Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Jumi]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Following science is right and I see no point in making contradictory claims without substantial evidence. Although scientifically verifiable evidence for anything deemed supernatural is rather non-existent, there can come a time when you experience something that might change your worldview on this. Being as I started out as an atheist on this forum, I'm a living example of that.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

I see that your idea of religion is limited to some fundamentalist and literalist ones. Those are not the end all be all of either god or religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

There are some parts of the Bible that make sense. If you "don't believe in the Bible", must you reject those parts also?

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

Sure thing.

 

[Jumi]

I still believe science has a much stronger argument than religion. The evidence science has shown far outweighs writings in a book and the interpretations of humans who have read that book. After watching Benny Hinn and his smite jacket, the entertainment in religion has gone to new levels.

The two need not conflict with each other.

 

[Berlin]

What I'm saying is the only reason there is a God argument is because people believe there is one. However, there is no evidence of a God at all, and that cannot be disputed. If I presented you with a book stating this book said I was the almighty, would you believe it? Why? Why not?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Not sure what you mean by that. For instance, are you saying faith is evidence of your god? And what do you mean by "love proves it"?

Its evidence for whatever you have it for. Like an instinct.

 

[Berlin]

Possessing faith is evidence, and love proves it

One could have faith they can walk off a tall building and not fall to the ground, but empirical evidence shows that not to be true. That's a fact.

 

[MonkeyFire]

One could have faith they can walk off a talk building and not fall to the ground, but empirical evidence shows that not to be true. That's a fact.

One could have faith they can walk off a talk building and not fall to the ground, but empirical evidence shows that not to be true. That's a fact.

It's only as strong as the evidence of the knowing you can, and how to fly.

 

[sayak83]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

Well, I am a Hindu, and my beliefs are based on my own spiritual and meditative experience and informed by a section of Hindu scriptures and philosophy that help me in understanding and using these experiential insights in a constructive fashion. The effort is always to become a more calmer, caring, patient and knowledgeable person than the day before and to be happier and more content in all spheres of life. I am a Hindu because it provides me with ample resources to fructify this effort, to become a better and a wiser person. I am perfectly content if other people find Christianity or Atheism better suited to their needs in life, but I will push back if the claim is made that their preferred worldview is somehow inherently superior to mine. Are you making this claim?

 

[dianaiad]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally.

Why? Because you say so?

There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

You are setting up an impossible premise here. True, there ARE biblical inerrantists out there who are very strict 24/7 creationists, but...and I do hate to break this to you...they comprise a minority of Christians. There are quite a few of us who understand that while the bible, in its original state (the originals of the writings of the prophets included in it) are probably pretty accurate as far as the understanding of those writers went, MEN have been involved in translating and transcribing it for several thousand years, if one counts the OT as well as the NT.

...........and y'know what? We don't HAVE the original documents. For you to insist that we have to take the bible utterly literally, with 'no room for riddles or interpretations' is insisting that we adhere to a standard we don't use. Only you are insisting that we do it.

Shoot, even the "KJV only" biblical inerrantists understand that different people can interpret a verse in different ways.

As to science....the Bible was never supposed to be a science text....and as it turns out, most Christians understand THAT, as well.

 

[Berlin]

It's only as strong as the evidence of the knowing you can, and how to fly.

Let me rephrase. Humans can not fly. If you a human walks off a building, they will fall to the ground. Don't believe me. Give it a try.

Also, there have been many Gods throughout history. Whey have most of them disappeared. Because of science. We now know that the Gods are sending lightning down, causing storms or initiating earthquakes. No one believes in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. anymore. Why? What's different about the Christian/Muslim gods that are different?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Let me rephrase. Humans can not fly. If you a human walks off a building, they will fall to the ground. Don't believe me. Give it a try.

Also, there have been many Gods throughout history. Whey have most of them disappeared. Because of science. We now know that the Gods are sending lightning down, causing storms or initiating earthquakes. No one believes in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. anymore. Why? What's different about the Christian/Muslim gods that are different?

You by your own science don't know everything...

 

[james bond]

Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

What is the testable evidence?[/QUOTE]

 

[Berlin]

Why? Because you say so?



You are setting up an impossible premise here. True, there ARE biblical inerrantists out there who are very strict 24/7 creationists, but...and I do hate to break this to you...they comprise a minority of Christians. There are quite a few of us who understand that while the bible, in its original state (the originals of the writings of the prophets included in it) are probably pretty accurate as far as the understanding of those writers went, MEN have been involved in translating and transcribing it for several thousand years, if one counts the OT as well as the NT.

...........and y'know what? We don't HAVE the original documents. For you to insist that we have to take the bible utterly literally, with 'no room for riddles or interpretations' is insisting that we adhere to a standard we don't use. Only you are insisting that we do it.

Shoot, even the "KJV only" biblical inerrantists understand that different people can interpret a verse in different ways.

As to science....the Bible was never supposed to be a science text....and as it turns out, most Christians understand THAT, as well.

Wait, so now you're saying the Bible is not to be taken literally? Believe the Bible, but don't take it literally? Most of Christian beliefs come from it, so how can it not be taken literally. I'm confused.

 

[Berlin]

What is the testable evidence?

[/QUOTE]
Fire will burn you. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Humans will die within a certain amount of minutes if they don't have oxygen. A thimble full of neutron star material weighs over 1 billion tons.

 

[sayak83]

Wait, so now you're saying the Bible is not to be taken literally? Believe the Bible, but don't take it literally? Most of Christian beliefs come from it, so how can it not be taken literally. I'm confused.

While Bible has historical information, most non-fundamentalist Christians and Jews consider the Bible to be a theological guide to the nature of God and his relationship with man, expressed through the modes of history, myths, songs, poems, parables and visions through the ages. All these genres exist, are intricately mixed together, and the writings are inspired by the spirit of God. However, they are infallible only on revealing the nature of God to man and the duty of man to God, and not infallible in any other sense.

 

[suncowiam]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Thank about it - most of us believed in Santa Claus with the same passion as a deity until we knew better. I used to listen for the sled and hooves landing on my roof or a very fat man squeezing down my chimney. I believed it because it's what I was told for several years. I don't see any difference in religion.

Last, if you believe in the Bible, you must believe every text in it literally. There is no room for riddles or interpretations. We know there are things in this world that are physically impossible. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean a miracle allowed an incident to negate physics. A man lived in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, Moses parting the red sea, Noah being able to squeeze 2 of every animal species on to a boat (which means he was able to feed, remove all feces, keep them from eating/fighting each other for the entire journey)? This is physically impossible. Two of every species of animal would not fit into the ark mentioned in the Bible.

Please join this discussion and explain your views.

Thanks.

It depends where you live to suggest atheism has an advantage.

I would not go tooting that I'm an atheist in certain parts of the world. Quite the disadvantage if you ask me...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

is man smart and knowledgeable enough to recognize "proof' of God when passing by it?

Isn't it even referenced in scripture that God doesn't leave evidence of himself just lying around? "Blessed are those that have not seen, and yet believe." or some such. This is basically acknowledgement that it is going to be tough to believe in God because there is no way to witness Him. I, personally, believe that ideas like that were inserted by the writers because they knew how unsubstantiated their position was - they knew how ludicrous their claims were - and it left them extremely insecure (and rightly so). So they attempted to preempt what they knew would be some of the people's concerns over aspects of their writings by writing in reverse-psychology traps like this.

Bob (potential convert): "I've never witnessed anything directly from God, but the text claims that He did give others that very chance in the past. Why should I believe, when now He seems unwilling to give us the same chance?"
Biblical writer: "Didn't you read what I wrote?! You can be even MORE blessed if you haven't seen God but still believe!!!!"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Possessing faith is evidence, and love proves it

There is nothing worthwhile in what you just stated.

 

[dianaiad]

One could have faith they can walk off a tall building and not fall to the ground, but empirical evidence shows that not to be true. That's a fact.

People do that all the time. It's called 'base jumping,' and it depends entirely on what one is wearing: wing suit or parachute. Oh, and it also depends upon whether one is willing to deal with the legal consequences of making it down alive. It's not legal most places.

............and y'know what? I honestly don't know about anybody passing a law against something that isn't physically possible.

Oh, yeah....and I have personally walked on water, and we can even arrange virgin births. We haven't split any seas yet, or changed water into wine (except by the slow way), but we DO heal lepers and by the standards of Jesus' time, we can certainly revive the dead. We're working on the 'make the lame to walk' bit, and are quite successful at it. We can even cause blind men to see, and the deaf to hear.

So it would be a good idea not to characterize all of the miracles of the Bible as 'physically impossible.' Quite a few of them are not; it is just a matter of knowing how to do it.

 

[dianaiad]

Wait, so now you're saying the Bible is not to be taken literally? Believe the Bible, but don't take it literally? Most of Christian beliefs come from it, so how can it not be taken literally. I'm confused.

.....and HOW many Christian belief systems are there, Berlin? Every one of them believe in the Bible. A few of them insist that it be taken literally, but even those few differ one from another in how to interpret it.

And you are setting up a false dichotomy here. There ARE more choices than 'take the bible literally' and 'toss it out."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The proof of God is you and me. We seem like separate entities, but wait, we are aware of each other. We converse. Impossible. A thing can only be aware of itself. Aha, an all encompassing entity, a field? Perhaps. There you have it. Has to be God.

And "there you have it" - God is inserted into yet another gap. I'm not quite sure this deserves a pat on the back... and I certainly wouldn't be caught doing the patting myself.