Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hah! Part of the Encarta dic says:
Seeing you are here, I have a question: If you use the ''Start a conversation'' link, is that the same as Private Meassages? Is it private in other words or public?
Can we avoid distractions from definitions of "god" which would include playing with toy trains, watching porn, pursuing money, & sniffing women's shoes? Atheists might object (or not) to those "gods", but we don't disbelieve in them.
You really need to pay more attention.Funny, with all your arguing, it seemed like you knew.
yes
What is "literal" is not up for interpretation. It is either literal or it isn't. You mistake some people "believing" it to be literal to mean that for some people it is literal.
And in some cases the sun after the earth.
I can read the bible and come up with profound things from it. I could do the same with any other book. The ability to create a profound meaning by expecting there to be a profound meaning doesn't impress me.
Faith is not evidence. End of story. Faith simply makes any anecdotal evidence even less convincing.
Proof would need to be understood as well. Its why we have a Jury of our peers rather than whoever. Simply because the "opinion" of who is innocent or guilty would be muddled by such things.
You should look up the definition of the word reality and or explain your definition here.
Faith is not proof.
So that analogy also fails to support your point.
Have you never heard of the many world scenario? I know you have.
Star after other stars. Ours was fixed for 'seasons and times'
fine
We are not speaking of the world now. Faith IS evidence of the inner witness of God. That is it.
Not so. But that is what the beleiver has, proof within. All things that are important are hidden... they are hidden because we don't want anyone to steal them.
I can guess what it is. If it ties into your point pleas expound.
And sometimes man before beast and beast after man.
I disagree.
How could someone steal your faith in god if there was more obvious evidence? Your analogy seems to have run you in a linguistics corner as it broke down.
There is little to say. The logos -the higher consciousness- is infinite, and is us, in one form or another. You think no thought that has not been thought before. You are a reflection of your own Self, an image of a reality. You are a child of your own thoughts. Reason and reality are what you are and what you answer for. Your mind is not your own... you are owned by another. There are many realities of Self, of you, infinite, never ending, never stopping... this universe isa mere drop of water in the ocean of existence that we are part of.
As above. Higher consciousness before our own world. But ultimately they are both from above, as all things are. The mistake is to see it only as being here in this world.
fine
Again, it is not here that counts, it is above that counts. We are the end line. The refuse. We are the left over from a veritable meal of conscious thought. Here it is always slightly in error. This is why it does not always seem to fit some parts of scripture, and is very handy at hiding it from others.
I think this is taking it far father than what we could ever assume. We each live in our own world as we precieve it but what is "factual" to one is also factual to another even if they disagree. If there is a PBJ sandwich on the table in my world then there isn't a baloney sandwich in yours.
It could all be error?!? But then we are left with the absurd idea that all things are natural and luck brings everything into being... haha
No. We are left to draw conclusions based upon the empirical data that we have. Removing god from the argument doesn't reduce anything. It simply means we are looking at the universe in exactly the same way but without the assumptions.
But if you are claiming as an atheist that there is no God, then we can assume that you have some sort of answer as to where all things come from. We have a right to know that. It is not as simple as just saying there is no G-d.
The evidence, as ever, is within... without that you will not see the outer evidence. that is why it is so neat.
Perhaps you can explain why luck is a better answer?
Sad that you are so uncomfortable with saying "I Do Not Know"
No.. it means the universe has to come from somewhere, and you are saying that is luck. Won't do. It is a failure to see what is staring you in the face. Youa re just interested in the physical material world.
I do. The mere fact that someone says they are atheist is a statement. It tells us that they believe there are no gods. That is fact. The fact that they do not believe in any still does not negate that it is still a believe, and as such as atheist, they are saying there is no God. if not, then why call yourself such, why argue. If you are not sure, then you are agnostic. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise..... but a valid part of the atheist mindset, as they know deep down that they cannot prove their claims. Luck will not do.
Proof is within, that is the inner witness of God. The evidence is the conviction or faith of the person. If you wish to ignore that, then that is your perogative. Evidence does not have to me ''objective'', evidence, by definition, is anything that leads one to a conclusion or judgement about something. Thus even the Bible is evidence, as is Israel etc. Ignore that evidence if you want... I have no problem with that, but don't say it is not evidence.
Yet another great point of discussion from you ...NOT!
