Another religious thread of speculation

[bobcat]

Blind faith - that is belief without evidence - is a non-starter. I could believe in Unicorns, doesn't make it real.

The question revolves around evidence, and what constitutes evidence. When it comes to believers who are 100% in, and simply cannot discuss the topic with non-believers, then you have a special case. Things became angry, defensive, and dismissive. I need something tangible. Not an old book. Not the words in an old book. You don't have to dig very far to get examples of people using those words to gain personal wealth. As such, it alone means little.

I guess it takes a special person to truly have the discussion.

IMO, all "evidence"(If it can be classified that way) is circumstantial in this matter, and is neither direct evidence or proof. As such, it is highly speculative and open to the interpretation of the one processing the evidence.

To date, I still have not seen or heard any scientific explanation for the questions I have that would satisfy me to the point of believing everything is merely chance and there isn't something more there that we simply can't fathom. To me, even though the "evidence" is circumstantial and subjective, it's still not something I can simply dismiss.

 

[gruntlabor]

I'm assuming that Christ did not tell you that in person, but instead you read it from copies of unknown authorship from 2000 years ago that was written some 40 to 100 years after his death. Nevertheless, I see no reason why you shouldn't think of a spiritual God that way, if it pleases you to do so.

Whether the word "Father", or "Creator", or "Great Spirit", or whatever is used, I hardly think it will matter in the overall mystery of what's really going on.

The Bible is a recognized authority of Christianity whose members number 2.6 billion. If you believe the bible, you believe its authors were inspired by the holy spirit.

 

[Paco Dennis]

The Bible is a recognized authority of Christianity whose members number 2.6 billion. If you believe the bible, you believe its authors were inspired by the holy spirit.

Which version of the Bible? The "King James" version?

 

[gruntlabor]

Which version of the Bible? The "King James" version?

I don't know. I'm no authority, I'm a layperson repeating what I've read or been taught.

 

[Paco Dennis]

I don't know. I'm no authority, I'm a layperson repeating what I've read or been taught.

When I was a Christian in about 1975 I had the "New American Standard" version. There were probably about 10 popular versions back then. In one of them each verse of the New Testament was in 5 different translations. It was a thick version, but you got to choose which meaning you liked the best. Some say that no matter how it is translated the power of God inspired every last word, no matter if the meaning was different.

 

[Olivia]

Hubris means someone is being too big for their britches.

 

[bobcat]

The Bible is a recognized authority of Christianity whose members number 2.6 billion. If you believe the bible, you believe its authors were inspired by the holy spirit.

I suspect that there are more than twice that many who don't believe the Bible was inspired by the holy spirit, so the numbers really don't mean anything. It's whether you believe it that's relevant, and since you do, I'm not here to dissuade you. If it brings you comfort and happiness, that's what matters.

 

[gruntlabor]

When I was a Christian in about 1975 I had the "New American Standard" version. There were probably about 10 popular versions back then. In one of them each verse of the New Testament was in 5 different translations. It was a thick version, but you got to choose which meaning you liked the best. Some say that no matter how it is translated the power of God inspired every last word, no matter if the meaning was different.

The Old Testament also can be found with side-by-side direct translations from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, maybe, I'm not sure --can't recall.

 

[gruntlabor]

I suspect that there are more than twice that many who don't believe the Bible was inspired by the holy spirit, so the numbers really don't mean anything. It's whether you believe it that's relevant, and since you do, I'm not here to dissuade you. If it brings you comfort and happiness, that's what matters.

Just a small correction of no matter: I'm not a believer. I'm an agnostic as are many Christians.

 

[January]

Usually hear that expressed as they are "non-believers", but that is the same thing. So a person could be very devout in say Hinduism, and to Christians they would appear to be atheists, and vice versa.

I'm not sure what the article said - but I don't agree with above statement.

an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god/s - not someone who believes in different (and incorrect to you) god/s of another religion

It is not the same thing.

 

[Murrmurr]

what's the fact you put forth, that what they believe is true?

What I put forth is that faith and fact are not the same thing. Atheists don't have faith that there is no god, as you asserted, they believe it is a fact that god does not exist.

The topic is not a hot button, it's just so abysmal how much you misunderstand and plain don't know about atheists, I felt compelled to say something.

 

[Inept]

Blind faith - that is belief without evidence - is a non-starter. I could believe in Unicorns, doesn't make it real.

The question revolves around evidence, and what constitutes evidence. When it comes to believers who are 100% in, and simply cannot discuss the topic with non-believers, then you have a special case. Things became angry, defensive, and dismissive. I need something tangible. Not an old book. Not the words in an old book. You don't have to dig very far to get examples of people using those words to gain personal wealth. As such, it alone means little.

Yes.

I guess it takes a special person to truly have the discussion.

It should be required.

 

[Inept]

As noted, won't discuss these issues in this flawed thread.

But if someone ever starts a more focused thread about the possible evidence of an Ultimate Intelligent Entity (UIE) I'll have plenty to post. To be clear, NOT proof but rather evidence.

As a science person that has modestly studied astronomy, ancient civilization anthropology, and the read the Bible from the perspective that it is NOT inerrant and rather the product of oral traditions of ancient science illiterates that have been re-edited at various times by scribes, it is very much obvious the god of Christian religions is not the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent (OOO) entity posed by anthropomorphic religion dogma. And the Bible itself shows that.

And that is a huge difference because it otherwise allowed endless nonsense magic like ideas to enter religion some of which are being increasingly shown to be so in this science era resulting in significant losses of church memberships, especially younger people.

...time to hit the spook day road

Everything we know is based upon evidence and proof. There are things we have learned through the ages that we didn't know previously. Yes, there are still many theories but thinking of a "Creator" as fact is well ....... you know what I am going to say.

 

[gruntlabor]

Everything we know is based upon evidence and proof. There are things we have learned through the ages that we didn't know previously. Yes, there are still many theories but thinking of a "Creator" as fact is well ....... you know what I am going to say.

We know nothing. The chicken is fed daily. That is not proof that it will be fed tomorrow.

 

[Mr. Ed]

i was accused of creating my own religion because my view of god was different than Christianity. So be it if my concept of god fulfills my needs and understanding of the world. Religion is man maid designed to serve a purpose in a person's life. My concept does that for me therefore just because I do not follow mainstream religion does not mean my belief is wrong for me.

 

[Mr. Ed]

I must admit bible is ingeniously written, the context provides many examples of human behavior, actions and consequences. Be that as it may, I do not believe in the bible as the totalitarian word of god. Nor do i understand god in christian terms, heavenly father, Jesus, son of god, holy trinity. however there may be substituent in the holy spirit, At least that is what i think.

When it comes down to it, I believe people have the right to how and what they believe based on individual reasoning. There may not a single right way or wrong in a person's belief and these so called fanatics who's testimony consist of One Way or no way are simply convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Inept]

Everything we know is based upon evidence and proof. There are things we have learned through the ages that we didn't know previously. Yes, there are still many theories but thinking of a "Creator" as fact is well ....... you know what I am going to say.

We know nothing. The chicken is fed daily. That is not proof that it will be fed tomorrow.

That makes no sense. I said "everything we know is based upon evidence and proof. " Why do you now introduce something we don't know and believe it's relevant? It isn't.

 

[Pepper]

Don't kid yourselves. We're all nuts. We get our status from how well we can function in "society". None of you make sense to any but yourselves.
IMO
IMO
IMO
as that is all it is..........

 

[JustDave]

As noted, won't discuss these issues in this flawed thread.

How do you determine that a thread is flawed?

 

[bobcat]

Just a small correction of no matter: I'm not a believer. I'm an agnostic as are many Christians.

Now I am confused. You said: "Yes, but who are we to mince words with Christ, who tells us to pray thus: "Our Father who art in heaven... " --The Bible".
That sounds like a believer.

Since you quoted the Bible, I would assume you believe in it's authenticity (Meaning not the ramblings of crackpot authors). Since it (And Jesus) repeatedly testifies to the existence of God, it seems rather peculiar to take a rather neutral position on the central tenet of it's teaching.

I'm not being critical here, I am mostly curious and as I mentioned, a bit confused. Just asking for clarity.

 

[JustDave]

Just a small correction of no matter: I'm not a believer. I'm an agnostic as are many Christians.

For what it's worth, in a private conversation when I was 11 years old, I told my Lutheran pastor of my doubts about god. He confided that he wasn't sure either, but he chose to believe anyway. I'm not sure if this qualifies as agnosticism because I had doubts about how honestly he was addressing my concern. Also, agnosticism is not about doubt, but rather the inability to know, although many people define it as doubt. Depending on one's personal definition, agnostic Christian, might qualify as an oxymoron.

 

[Paco Dennis]

For what it's worth, in a private conversation when I was 11 years old, I told my Lutheran pastor of my doubts about god. He confided that he wasn't sure either, but he chose to believe anyway. I'm not sure if this qualifies as agnosticism because I had doubts about how honestly he was addressing my concern. Also, agnosticism is not about doubt, but rather the inability to know, although many people define it as doubt. Depending on one's personal definition, agnostic Christian, might qualify as an oxymoron.

I have always liked that word "oxymoron". It seems fitting.

 

[JustDave]

I have always liked that word "oxymoron". It seems fitting.

It's a useful word that describes certain ideas with unusual clarity.

 

[Inept]

For what it's worth, in a private conversation when I was 11 years old, I told my Lutheran pastor of my doubts about god. He confided that he wasn't sure either, but he chose to believe anyway. I'm not sure if this qualifies as agnosticism because I had doubts about how honestly he was addressing my concern. Also, agnosticism is not about doubt, but rather the inability to know, although many people define it as doubt. Depending on one's personal definition, agnostic Christian, might qualify as an oxymoron.

I am an Agnostic. I deny the possibility of an "agnostic Christian" existing. Believers. Disbelievers. Non-believers. That's all there is. I do not waste my time discussing with anyone who does not accept the fact.

 

[HermitHogan]

There are no FACTS to support the non existence of God. There are facts to support a symmetry in life, the balance of nature and the fact that we can sit here and discuss this at all.

There are no facts to support the nonexistence of Zeus, either. So I guess that must mean he exists.

Just as a side note, Satan has only one objective....................prove God wrong, just once. Then he is not the great I AM.

I see plenty of evidence of the existence of Satan.