What evidence for God

[outhouse]

*scratches head*

...What?

:bow: thats good stuff right there

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Who says your requests are deemed sensable?

I am saying your opinion is "Yours" based on "Yours" for "Yours".

Thas is what you should challenge me with:

Make your case that my opinion is "Mine" --based on "Mine" --for "My" reasoning.
{Make your case that outhouse's opinion is "outhouse's" --based on "outhouse's" --for "outhouse's" reasoning.}

And that, even if you took a poll--- it would be skewed by the logistics of the voters available to answer the poll.

The reason you can ignore what some people do in the privacy of their own island of retreat as 'unusual behavior' is because . . . it is done far away on their island.

If you mis-treat these queer folks because they are threading on your space ---then your argument is not with there 'odd' predilictions but rather "how does it traspass on your own rights to peace & happiness".

How does the means of your own rights to peace & happiness compromised by the traditions of the Old Testiment.
How has the Old Testiment verdicts compromised your pursuit of freedom and liberty?

Has the Old Testiment verdicts compromised your pursuit of freedom and liberty--- or, is it simply knowing that there are those that adhere to the Old Testiment verdicts ---and that gives you some sort of complex that you feel neccessary to purge your self of?

Wait...what are you talking about?

 

[Orias]

Wait...what are you talking about?

Apparently reasoning :biglaugh:

 

[bhaktajan]

Wait...what are you talking about?

How does the means of your own rights to peace & happiness compromised by the traditions of the Old Testiment.
How has the Old Testiment verdicts compromised your pursuit of freedom and liberty?

I ask because it would seem, irregardless of the way private interest groups think, it appears to me that objections to the OT are predicated on injustices imposed upon others.

And simply knowing that there are those that adhere to the Old Testiment verdicts ---gives you some sort of complex that you feel neccessary to purge your self of.

Prompted by imposed injustices, thus seeking a revolution to overthrow traditions that dis-allow progessive freedoms?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Did man really walk around with dinosaurs?

Absolutely.

Congratulations!: You've won the prize for nuttiest post of the month! :-S


Bruce

 

[nonbeliever_92]

How does the means of your own rights to peace & happiness compromised by the traditions of the Old Testiment.
How has the Old Testiment verdicts compromised your pursuit of freedom and liberty?

I ask because it would seem, irregardless of the way private interest groups think, it appears to me that objections to the OT are predicated on injustices imposed upon others.

And simply knowing that there are those that adhere to the Old Testiment verdicts ---gives you some sort of complex that you feel neccessary to purge your self of.

Prompted by imposed injustices, thus seeking a revolution to overthrow traditions that dis-allow progessive freedoms?

Maybe it's just me but I'm still not getting the relavence.

 

[outhouse]

How has the Old Testiment verdicts compromised your pursuit of freedom and liberty?

because you cannot see the effects does not mean there are none.

the effects are buried deep in american culture like a tick on a hound dog

This effects childrens educations severely to this day

 

[opuntia]

Simple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

But if we argue that God himself is the one that must provide that necessary knowledge, then it is up to the nonbeliever to obtain a revelation from that God. And whosoever does obtain anything from a God. then that person has received on their own merits or faith. No one will get something for another where God is concerned, you must approach Him on your own merits and if you fail you have been deemed unfit for the revealing of His person or gifts. This is the best defense a Christian has against nonbelievers: Get it yourself and if you fail you must be unfaithful to begin with. Just with all things, there is success and there is failure. And seeking God will have its successes and its failures.

 

[PolyHedral]

Interestingly, that didn't actually answer the question.

 

[waitasec]

Interestingly, that didn't actually answer the question.

i wouldn't say "interestingly", i would say "typical".





but that 's just me

 

[Looncall]

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

But if we argue that God himself is the one that must provide that necessary knowledge, then it is up to the nonbeliever to obtain a revelation from that God. And whosoever does obtain anything from a God. then that person has received on their own merits or faith. No one will get something for another where God is concerned, you must approach Him on your own merits and if you fail you have been deemed unfit for the revealing of His person or gifts. This is the best defense a Christian has against nonbelievers: Get it yourself and if you fail you must be unfaithful to begin with. Just with all things, there is success and there is failure. And seeking God will have its successes and its failures.

Wow! What an amazing cop-out!

Are you not embarassed to be presenting such an obvious scam?

 

[waitasec]

Wow! What an amazing cop-out!

Are you not embarassed to be presenting such an obvious scam?

i especially like how the word "defense" was used...


as if we are enemies...when we live next to each other, go to the same schools, root for the same team shop at the same stores...

 

[McBell]

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

But if we argue that God himself is the one that must provide that necessary knowledge, then it is up to the nonbeliever to obtain a revelation from that God. And whosoever does obtain anything from a God. then that person has received on their own merits or faith. No one will get something for another where God is concerned, you must approach Him on your own merits and if you fail you have been deemed unfit for the revealing of His person or gifts. This is the best defense a Christian has against nonbelievers: Get it yourself and if you fail you must be unfaithful to begin with. Just with all things, there is success and there is failure. And seeking God will have its successes and its failures.

*climbs up onto pontoon boat*

My goodness the bull **** is getting deep.

 

[outhouse]

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

isnt this a very ignorant reply???

 

[waitasec]

isnt this a very ignorant reply???

apparently, knowledge is in the eye of the beholder....

 

[nonbeliever_92]

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

But if we argue that God himself is the one that must provide that necessary knowledge, then it is up to the nonbeliever to obtain a revelation from that God. And whosoever does obtain anything from a God. then that person has received on their own merits or faith. No one will get something for another where God is concerned, you must approach Him on your own merits and if you fail you have been deemed unfit for the revealing of His person or gifts. This is the best defense a Christian has against nonbelievers: Get it yourself and if you fail you must be unfaithful to begin with. Just with all things, there is success and there is failure. And seeking God will have its successes and its failures.

Cool Story Bro! :clap

 

[bhaktajan]

what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

Only a blase bourgeoisie neer-do-well says such things.

How many of us can live in the master's manor?

We seek equality amongst indifference, while others live aloof from the low-rent folks.

It may not be real God-hood . . . but for all practical purposes, the life of societies movers, shakers and group-thinkers POP-Culture were manor-borne until their past noble good-karma is spent.

From Lord Brahma to the common ant all are subject to birth, death old-age & disease while surjorning in this material world of duality and samsara.

Transcendence is unaffected by such mundane qualities . . . at least, as per the strict definition of the very world, "Transcendence".

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

There's no physical evidence for the existence of god, only a priori reasoning.

The logical arguments for the existence of God, while compelling to some, don't convince me that any of the current deities on the religious market are real.

Basically, we don't KNOW. We can't, at least not for the forseeable future. I think it's funny that some people are so convinced that they KNOW whether god(s) exist or not; anyone with even a rudimentary philosophy background knows that there's debate as to whether we can really even know anything at all, let alone the existence of deities, how our existence came to be, the one true meaning of life (if there even was such a thing), etc.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Only a blase bourgeoisie neer-do-well says such things.

Yes, because only bored capitalist layabouts question the existence of god.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

We may argue all day if God exists, but neither you or any other nonbeliever will achieve knowledge.

But if we argue that God himself is the one that must provide that necessary knowledge, then it is up to the nonbeliever to obtain a revelation from that God. And whosoever does obtain anything from a God. then that person has received on their own merits or faith. No one will get something for another where God is concerned, you must approach Him on your own merits and if you fail you have been deemed unfit for the revealing of His person or gifts. This is the best defense a Christian has against nonbelievers: Get it yourself and if you fail you must be unfaithful to begin with. Just with all things, there is success and there is failure. And seeking God will have its successes and its failures.

Here's the question, though- how do we come about this "divine revelation"? If you're not brought up with some specific faith, then your values become placed on logic, science, reason. In the context you're describing it, "faith" is merely the ability to believe in something without any concrete evidence supporting it. How is that admirable?

You can call me wicked, faithless, nonbeliever, etc, but I tend to think that if there were some kind of omniscient creator God, and he wanted us to live a certain way, it seems he would make the true religion more obvious. And if that religion were Christianity/ Judaism/ Islam/ etc, that it would be more easily discernable. Because as it is, if you interpret the scriptures literally, they describe things that go against fundamental laws of nature; if you interpret the scriptures as symbolic, then there are any number of different ways you can interpret the text, and you get a ton of different sects.

You're professing a very Calvinist point of view, that only those who can accept religion based solely on faith are worthy of entering heaven.