do believe they are not associated with the monestary where the icon is held. It’s held in a Russian Orthodox monestary outside of Blanco (I’m working on specific location), it doesn’t weep tears, but weeps myre instead (my bad), and apparently you smell like roses for days after going to visit the place. One of the guys in my fraternity goes to visit it every Sunday if he can, so hopefully he’ll send me a map. So there you go.
Sure you know there’s a God, just like I know there isn’t.
Not surprisingly you’ve called God “him.” Could that be anthropomorhpic? why, yes it is.
Could your attachment to this so called He-God be nothing more than a desire for meaning and reason in an otherwise meaningless and reasonless world?
yes.
Just curious, how do you know? I imagine you had an experience, but please enlighten me.
<<lolo cringes as he imagines the “J” word being played>>
and also if you know there is, but I know there isn’t, doesn’t that make your knowledge obsolete?
Fatima?
are you serious?
Lolo: You do not know that there is no god. An omnipotent, omniscient being would be quite capable of hiding himself from you so thoroughly that you would be firmly convinced of his non-existence.
You’re more than welcome, for my money, to say that the so-called “evidence for God” is self-delusion, superstition, blind adherence to the legends of an ancient tribe, or whatever, but in this forum, at least, you should sustain your thinking with example, argument, or authority that can be generally supported.
I freely admit that the evidence which supports my belief in God is totally subject to your interpretation. I just don’t accept that it’s the right one.
Your comment regarding the “will to believe” is quite on target. I have it; this means that I must carefully evaluate my evidence for myself to avoid falling into the fallacy of believing what I wish to believe.
is not everything you believe not subject to your desire to believe it?
supposing I had an experience of NOT god, is this not equal to whats-his-nuts experience of god?
who is to say any god experience is not simply emotion complemented by desire?
Given your behavior in these threads, why should he “enlighten” you just for you to mock him?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I suppose there is truth to what you say. However, one can only give one’s best efforts to discounting one’s predilections.
In such cases as this, it’s considered good debate to “reverse the field.” Is not your conviction that there is no God the same sort of thing? What sort of evidence would serve to prove to you that there was a God, and that the evidence presented you that served to so prove was not your delusion?
It all boils down to certain questions. In the absence of evidence sufficient to convince you, “soft atheism” strikes me as the only reasonable conclusion. (Soft agnosticism simply begs the question; hard agnosticism requires an absolute faith in Godelian unprovability that contradicts its own stance.) The only argument for “hard atheism” I’ve ever seen that seemed satisfactory was Vile Orb’s; look it up, or perhaps he’ll be willing to restate it here.
I’ve experienced and researched adequate evidence to demonstrate to my satisfaction, that, even discounting my enthusiasm for the idea, God does exist and loves us. In the absence of such evidence, however, and I freely admit that the weighting I place on it and the subjectivity of some of it renders it useless for general proof, I have nothing but respect for people who conclude that God is “not proven” – the “soft atheist” position.
Which, since I am after all only human, does not preclude me from getting irked at people who accuse me of swallowing whole-hog a bunch of outmoded supersititions. Christianity is certainly accompanied by a bunch of them, but its core is not one of them (IMHO, at least). And I’ve tried to study and sift wheat from chaff. (And I can understand those who claim that there’s so much chaff that trying to get what little wheat there is, if any, is unprofitable.)
Yes, I do and it does and we both have access to on-line dictionaries so I made sure to look it upa nd if you do teh same you’ll find I used it well oh well how about a run on sentence?
Gotta go, catch you cats in the morrow.
Lolo,
Y’know, after the WarmGun thing, I’m just not amused by you anymore. I don’t know how you get away with it, or why you’re allowed to do it, and it’s none of my business. But this is Great Debates. You need to debate or get the hell out. Do you understand that?
From my experience, Lolo likes to jump into any religious discussion, spout out a bunch of one liners simply to piss people off, and continue doing so until the whole thread becomes focused around him. I suggest everyone just ignore him, otherwise we’re just giving him what he wants. Don’t believe me? Go to his “Jesus, I’m not impressed thread.” It’s nothing but page after page of him simply stating “I’m not impressed.” No dibate, no discussion, just him calling anyone with any sense of belief an idiot and then running away. We’ve got enough crap in here to focus on, we don’t need him too.
screams into storm
YO! PHILSGT500!!
I’M A CHRISTIAN TOO!
I HAVEN’T READ THE THREAD BECAUSE AFTER READING YOUR OP I KNEW IT’D BE LIKE TRYING TO UNRAVEL A CGI BATTLE, BUT FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH…
ducks as flurry of heartfelt arguments collide overhead
YOUR OP SOUNDED PRETTY ACCURATE TO ME!
THE FOLKS HERE ARE PRETTY COOL REALLY - I’M STILL ALIVE AND I HAVEN’T SHUT UP ABOUT JESUS SINCE I ARRIVED!
DON’T LET THE STORM PUT YOU OFF!
IRON SHARPENS IRON, DUDE!
runs for cover as Stormtroopers try to drag him to the BBQ/Sarlacc Pit
Ross,
Thanks very much for the vote of confidence. I’m really not having all that much problem with ‘the storm.’ I do feel much stronger in my faith after hearing the questions others have and at least being able to answer them for myself. Never heard the “iron strengthens iron” quote before, but I like it quite a bit.
“sharpens” I mean
Ok, it seems that those who believe that there is no God often act with a chip on their shoulders and look down their noses to theists. But the fact is that no one can empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. So rather than laugh at Christians - or any theist for that matter - athiests should hold their insults and realize that their beliefs in the non-existence of God are founded on the same basis (if not a weaker one) as theists: its called faith.
I could claim that there is a pink elephant somewhere in the world. You don’t believe me - that’s fine, but do not tell me that you know it doesn’t exist unless you are all over the world all the time to SEE that it is not there. No matter how insane it may be to believe in a flying pink elephant, you do now KNOW it does not exist unless you are all places at all times to see that it does not exist. All of us need to be a little more humble when making philosophical judgments and admit to the faith required to both sides of the argument.
I think I should point out to you, Jep, that you are not getting a real sense of the full range of Straight Dope atheists. So many of them are absent or busy these days that, unfortunately, their voices aren’t heard. They are people of high moral fiber and gracious good manners who offer their unreserved respect to theists who genuinely hold to their faith.
The Lolos and other hand-stabbers that are flying about lately are a recent anamoly.
I’m going to second Lib’s point.
You will probably never convince most atheists that a belief in God is less silly than your pink elephant. But many will defend your right to believe in either God or that pink elephant - as long as you are willing to grant them their right to non-belief. Most will grant that as long as that belief brings you good (comfort, ethics, whatever) and not bad (intolerance, narrow mindedness, whatever), it nets out on the positive.
There really are a ton of threads on this board on this topic. One of the best, perhaps, is “Glitch trys to find God.” I was a brand-newbie back then, so I’m not even sure where to start searching it up, but maybe one of the participants can find it and post a link.