Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

satanspaladin · Post by **satanspaladin** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:32 pm

May i wish all you Christians a happy time at this your holy time ,
and a thank you for answering a lot of my questions about your religion.
may your gods blessing's be with you .

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:33 pm

satanspaladin wrote:May i wish all you Christians a happy time at this your holy time ,
and a thank you for answering a lot of my questions about your religion.
may your gods blessing's be with you .

You just want a premium.

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:20 pm

MR. Nate wrote:I don't ever see God punishing people for their parents evil, either. Specific examples are much more helpful than broad, sweeping statements.

I've never see God punish anyone so i cant argue with that. Unless a natural disaster is god punishement than he punishes innocent people as well.

Why would this God care anyways.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:39 pm

Heimdall wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:I don't ever see God punishing people for their parents evil, either. Specific examples are much more helpful than broad, sweeping statements.

I've never see God punish anyone so i cant argue with that. Unless a natural disaster is god punishement than he punishes innocent people as well.

Why would this God care anyways.

Good point Heimdall. Nate, who exactly HAVE you seen your gods punish? Anyone?

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:58 pm

satanspaladin wrote:May i wish all you Christians a happy time at this your holy time ,
and a thank you for answering a lot of my questions about your religion.
may your gods blessing's be with you .

Thank you....I hope all is well with you too

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:13 pm

comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:26 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

That's no reason to believe anything.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:33 pm

Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

That's no reason to believe anything.

I did not say it was a reason to believe. I said you can't just assume there is no God as a way to say you have not rejected him.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:39 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

That's no reason to believe anything.
I did not say it was a reason to believe. I said you can't just assume there is no God as a way to say you have not rejected him.

Null hypothesis. There is no god.

Evidence for god = 0

∴ We reject our null hypothesis. We are not rejecting god. We cannot reject something that doesn't exist. We are not assuming he doesn't exist. We have no reason to believe in god, so we do not.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:47 pm

Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

That's no reason to believe anything.
I did not say it was a reason to believe. I said you can't just assume there is no God as a way to say you have not rejected him.

Null hypothesis. There is no god.

Evidence for god = 0

∴ We reject our null hypothesis. We are not rejecting god. We cannot reject something that doesn't exist. We are not assuming he doesn't exist. We have no reason to believe in god, so we do not.

Fine you believe that. But that does not mean you are correct. There is evidence for God (what I believe) just like you feel there is "evidence" for no god.

You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

P.S. I have not forgotten about the Creation/Evolution thread. You long post is in a word document on my desktop. I have just been really busy with other stuff. I plan on getting to it by the end of Sunday.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:51 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

That's no reason to believe anything.
I did not say it was a reason to believe. I said you can't just assume there is no God as a way to say you have not rejected him.

Null hypothesis. There is no god.

Evidence for god = 0

∴ We reject our null hypothesis. We are not rejecting god. We cannot reject something that doesn't exist. We are not assuming he doesn't exist. We have no reason to believe in god, so we do not.
Fine you believe that. But that does not mean you are correct. There is evidence for God (what I believe) just like you feel there is "evidence" for no god.

You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

P.S. I have not forgotten about the Creation/Evolution thread. You long post is in a word document on my desktop. I have just been really busy with other stuff. I plan on getting to it by the end of Sunday.

That's cool. I've basically just been spamming the thread recently. We can go into the burden of proof argument, but I'm sure it's been covered. But as far as science goes to prove it, my null hypothesis is the sound one (as compared to there is a god), and there is no empirically testable evidence for god.

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:23 am

WidowMakers wrote:You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

And you can't prove there are no Unicorns.

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:27 am

Heimdall wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

And you can't prove there are no Unicorns.

Or the spaghetti flying monster

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:30 am

radiojake wrote:
Heimdall wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

And you can't prove there are no Unicorns.

Or the spaghetti flying monster

And since you can't prove they don't exist, then they must exist just like God

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:12 am

WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

I dont have to prove anything its NOT me making the claims that a God exists,its NOT me saying I reject him , to me he doesnt exist exactly the same way that many other notions dont exist. Why do you reject a higher being than God , Islam, the Gnostic Gospels, cheese that turns into a high powered tractor when subjected to immersion into cream soda ? You cannot prove that any of these notions are wrong, or will never be proven right, but still you reject them....You see how dumb your negative
assertion is,it can be used for any point any of us ever makes and is therefore in itself pointless as a debating tool.

MelonanadeMaster · Post by **MelonanadeMaster** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:47 am

Heimdall wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:I don't ever see God punishing people for their parents evil, either. Specific examples are much more helpful than broad, sweeping statements.

I've never see God punish anyone so i cant argue with that. Unless a natural disaster is god punishement than he punishes innocent people as well.

Why would this God care anyways.

The entire base of the Christian religion is based off God's care for us..
Hence, the whole idea of God sending his son to earth to die for our sins. When people discuss the crucification I believe both many Christians (Protestants mostly) and Securalists focus far to much on the resurection, for the far greater miracle was the forgivness off all men's sin.

MelonanadeMaster · Post by **MelonanadeMaster** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:34 pm

comic boy wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well

Just because you say, "God does not exist" does not mean he does not exist.

Refusing to believe something does not make it go away if it is there to begin with.

SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

WM

I dont have to prove anything its NOT me making the claims that a God exists,its NOT me saying I reject him , to me he doesnt exist exactly the same way that many other notions dont exist. Why do you reject a higher being than God , Islam, the Gnostic Gospels, cheese that turns into a high powered tractor when subjected to immersion into cream soda ? You cannot prove that any of these notions are wrong, or will never be proven right, but still you reject them....You see how dumb your negative
assertion is,it can be used for any point any of us ever makes and is therefore in itself pointless as a debating tool.

Your general notion I would agree with, but you take his point to a level that it was not ment to be (at this point I'll presume that WM agrees with me on my interpretation of his post.) Posters have attempted to ridicule his assertion by making sarcastic comments on the existence of unicorns and such. This would be fair criticism if it were not that WM never intended to have that point be his only means of reasoning for their/his existence. He was only pointing out the logic of the matter, that you can't speak so authoritavely on some things, as that would often be making an univeral statement. A good example of this is a common joke on the topic, "Wow cows sure are good at hiding in trees!" "What! I've never seen a cow in a tree before." "That just proves how good they are!" Following the anology, it is unreasonable to believe that cows hide in trees, as that, to our knowledge of cows,

they do not hide in trees and there is no reason to believe that they do or ever have. You can't prove that a cow has never hidden in a tree before, but you can prove its lack of plausability, as the secular side of this debate's goal is.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:47 am

MM

Actually the points about Unicorns are simply to show the shallowness of WM argument, one simply cannot debate if the response is always ' you cannot prove it 100% '. Our entire lives we make decisions based on probability , if we needed utter certainty we would do literaly nothing !

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:56 pm

comic boy wrote:MM

Actually the points about Unicorns are simply to show the shallowness of WM argument, one simply cannot debate if the response is always ' you cannot prove it 100% '. Our entire lives we make decisions based on probability , if we needed utter certainty we would do literaly nothing !

So without 100% accuracy in our lives, someone who looks at the same facts you see, and comes to the counter opinion based on them is making as justifiable and logical a decision as you are, right? It's really not the facts, so much as how we (you and I) interpret them isn't it?

graeme89 · Post by **graeme89** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:02 pm

Whats your favourite religious movie? I like The Mission with Robert DeNiro, apparently it was Pope JP's favourite. Its got a great soundtrack, same guy who did The Good, Bad, Ugly.

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:11 pm

graeme89 wrote:Whats your favourite religious movie? I like The Mission with Robert DeNiro, apparently it was Pope JP's favourite. Its got a great soundtrack, same guy who did The Good, Bad, Ugly.

There are lots that I've liked for different reasons.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told"- Probably just the one I'm most familiar with.

"The Prophecy" was a good dependent authorship of Milton's "Paradise Lost".

I liked "Dogma", It actually runs more toward irreverent and probably doesn't classify, but it was a funny film. I was quite tempted to show it to my Sunday School class.

I haven't seen "The Mission" I'll have to look it up.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:18 pm

CrazyAnglican wrote:
comic boy wrote:MM

Actually the points about Unicorns are simply to show the shallowness of WM argument, one simply cannot debate if the response is always ' you cannot prove it 100% '. Our entire lives we make decisions based on probability , if we needed utter certainty we would do literaly nothing !

So without 100% accuracy in our lives, someone who looks at the same facts you see, and comes to the counter opinion based on them is making as justifiable and logical a decision as you are, right? It's really not the facts, so much as how we (you and I) interpret them isn't it?

I think you got it right, mostly, not completely. The keywords are "justifiable and logical a decision". If it can be shown that one persons way of interpreting the facts is not logical or otherwise flawed it is to be expected that this persons interpretation is, to put it nicely, less than perfect.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:35 pm

WidowMakers wrote:SO if you can prove God does not exist I will agree that you can reject Him. But you can't prove it.

Like I said, if we can prove that the universe is a closed system with no supernatural interference whatsoever, then god does not exist.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113223.htm

That shows the result of a simulation of the universe starting from the big bang to present day. As you can see, there is little to no difference from the real universe, showing just how possible a godless universe is.

graeme89 · Post by **graeme89** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:54 pm

The Mission is a great movie. Its about Jesuit missionaries in South America. A slave trader converts after he is forgiven by the Indians he was enslaving, heavy.....

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:58 pm

This Movie looks good:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/clips/Trailer.mp4