Athiesm and disproving God

[Robert.Evans]

What is your opinion on others who have experiences with gods and goddess that are different than your own? How do you account for that? I have had my own experiences and I still do not believe in the Judeo-Christian god.

Hello again,
I have no problem. The Bible, for instance, is just 'one' slice of reality. There are many others. All gods and Gods exist or have done. That is not a problem. The difference is this: they come from a Source, and the closest to that Source is the Jewish God, which forms the main 3 religions and all their offshoots.

The only way to the Father is through the son. That is what we are told. So if you do not accept the son, you do not see the Father (least not yet) but rather the Mother. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Is that the best you got?

Hells bells, even your insults are less than half assed...

That is not an insult. You do not have the inner witness, so you will not understand. That is fact not an insult my friend

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hello again,
I have no problem. The Bible, for instance, is just 'one' slice of reality. There are many others. All gods and Gods exist or have done. That is not a problem. The difference is this: they come from a Source, and the closest to that Source is the Jewish God, which forms the main 3 religions and all their offshoots.

The only way to the Father is through the son. That is what we are told. So if you do not accept the son, you do not see the Father (least not yet) but rather the Mother. Two sides of the same coin.

I can accept most of this. However why do you think that the judeo-Christian god is the "closest" to the source?

 

[McBell]

That is not an insult. You do not have the inner witness, so you will not understand. That is fact not an insult my friend

It is not a fact.
It is nothing more than your opinion.

hard to have a serious discussion with someone who does not know the definitions of the words they use.....

 

[Robert.Evans]

I can accept most of this. However why do you think that the judeo-Christian god is the "closest" to the source?

I suppose that is a long answer, and I would have to sit for a week or more pulling many facts together that have gone to the back of my mind. It would certainly seem to be relevent that there is three main religions all based on this one God. It also transforms many peoples lives. For me, I suppose it is how it can be seen in Scripture, and how it backs up and unfolds to you. History and Science also back it up. Perhaps ultimately (as we all might say) it is the inner witness which allows me to know.... I am sure I could make no decision by myself.

I fear the real answer would be very long and also include a lot of my life and things that happen to me and to others. Surely we could say that if it was closest to Source, that we should therefore see some sort of influence on earth, should we not? And we do.

 

[McBell]

It is fact you just do not perceive it as such. That is called a delusion or blindness. That also is fact, and not an insult.

Until you can demonstrate it is a fact, it is nothing more than you opinion.

Care to demonstrate it?

And no, merely make even more bold empty claims does not make an opinion a fact.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I suppose that is a long answer, and I would have to sit for a week or more pulling many facts together that have gone to the back of my mind. It would certainly seem to be relevent that there is three main religions all based on this one God. It also transforms many peoples lives. For me, I suppose it is how it can be seen in Scripture, and how it backs up and unfolds to you. History and Science also back it up. Perhaps ultimately (as we all might say) it is the inner witness which allows me to know.... I am sure I could make no decision by myself.

I fear the real answer would be very long and also include a lot of my life and things that happen to me and to others. Surely we could say that if it was closest to Source, that we should therefore see some sort of influence on earth, should we not? And we do.

This didn't really answer my question. For example I personally believe that my spiritual path is the one that has the "closest" to the "all" but in a meaningful way. But I wouldn't actually claim that for a fact. Part of what puts me off of Islam and Christianity is the arrogance that I find its members have when talking about god and their claims to it. I think this is what has spawned the atheist backlash against religion in recent years.

 

[Willamena]

Oh, I can do that!

It actually does help (everything).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Until you can demonstrate it is a fact, it is nothing more than you opinion.

Care to demonstrate it?

And no, merely make even more bold empty claims does not make an opinion a fact.

I have answered this umpteen times. But I like how you try and bring the metaphysical world into the physical. It is something that a lot of atheist do. It's like asking to see the invisible man.. haha.

And just because you don't see it does not make it an opinion.

Care to give us an answer as to where everything comes from, other than I don't know and I don't understand, but whatever it is, it isn't that... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

This didn't really answer my question. For example I personally believe that my spiritual path is the one that has the "closest" to the "all" but in a meaningful way. But I wouldn't actually claim that for a fact. Part of what puts me off of Islam and Christianity is the arrogance that I find its members have when talking about god and their claims to it. I think this is what has spawned the atheist backlash against religion in recent years.

Perhaps so. But if I word it the way you say, I would be lying. I cannot deny he who is within... that is the way it is. There look I am smiling, I am not arrogant... haha

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the universe doesn't need a beginning any more than his imaginary god..

that was what Hoyle and other atheists thought, preferring static/eternal models and for the same explicit rationale; that no creation= no creator, that's why they mocked the priest Lemaitre's 'primordial atom' theory as 'big bang' for the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event.

 

[Willamena]

empty to you, as you are empty. Not to me. I understand the language, whereas you do not.

That's not very helpful for either communication or conversation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps so. But if I word it the way you say, I would be lying. I cannot deny he who is within... that is the way it is. There look I am smiling, I am not arrogant... haha

Arrogance with a friendly smile is OK with me.

 

[JustWondering]

So what then is the BBang

A natural event.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Perhaps so. But if I word it the way you say, I would be lying. I cannot deny he who is within... that is the way it is. There look I am smiling, I am not arrogant... haha

Arrogance isn't a negative quality if you are right. Arrogance is only negative if you are sure of yourself and you are wrong. Typically in an argument where no one has an absolute answer we are reduced to an even playing field where we all may think we are right but to assert that ahead or above another without sufficenet evidence is arrogance. Most religions are arrogant. Any religion that says "I am the only way" or "I am the best way" would have to be arrogant by default. It doesn't necessarily mean that the followers are arrogant (but often it is the case). I didn't mean to bring any personal involvement with the term. As a person you may be very humble but your belief is an arrogant one.

 

[Revoltingest]

that was what Hoyle and other atheists thought, preferring static/eternal models and for the same explicit rationale; that no creation= no creator, that's why they mocked the priest Lemaitre's 'primordial atom' theory as 'big bang' for the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event.

This is oft said here on RF lately, but no one has yet answered my challenge to show that it was typical of atheistic scientists in general, nor have they shown that theistic scientists didn't also reject the Big Bang model.

Note: The controversy of the possibility of black holes goes back to the 18th century. Philosopher John Michell (in 1783) & mathematician PS Laplace (in 1796) predicted them. I'll wager Prophet's left hand that believers & atheists alike were among the disbelievers.

 

[JustWondering]

Hello again,
I have no problem. The Bible, for instance, is just 'one' slice of reality. There are many others. All gods and Gods exist or have done. That is not a problem. The difference is this: they come from a Source, and the closest to that Source is the Jewish God, which forms the main 3 religions and all their offshoots.

The only way to the Father is through the son. That is what we are told. So if you do not accept the son, you do not see the Father (least not yet) but rather the Mother. Two sides of the same coin.

This sounds like Hinduism, though I'm no expert on Hinduism.

 

[Willamena]

Arrogance isn't a negative quality if you are right.

Some are more arrogant because they are right.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Some are more arrogant because they are right.

No. There is a fine line between arrogance and obnoxiousness.

 

[Willamena]

No. There is a fine line between arrogance and obnoxiousness.

They can be right, arrogant and not obnoxious.