Atheists have no logical position to believe what they believe, which is "There is no evidence that a god exists, therefore I have no belief in any god"

If I have stated this incorrectly, or you disagree with my statement, then jump right in and correct me.

If you have no evidence of something, such as space aliens, why should you believe it? As an attorney, I'd think it's perfectly logical to believe there is no god without evidence. Belief in God is based upon FAITH, in my opinion, not evidence. I'm not an atheist, but I just felt the need to challenge your statement....not challenging the existence of God.

How do you deal with the first part of the statement: "There is NO evidence.." from a logical standpoint?

Saint- from your standpoint then.

Prove to me that there are not invisible orange space creatures that follow every human being around.

Just curious to see how you can disprove it.

When you prove to me that YOU are actually a conscious being and not just a pre-programmed robot. When you can actually prove logic itself.

I'm not talking about mere proof. I'm talking about EVIDENCE.

Oooh, so the only way to disprove being a robot is god?

Way to go, Descartes.

I'm probably going to regret this but here goes,

I think René Descartes provided the evidence that we are concious beings with his most famous statement "I think, therefore I am".

Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (Latin: "I think, therefore I am"), or more aptly, "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence.

Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been proven unreliable. So Descartes concludes that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted. Descartes defines "thought" (cogitatio) as "what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it". Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which he is immediately conscious.

To further demonstrate the limitations of the senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the Wax Argument. He considers a piece of wax: his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still a piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he cannot use the senses: he must use his mind. Descartes concludes:

“Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind."


That answers your question but, in my opinion, does not prove or disprove the the question if there is or isn't a god.

I don't think anyone, athiest or not, has a logical position for what they believe in the eyes of someone who has the opposite belief. People choose to believe what they CHOOSE to to believe. Is there 100% concrete evidence either way that a god does or doesn't exist?

Why the hell did I get involved in this conversation?

I think nmb's avatar proves that no matter what your theistic beliefs are, you have to admit that some things can be made better by man.

Go March 2008!

I agree with that. This topic can now be put to rest.

So that means that saint has no logical reason not to believe in santa and the easter bunny...

Very nice NMB, that being said, Jesus rules. Nuf said

It is nobody else's business what God I believe in or not believe in! I can tell you that it seems pretty improbable for things to have gone down the way Christianity says they did though. I say there is a God inside of each one of us and we are getting closer to knowing him/her/it by quitting this unholy habit that is killing us. Not one of our God's want us to die from mouth cancer. Doing the next right thing for me and my son is the closest thing to religion I got right now. Oh yeah and check this out-Hell is for those who believe in a religion, spirituality is for those who have already been there. You dont have to be religious to be spiritual my brothas! Can I get an Amen?!

You're semi-correct in that statement. God is faith based. Science begins with a hypothesis, which then goes into testing and theory is created. If the theory is proved by all circumsctances it becomes a law. Faith goes beyond science to answer the simple question that science can never answer. Which is: What was there before the was anything. Every answer breaks the very laws of science that we know. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed or the second law of thermodynamics. One could then have Faith enough to say that something did create it, but for that to be true, that person would have to be above the laws of physics.

I'm glad you did get involved! You make a correct statement that Descartes' principle does not prove nor disprove the question whether or not there is a god, yet neither does it prove anything beyond the fact that Descartes perceived himself as a conscious "thing". It still does not necessarily follow that all other people around him are self-conscious beings. There is no way to prove that using the scientific method, yet we still believe that others are self-conscious as we perceive ourselves as self-conscious because of certain patterns of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that we observe and form an opinion about. The scope of that consciousness will vary greatly, from person to person. Some people are self-conscious only, some are self-conscious and others-conscious, and some are self-conscious, others-conscious and God-conscious.

Where does this thing called self-consciousness originate from? What is mind? Is it something that is purely generated from the physical brain itself? If so, how can a physical thing (brain) bring about the non-physical (thought, consciousness), which, in turn, regulates all of human society? Or could the brain merely act as a receiver and processor (e.g. in the physical world, through the five senses gathering, organizing and processing information; yet on a higher frequency recognizing the higher laws of non-material Logic and Reason, as well as abstract thought; then on an even higher frequency, the perception of thought and insight that transcends Logic and Reason itself)?

It was recognized by Descartes that there are things that transcend the limitations of the scientific method(i.e. inductions made based on observations of the physical world made through the five senses), as useful as it is in discerning and grasping the physical world around us, but the scientific method itself is founded on something that can't be proven using the scientific method - thought, logic and reason. How could anyone, then, assume that the scientific method would ever be a valid tool in trying to access whether God exists or not?

We assume and respect the truth (not fact, because it can't be proven) that others outside the confines of ourselves are conscious beings. However, we can only assess the scope of consciousness within ourselves (I think, therefore I am, and I perceive x,y and z), and cannot assume the scope of consciousness within others. The best we can do is to opine "I think, therefore I am. I observe the same patterns in you, therefore I assume you think, too, and therefore you are". We cannot reasonably and truthfully state, however, that "I think, therefore I am and am conscious of x, y and z, which can be scientifically proven. You say you are conscious of A as well as x,y and z. I'm not conscious of A, so therefore I think: you are delusional."

The materialist states "there is no evidence of God's existence". Really what the materialist means is that there is no convincing evidence of God, which would, then 1) render the whole statement an opinion only and, 2) attempt to define A in the context of x, y and z. It is not logical to do so. If, however, the materialist means "there is no evidence of the existence of God, therefore God does not exist.", then that person is asserting that he/she knows all things. No one person can know all things, so the statement qualifies, at best, as an assertion only with absolutely no true logical premise. That puts the person squarely in the NON-Theist camp, because "belief" is no longer involved - they KNOW. ATHEISTs define themselves as "having no belief in any god", which - based on the statement alone - , in no way, asserts that there is no god; merely that they don't believe in a god.

If the statement really does mean "there is no convincing evidence of God's existence" then, logically speaking, it leaves the door open to the possibility, which would place the materialist in the Agnostic camp. The question is, what would constitute acceptable and convincing "evidence". THAT question is a very personal and subjective one, and will be answered differently by each of us. Or is there such a thing as an objective standard? Is an absolute and objective standard necessary?

The Theist holds that there is one and it is both absolute and objective.

"Faith goes beyond science to answer the simple question that science can never answer. Which is: What was there before the was anything. Every answer breaks the very laws of science that we know."

OR - our perception of what things are actually possible based on the laws of physics and our limited understanding of those laws we have discovered so far. Quantum physics has discovered things that seem to violate Neutonian laws of physics. We don't invent the laws of nature, we discover and uncover them. They are there, but we have yet to realize all of the possibilities inherent within them.

What is described often as supernatural may very well be totally within the realm of natural law, yet we do not perceive it as natural, because it's not something we see everyday and is something beyond our current collective cognition. That, however, doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that it must not be true and factual in the overall scope of reality.

Reality is more than we know. That's not an assertion. In many ways we, in the 21st century, have a greater perspective of reality than people did 100 years ago. We have a long way to go to realizing all of reality. But it is true that our perception of reality is all that we can know in this particular point in time and space. That cannot, however, lead to a logical conclusion that all of reality is limited to what we currently perceive. That conclusion would be false based on precedence (collective and personal)as well as (going back to Descartes) not taking into account others' perception of reality (personal).

True faith is never without solid foundation in the known and current perception of reality. Faith is based on the reasonable assessment that the fuller measure of reality is currently beyond our immediate grasp of our reality-challenged minds but that will be revealed to us if, and only if, we live by principles and truths we currently recognize. The farmer, for example, has faith that, based on precedence of methods utilized before, if he plants seed in the soil and waters and nurtures it, in time will yield a useful crop. Every time he gathers a crop he learns something new for the next time he plants that will make the crop even better. His perception of reality is broadened, he discovers something new about the laws of nature, and his faith is strengthened by the observation that next time he gathers the crop he will have even fresher insight as to how it all works. When he planted the seed in the first place, he did NOT engage in wishful thinking to make the seed miraculously grow, but followed a specific step-by-step methodology. Even though he hasn't seen the mature plants yet, he has faith that if he follows these specific steps, within a short time he will see them in reality.

Now, did the farmer physically make the seed grow? No, that is impossible for him, because he doesn't have the knowledge of how to do that and it is beyond his immediate grasp of reality. However, he does recognize the reality that the seed DOES somehow grow (not by chance, but by some design inherent within the seed). What IS possible for him and what expands his perception of reality, is to have a deeper understanding of what HE has to do in order for the seed to grow and that is to plant, water and nurture the seed. This is built on his faith in the truth that the seed is inherently designed to grow into something useful which will be beneficial to the farmer's own nourishment. If he didn't go through exercise of faith, no crop would spring up. His perception of reality would become stagnant.

just something to lighten the mood:

Faiths



During these serious times, people of all faiths
should remember these 4 religious truths:

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen
people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader
of the Christian world.

4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters

that's a hoot!

You're killing me Saint. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Stuff....it's called deductive and inductive reasoning utilized in and demonstrated through the disciplines of philosophy, psychology and the physical sciences. It's available to all thinking people. All it takes is a genuine desire to find TRUTH and a little discipline in the areas of logic and reason. You might want to give it a good try for once.

Are you only capable of ridicule? Do you have no reasoning ability or do you define your role in these discussions as eye-poker? Are you afraid of having your position(s) challenged? It would appear so, since you always resort back to ridicule.

Ridicule has no intellectual value and is only of (temporary) benefit to the ridiculer in that it makes him feel superior. In reality ridicule has never served humankind in the quest for truth.

Are you up to the challenge of arguing your position and defending your beliefs using the tools of logic, or is it truly beyond your capabilities or desire to do so?

Oh saint, you hurt my feelings.

Logic: Is it logical or rational to believe in Santa? I think we can agree that it is not. And yet, you believe in a being that has just as much evidence to support it's existence as Santa does.

I am curious saint, what denomination are you?

In a mere two lines of script, you've committed 1) a categorical fallacy and 2) made a totally unsupported assertion. Let's try this: why don't you provide reasons why Santa and God might belong in the same category and we will discuss (since you didn't really ask my opinion, just made an assertion and told me what I think - and by that, 3) built a straw man [that you haven't even attempted to burn down, yet]).

Denomination?? Why "curious"? If you would clarify your reason for asking, I might see where it is a necessary component to this discussion.

[quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5221654' date='Feb 5 2008, 11:15 AM'][quote name='riddle29' post='5221637' date='Feb 6 2008, 06:37 AM'][quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5220492' date='Feb 3 2008, 09:37 AM'][quote name='riddle29' post='5219998' date='Feb 3 2008, 07:37 AM'][quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5215291' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:36 AM']some are self-conscious, others-conscious and God-conscious.[/quote]


You're killing me Saint. Where do you come up with this stuff?
[/quote]


Stuff....it's called deductive and inductive reasoning utilized in and demonstrated through the disciplines of philosophy, psychology and the physical sciences. It's available to all thinking people. All it takes is a genuine desire to find TRUTH and a little discipline in the areas of logic and reason. You might want to give it a good try for once.

Are you only capable of ridicule? Do you have no reasoning ability or do you define your role in these discussions as eye-poker? Are you afraid of having your position(s) challenged? It would appear so, since you always resort back to ridicule.

Ridicule has no intellectual value and is only of (temporary) benefit to the ridiculer in that it makes him feel superior. In reality ridicule has never served humankind in the quest for truth.

Are you up to the challenge of arguing your position and defending your beliefs using the tools of logic, or is it truly beyond your capabilities or desire to do so?
[/quote]

Oh saint, you hurt my feelings.

Logic: Is it logical or rational to believe in Santa? I think we can agree that it is not. And yet, you believe in a being that has just as much evidence to support it's existence as Santa does.

I am curious saint, what denomination are you?
[/quote]
In a mere two lines of script, you've committed 1) a categorical fallacy and 2) made a totally unsupported assertion. Let's try this: why don't you provide reasons why Santa and God might belong in the same category and we will discuss (since you didn't really ask my opinion, just made an assertion and told me what I think - and by that, 3) built a straw man [that you haven't even attempted to burn down, yet]).

Denomination?? Why "curious"? If you would clarify your reason for asking, I might see where it is a necessary component to this discussion.
[/quote]


I was just curious if you associate with one denomination. It's a serious question. If you do, what are the reasons you believe that they have it right and the other denominations / religions are wrong? Just curious, but a serious question. That's one of my biggest gripes of fiath. When you ask someone how they know that their religion / denomination "got it right", usually you hear a "faith" answer. Well, every other person who belives in something different has that same faith. I am wondering why you believe what you do and what makes you feel it's the correct version... that's all, nothing sinister.

[quote name='riddle29' post='5221745' date='Feb 6 2008, 10:55 AM'][quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5221654' date='Feb 5 2008, 11:15 AM'][quote name='riddle29' post='5221637' date='Feb 6 2008, 06:37 AM'][quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5220492' date='Feb 3 2008, 09:37 AM'][quote name='riddle29' post='5219998' date='Feb 3 2008, 07:37 AM'][quote name='Saint of Dripping' post='5215291' date='Jan 22 2008, 10:36 AM']some are self-conscious, others-conscious and God-conscious.[/quote]


You're killing me Saint. Where do you come up with this stuff?
[/quote]


Stuff....it's called deductive and inductive reasoning utilized in and demonstrated through the disciplines of philosophy, psychology and the physical sciences. It's available to all thinking people. All it takes is a genuine desire to find TRUTH and a little discipline in the areas of logic and reason. You might want to give it a good try for once.

Are you only capable of ridicule? Do you have no reasoning ability or do you define your role in these discussions as eye-poker? Are you afraid of having your position(s) challenged? It would appear so, since you always resort back to ridicule.

Ridicule has no intellectual value and is only of (temporary) benefit to the ridiculer in that it makes him feel superior. In reality ridicule has never served humankind in the quest for truth.

Are you up to the challenge of arguing your position and defending your beliefs using the tools of logic, or is it truly beyond your capabilities or desire to do so?
[/quote]

Oh saint, you hurt my feelings.

Logic: Is it logical or rational to believe in Santa? I think we can agree that it is not. And yet, you believe in a being that has just as much evidence to support it's existence as Santa does.

I am curious saint, what denomination are you?
[/quote]
In a mere two lines of script, you've committed 1) a categorical fallacy and 2) made a totally unsupported assertion. Let's try this: why don't you provide reasons why Santa and God might belong in the same category and we will discuss (since you didn't really ask my opinion, just made an assertion and told me what I think - and by that, 3) built a straw man [that you haven't even attempted to burn down, yet]).

Denomination?? Why "curious"? If you would clarify your reason for asking, I might see where it is a necessary component to this discussion.
[/quote]


I was just curious if you associate with one denomination. It's a serious question. If you do, what are the reasons you believe that they have it right and the other denominations / religions are wrong? Just curious, but a serious question. That's one of my biggest gripes of fiath. When you ask someone how they know that their religion / denomination "got it right", usually you hear a "faith" answer. Well, every other person who belives in something different has that same faith. I am wondering why you believe what you do and what makes you feel it's the correct version... that's all, nothing sinister.
[/quote]

I believe I answered the "faith" question as I understand it in post #8. I believe Truth can be found in other religions/denominations and even in the atheistic point of view.

To answer your question: I do not associate myself with a particular denomination. I consider myself more Jesusonian than I do Pauline Christian.

Have a great weekend and stay quit!

Dudes.....
You guys are SO cool!

Saint Wrote:

"The farmer, for example, has faith that, based on precedence of methods utilized before, if he plants seed in the soil and waters and nurtures it, in time will yield a useful crop."

- - -

If you consider that sort of thing to be "faith", then the word becomes meaningless. It (faith) would apply to every single thing you experience, every nanosecond of your life.

A farmer doesn't need faith to believe that when he plants seeds in the soil and takes care of his seeds/plants, that he will get a useful crop. The farmer has EVIDENCE that when he does these things, his crops will grow. The farmer has every REASON to believe what he does will work - BASED on the EVIDENCE that it does work.

For example:
Oodles of people have FAITH in the effectiveness of prayer.
(Prayer as defined as asking some god or force for supernatural intervention)

And yet there is zero evidence that prayer (or anything else) actually produces supernatural intervention.
Even if this god or force actually is listening to the prayers in the first place, there's no way to know it because a some prayers are "answered" and many others are simply "ignored".

It's exactly like no one is listening anyway.

When there are no good reasons to believe in something - - - - enter faith.
That is why farmers use facts, science and reason to get results. They may pray for rain during the drought, but in the end it never matters whether they pray or not.

Proper irrigation techniques work every time they're tried.

Saint wrote:

"Atheists have no logical position to believe what they believe, which is "There is no evidence that a god exists, therefore I have no belief in any god"

If I have stated this incorrectly, or you disagree with my statement, then jump right in and correct me."

- - -

You're close, but still wrong.

First of all, Saint, you never define what you mean by "God". If by "God" you mean nature and how amazing the universe is and that we - as humans - likely will never figure it all out or how it all works..... and substitute the awe and wonder of it all and the humiliating SMALLNESS that is our frail human grip on pretty much anything.... with the word "God".... then I think anyone can trivially or even almost poetically (Like Einstein or Hawking) subscribe to this sort of "God".

But that doesn't have much to do with atheism.
Atheists don't believe in a god or gods - - that's it. (Supernatural intelligences, beings, forces, whatever)

Atheists don't believe in any gods, because - AS FAR AS IS KNOWN - there isn't any OBJECTIVE evidence to believe that supernatural beings exist. There may be tons of subjective "evidence" among believers, however.
("I feel God in my heart" or "I've had visions" or "God talks to me" or "A newborn is proof there's a God")

If there is objective evidence that some supernatural entity exists, I am unaware of it. Not alll atheists deny the existence of supernatural beings. I certainly don't deny the possibility.
There just aren't any rational reasons to believe in them.

There's No more reason to believe in a god than to believe in leprechauns, fairies or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and personally touches people with his noodly appendages. Do Godists have a logical position to believe what they believe, which is, "There is no evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists, therefore I have no belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

- - - Insert any absurd entity in there and you'd be just as illogical as us crazy atheists for disbelieving in "God".

And of course there are things we don't understand and that we may never understand. There are things now that fall outside of our current understanding (Quantum physics) and if you want to shove your concept of God into the ever-changing gaps of what we are ignorant of - or of what we don't yet fully understand - then that God lies forever outside of understanding itself and cannot even be defined as having positive qualities.

And therefore, it may as well not exist even if happens to.

And another thing Saint:

There are theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics.
Agnosticism is not a "third way". Agnostics are either theists or atheists.

Agnosticism doesn't say too much about WHAT one believes in or doesn't believe in.
Agnosticism helps define a person's view about certainty or possible knowledge.
And of course there are many "shades" of belief/unbelief between being outright certain of god's reality and outright certainty that god does not exist.

But no matter how hard someone tries, they can't be an atheist and a theist at the same time.
If they suspend belief in a god, they are an athiest.
If they suspend disbelief in god, they are a theist.

your better be back in a quit group....off to check

Soar pmed me that he was quit. Hopefully for the last time. Kind of nice hearing the pitter patter of little feet in this thread again.

Hope all is well with you too Coach.

I'm posted up in July 08.
I'm as quit as anyone else. Just haven't been at it as long.

One day at a time.

Let's just make sure that good ole soar spends as much time devoted to his quit as he does in this thread.....congrats soar....now stay quit

Threads like this are what helped me stay quit nearly 300 days last year.
But yes, I lost my focus when I spent more and more time AWAY from the site.

I had a lot going on and I slipped up real bad.
And worse yet, I never contacted a single quit Bro before I caved.

You have also bailed on a quit before, which btw not everyone here has done.....as long as you are committed, I'm your biggest fan....stay quit bro and have fun in here

No, not everyone has bailed on their quit.
I suppose that from a certain point of view, that makes me inferior to those who have not.
I can live with that because it's true - and I can only press on from here.

Thanks for the encouragement and I'm sure I'll have some fun.

Inferior is not what I meant.....in a state of heightened awareness is more like it....I am glad you are back at it....just make sure you use the resources that this place provides and make it stick.....that's all....now get to bantering

Good to see you back, soar. I've missed reading the action in this thread. I'm glad to see you quit again.

- - -

In all sincerity, thanks for being there for me.
You ARE cool, you know.

- - -

Thanks Moody.

I'm glad you found some value (or at least some entertainment) in our discussions.

I don't know. I have been praying for your return and eventual success in taking control of your nicotine addiction. And... well... here you are. Part one has come to pass. We'll have to wait on part 2. You'll let us know when that happens, right?

- - -

I appreciate your prayers in as much as I know it means that you really care.

I'd rather that God had listened to - and answered - your prayers for Trent some months ago.
He didn't of course and Trent died of cancer at 15 years old.

"God" just does what he wants regardless of anyone's prayers.
He sure works in "mysterious ways" doesn't he? .... heck, his "ways" are so damned mysterious that you'd think he wasn't even there.

Some things are a matter of perspective.

Last year my mother-in-law died from a recurrence of breast cancer. And my dad died a couple of years ago after 6 hard years into a stroke. The year before that, my 103 year-old granddaddy died. A few years before that both my uncles, a BIL, my other grandparents & great-grands, my aunts, a cousin just 21 years-old, and the list goes on and on. Some of them died from tobacco related causes, some from alcohol. Others were near-saints. Regardless, all of them died and are gone. All of them sorely missed. To me, each of their deaths was a loss and the cause of much sadness.

On the flip side, God viewed each death as a homecoming of His children. To Him, they passed from this veil of tears and hardships to being at His table in His presence.

Whether I live another day, week, or 50 years, I too will die. Some may grieve my passing (some might even cheer), but my heavenly Father will welcome me to my eternal home, where I not only get to enjoy His presence, but all those I have lost here.

From my great-grandfather to the son I never had a chance to get to know, I'll get to enjoy them for eternity.

- - -

So many lost so quickly. That's terrible.
But you've described it using the more comforting perspective, that God took them home to paradise.

However....

You're assuming that all your loved ones went to heaven and that some aren't destined to be eternally tortured in Biblical Hell - where any earthly "hardships" would be incalculable pleasures by comparison. You assume that ALL those you have lost here "made the grade", when some - statistically - most likely did not: If the Bible is taken as true.

That's the real flip-side of your God. He keeps the ant-farm going when he knows full well - in advance - that HE is creating more and more human fuel for the fires of hell - a unspeakable place of misery and torture that HE created . The few pass through the narrow gate, and the multitudes get sentenced to infinite punishment for their finite "sin". There really isn't a more extreme example of sadism than that - - And "gentle" Jesus, being one and the same with Yahweh, is the mastermind of the whole thing.

God/Jesus created a scheme in which humans are BORN guilty, and are asked to repent of their Built-IN, guilty nature, and then if they don't repent or can't bring themselves to believe in magical. invisible men in the sky, they are eternally tortured in Hell. And just to make sure EVERYONE needs to repent, God/Jesus makes up rules that are utterly impossible for humanity to follow - Again, forcing automatic GUILT upon humanity. (Humans MUST sin to be human after all)

The circularity and sadism of it is so absurd and disgusting, that I struggle to understand how people can't (eventually) see it for what it is.
Thankfully, there isn't any evidence or good reasons to believe that a shred of it is actually true.

At the same time though, you believe the loved ones you've lost MUST be in heaven. Guess I can't blame you for believing that or at least wanting to believe it - because the alternative is unthinkable.

I hope you fellas don't mind me adding my two cents on the power of prayer discussion. I lost my brother and sister in laws (both in their late 30's) within one year from cancer and a heart related problem. At the time they had two children, 1 in middle school and 1 in high school. I, likemany prayed for their healing but in never came.

My faith was pretty shaken after their passing. I still believed in God but didn't understand why the prayers had no effect. After a bit though I realized that I don't need to know why. God is a big God and certainly doesn't need my help in deciding what should and shouldn't receive attention. He is the beginning and the end. He already knows what will happen next. Did the loss hurt, absolutely but maybe God took them to save them from something even worse. Someday maybe I'll figure it out, if not that's ok too. I do know that when I look back on other prayers I've offered up to God, it is obvious that He heard.

Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God answered my prayer, no. It's a matter of faith. I don't have to see to believe. At one point in my life I wanted proof before I believed in anything. Then one day during a worship service in 1998 I finally understood what God did for me at Calvery. Now I see because I believed. He removed the blinders from my eyes.

Just a rant I guess. Sorry to butt in.

Have a great day

You agree with Jesus in a lefthanded sort of way. He said that, even if one returned from the dead, those with your viewpoint wouldn't believe their testimony. People that choose to reject God will do so no matter what they read, are told, or see.

I really concider myself a novice on bible study, and did not grow up going to church every time the doors were open. I do believe that God's will is going to happen no matter what, and when I pray for someone when a medical situation has arrisen, it is not for healing that I ask for, but that all of the others surrounding the situation find a way to endure the outcome of God's will.

Seems like old times....you spouting absolute lies....maybe some denominations believe in this concept of original sin but the Bible does not....it simply isn't a scriptural concept....it is man made by one man in particular, Augustine and then Martin Luther decided that he also would continue the idea in his denomination....long story short is that people aren't born sinners, they learn to sin just as they learn to repent of those sins

and you can't understand a believer because your religion is as pious as anyone in here.....there are probably some very religious folks in here but you all will be hard pressed to find anyone as dogmatic as soar.....

for all those that don't know him....he is a very smart individual that has been extremely affected by the influences of websites and evangelists....(your boy Dawkins is just that soar).....he is a regurgitator with very little theological background so arguing scripture will only piss you off because he doesn't know The Bible...he read a book and some web pages and now considers himself enlightened......

when dealing with him remember this: why is he here? why does he question "your" prayers? why does he belittle "your" beliefs?

the answers are simple......it is quite sick but he needs your attention.....I hope he stays quit for his family's sake but do not expect a "rational" conversation from this "rational thinker".....he is a religious troll.....

love ya buddy

- - -

Well what do you know?.... Coach arrogantly providing a "Soarwing Primer" to the uninformed.

But yes, very much like old times: Me teaching you about your own "Holy" book.
The concept of original sin is indeed in the scriptures.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...&version=48
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...&version=48
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...&version=48

However, other verses from the same Bible completely contradict the above, of course. (You'll believe the ones you like and reject the ones you don't - just like most every modern Christian does)

Insert the tired old "out of context" argument here.

Coach, as a Christian, do you believe that it is possible for a human being to be born, and live sin free, for all of his/her days and not require God's salvation?
Or do you agree with the Bible... that CLEARY states that since ADAM and EVE, mankind is FALLEN and cannot ever live up to what God ideally wants from us?

The Bible is just one great big "Original Sin" factory. The concept is mentioned so many times in scripture - Both the O.T. and N.T., that I dare say that denying these scriptures exist, is a lie about Holy Scripture, and would be blasphemy... would it not?

Coach,

I can continue pointing out - all day long - how ignorant of the Bible you actually are - I've got the spare time.

But the bottom line is that there is no objective evidence that supernatural beings exist.
(Least of all a sadistic and jealous buffoon like Yahweh)

And Coach, there's a big difference between being dogmatic and being passionate.
I'm a passionate guy and it pains me to see people taken in by absurdity - - like I used to be taken in.

You have your beliefs about your God - you holds these beliefs without having any objective evidence.
And because you have no evidence, you inevitably and admittedly must fall back on faith in order to justify your beliefs.
That's being dogmatic and irrational.

I have my disbelief in your God - I have no belief in your God because there isn't any objective evidence that supports the existence of your God.
And because the supernatural claims of the Bible have no evidence supporting them (and are absurd) - I don't believe in your God.
That's being rational - zero dogma required!

You, along with millions of other human beings have been indoctrinated (usually at a very young age, like I was) to believe in magical, invisible beings. Beings that will give you rewards if you're good (eternal life, etc) and punish you if you are bad or - in Jesus' case - torture you forever if you simply don't believe he was God.

The idea that there is no Biblical God or any god at all, frightens you - mainly because that means that your life is temporary.
Lack of evidence for Yahweh?!..... no problem!
You've got your faith to rescue you from reality.

Soar, I've read your best shots and all I've ever seen you post thus far is your lack of comprehension of the scriptures. It's been like me trying to debate you on your mother's character - I don't know her and know nothing about her firsthand so anything I saw only reveals what a buffoon I would be denouncing her. Same with you and your attempts at enlightening us on God and the Bible. And having been exposed to the Bible and religiousity no more means you are enlightened on theology than my being qualified as a Jesuit priest simply because I lived next door to group of them for a number of years.

Your strongest weapon has been ridicule, something one doesn't need to resort to unless he is unsure or weak on a position.

But, hey, knock yourself out.