• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Oh wow, exit stage right!! I didn't even realize this was a debate thread, sorry. I'm not into debating what I deem foolishness. Bye.

Cannot answer my rebuttals then, fair enough. You can get back to sucking up to fellow atheists then, at least you will gain new friends and allies.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I do. I am scientifically trained. All I see from you is the god of therefore. That isn't proof.

How do you become scientifically trained? Can only scientists recognise proof or are they just better at it then anybody else? Someone being scientifically biased really does not impress me as those people can be terribly bigoted and close minded.

I do not know what you mean by the God of "therefore", do you?
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
If you were converted by the Holy Ghost you would still be a Christian right now. Once you have been truly converted you can never go back, even if you wanted to. It is impossible.
God doesn't respect our free will? Wouldn't your statement also mean that no one can know whether they are truly converted or not while they are still alive? I mean, there is always some chance that a person who believes that they are truly converted could fall away in the future. That being the case, how can one know if they are truly converted and not simply believe that they are truly conveted?
 
Last edited:

serp777

Well-Known Member
How do you become scientifically trained? Can only scientists recognise proof or are they just better at it then anybody else? Someone being scientifically biased really does not impress me as those people can be terribly bigoted and close minded.

I do not know what you mean by the God of "therefore", do you?

Someone claiming that they hear the holy ghost in their head does not impress me; as those people believe that they couldn't possibly be hallucinating. Likewise schizophrenics do not impress me with their tales.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
How do you become scientifically trained? Can only scientists recognise proof or are they just better at it then anybody else? Someone being scientifically biased really does not impress me as those people can be terribly bigoted and close minded.

I do not know what you mean by the God of "therefore", do you?


Scientists are trained to look at evidence, run experiments, record the results, get someone else to reproduce and verify the results with a similar experiment and make conclusions based on information only.

What we don't do is go

Well a rhino has four legs and a horn. So does the mythical unicorn. Therefore rhinos must be the unicorns behind the myth!

Which is where you and your god exist: within the therefore of things.

And someone claiming to hear voices in their head does not usually constitution evidence or proof of the existence of anything.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Someone claiming that they hear the holy ghost in their head does not impress me; as those people believe that they couldn't possibly be hallucinating. Likewise schizophrenics do not impress me with their tales.

I wasn't trying to impress you, indeed, the thought had never crossed my mind. To compare me to a schizophrenic is like saying that everyone that has a thought has schizophrenia. That would be preposterous as well as offensive. But that is what atheists like to do, offend.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Scientists are trained to look at evidence, run experiments, record the results, get someone else to reproduce and verify the results with a similar experiment and make conclusions based on information only.

Well that is good news. I am a scientist and didn't know it, or care.

What we don't do is go

Well a rhino has four legs and a horn. So does the mythical unicorn. Therefore rhinos must be the unicorns behind the myth!

Which is where you and your god exist: within the therefore of things.


Sorry, you got that one wrong. I only put God up if He is the most likely candidate and there is evidence to implicate him. I fear you are misrepresenting me and tarring me with the same brush that you tar everyone else.

And someone claiming to hear voices in their head does not usually constitution evidence or proof of the existence of anything.

This, of course, is a dishonest statement intended solely to stupefy me. Why can't you atheists play fair and have just a little more decorum in your post. You do not paint a very good portrait of yourselves or your clan.

I have never claimed to hear voices. I have used the saying poetically, like, "the still small voice that whispers to your soul" , but that is not intended to me taken literally. I have never heard a voice in my head, ever. That is not what the Holy Ghost does, and if you would have done your homework, you would have read my post on how the Holy Ghost communicates, but I wonder if that would have stopped you from misrepresenting me and trying to make me sound mentally unstable. The evidence from the spirit of God is personal to me and is never intended to prove anything to anybody else but me. You do not have to believe a thing I say. I am not asking you to. I am expressing my opinions, based on my knowledge and experience. If you disagree then please challenge them politely and without malice or offence. To do so is indecorous and undignified.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
God doesn't respect our free will? Wouldn't your statement also mean that no one can know whether they are truly converted or not while they are still alive? I mean, there is always some chance that a person who believes that they are truly converted could fall away in the future. That being the case, how can one know if they are truly converted and not simply believe that they are truly conveted?

In order for you to denounce the Holy Ghost you must first be converted by him. Only you can answer that question. You would know for a surety and you would know that once converted you can never go back. Unto those that much is given, much is expected. Once the eyes of your understanding have been opened they can never be closed again. You can never deny that which you have received.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
In order for you to denounce the Holy Ghost you must first be converted by him. Only you can answer that question. You would know for a surety and you would know that once converted you can never go back. Unto those that much is given, much is expected. Once the eyes of your understanding have been opened they can never be closed again. You can never deny that which you have received.
How can one know if the assurance felt in their heart comes from the Holy Ghost or not? I mean, there are definitely people who felt a sureness in their hearts that they were saved at one point but ended up falling away later.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
No, that is very true. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. There has to be a point where there is a desire to go deeper. It is at that point that you must allow the reasonable man to reason it out for himself.

Right. If you put it in terms of reason then there is only one way to go. Christianity is a rip off of pagan mythology. This has been proven beyond a doubt. No one had been able to debunk the research of D. M. Murdock and her source material that all Christian doctrine existed in Greek and Egyptian mythology. There are 46 parallels between Moses and Dionisis alone.

Christianity has admitted this since the 2nd century because early critics were saying "What's so special about Jesus? Horus also died and resurrected for our sins, had 12 disciples etc.. "

The Christian answer was that the devil planted all those similarities ahead of time.
Anyone can accept that answer but to call it reasonable is simply untrue.
You can't have faith and reasonable together. Otherwise why need faith?

Again, deism can't be pinned down one way or the other. It's very possible. But Osirus giving virgin birth to Horus on Dec 25 or any mythology that came before or after is not a literal story about God.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Right. If you put it in terms of reason then there is only one way to go. Christianity is a rip off of pagan mythology. This has been proven beyond a doubt. No one had been able to debunk the research of D. M. Murdock and her source material that all Christian doctrine existed in Greek and Egyptian mythology. There are 46 parallels between Moses and Dionisis alone.

Christianity has admitted this since the 2nd century because early critics were saying "What's so special about Jesus? Horus also died and resurrected for our sins, had 12 disciples etc.. "

The Christian answer was that the devil planted all those similarities ahead of time.
Anyone can accept that answer but to call it reasonable is simply untrue.
You can't have faith and reasonable together. Otherwise why need faith?

Again, deism can't be pinned down one way or the other. It's very possible. But Osirus giving virgin birth to Horus on Dec 25 or any mythology that came before or after is not a literal story about God.

With all due respect, and I mean that, I have had few posts that compare to this one. You compare Dionysius, the god of epiphany, a beardless, sensuous, naked, or half-naked, androgynous member of the 12 Olympians, to Moses, a Greek Gods, for crying out loud. The comparison is just not viable. Moses lived and Dionysius is a mythical god who never really existed outside of the minds of the z Greeks. Of course you can draw paralleld between the two but you would be hard pressed to find parallels, but you can find parallels between anything, it doesn't mean anything. The life of Jesus Christ is unique and stands as a testimonial to His father in heaven. I am a Christian not Greek orthodox.

It is Osiris and not Osirus. He is the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead. Hours, being considered his posthumously begotten son. Another mythical god of the Greeks. You seem to be saying that the gods of Greek mythology, who existed before the arrival of Jesus, have a similar story to that of Jesus Christ. So what? Have you never watched two similar movies, read two similar books, viewed two similar paintings. That there is any similarity is coincidental. There is no argument in your claim to parallel comparisons that might suggest a copy cat story. It is just coincidental.

Christ was thought to have been born on April the sixth and died during the passover in December. Because of the changes in our calender we have placed his birth on the 25th December though it was his death, whereas, Hurus was posthumously born on the 25th December.
 
Last edited:
Top