• 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!

Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

ladybug77

Active Member
Well... you were at least right in saying that what you were about to claim would be challenged at least. where to begin?

Well lets focus on this. You claim Christianity has an answer for everything? Correct? Why would that attribute be desired? What about that makes it "good"? I mean If you gave me enough time I could write a religion and a book with just as much encompassing power. If I had millions of followers to review my vague text I'm sure they could pull a near infinite amount of different possible interpretations to try and make it fit.


Next what about when Christianity gets it wrong? The world was not made in seven days. God didn't create man from the dust of the earth and certainly no woman from a rib. Or the condractions between what books of the bible made it into the bible and the books that didn't but were still considered holy scriputure (Lilith for example). Or homosexuality being "wrong"?

What about 2 Timothy 3:16?
My personal opinion, you can interpret it however you want to...so this kinda makes the bible pliable....for anyone, and any opinion.
If the shoe fits, wear it....if you dont like it....dont read it.
If you cant prove God....o well!!!!! ;)
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
People. Means flesh. Man means soul.
And i read the old testimate first, and then the new.
One is not complete without the other imo.
Actually personal or people means a being with self awareness and independent will but that is not really important here.

And what works for me? I allow God to work through me this way. Real love. Not lust. But love. I live for love. Is that cool with you?? I dont mangle the bible...i gave it clarity.
You can not give the Bible clarity. Clarity is what the Bible gives you. It appears you are putting on a pair of self adjustable rose colored lenses and then interpreting the Bible through them in very bizarre ways which virtually no one (even fringe) groups have done in significant numbers. The Bible says we are appointed to die ONCE. It suggests then we are judged on that one life and one death for eternity. No coming back, no re-incarnation, not one verse that allows for anything like that.

Love is fine but love alone will not get you to heaven. That takes faith in what Christ said and was specifically. You cannot just interpret a Christ into existence that is pleasing. He never said anything that allowed for re-incarnation. I have never heard a fringe group or cult that even believed that and even if there was they would have to defy every form of accepted hermeneutics and exegesis for the past 2000 years.

You can believe in re-incarnation if you want but you can't get it from a Bible left intact, and not mangled beyond recognition.
 

ladybug77

Active Member
Actually personal or people means a being with self awareness and independent will but that is not really important here.

You can not give the Bible clarity. Clarity is what the Bible gives you. It appears you are putting on a pair of self adjustable rose colored lenses and then interpreting the Bible through them in very bizarre ways which virtually no one (even fringe) groups have done in significant numbers. The Bible says we are appointed to die ONCE. It suggests then we are judged on that one life and one death for eternity. No coming back, no re-incarnation, not one verse that allows for anything like that.

Love is fine but love alone will not get you to heaven. That takes faith in what Christ said and was specifically. You cannot just interpret a Christ into existence that is pleasing. He never said anything that allowed for re-incarnation. I have never heard a fringe group or cult that even believed that and even if there was they would have to defy every form of accepted hermeneutics and exegesis for the past 2000 years.

You can believe in re-incarnation if you want but you can't get it from a Bible left intact, and not mangled beyond recognition.

Well in the old testimate...it fits re-incarnation just fine to me. There is an old Egyptian story about a jealous brother, who murders his brother. Then the murdered one is 'risin from the dead'. Sounds like Cain and Able with different names to me. Eqyptians believed in re-incarnation...thats why they preserved thier bodies so well. But its fine to believe what you want. But im entitled to interpret the bible however i want to also...without being judged for it. And you call yourself a Christian? Slow your roll please. :)
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Well in the old testimate...it fits re-incarnation just fine to me. There is an old Egyptian story about a jealous brother, who murders his brother. Then the murdered one is 'risin from the dead'. Sounds like Cain and Able with different names to me. Eqyptians believed in re-incarnation...thats why they preserved thier bodies so well. But its fine to believe what you want. But im entitled to interpret the bible however i want to also...without being judged for it. And you call yourself a Christian? Slow your roll please. :)
What part? No significant (I know of exactly zero) Jewish sect derived that conclusion. I think you are reading things into texts that claim the opposite.

Ten Refutations of Reincarnation


Christianity rejects reincarnation for ten reasons.

1. It is contradicted by Scripture (Heb 9:27).

2. It is contradicted by orthodox tradition in all churches.

3. It would reduce the Incarnation (referring to Christ’s incarnation) to a mere appearance, the crucifixion to an accident, and Christ to one among many philosophers or avatars. It would also confuse what Christ did with what creatures do: incarnation with reincarnation.

4. It implies that God made a mistake in designing our souls to live in bodies, that we are really pure spirits in prison or angels in costume.

5. It is contradicted by psychology and common sense, for its view of souls as imprisoned in alien bodies denies the natural psychosomatic unity.

6. It entails a very low view of the body, as a prison, a punishment.

7. It usually blames sin on the body and the body’s power to confuse and darken the mind. This is passing the buck from soul to body, as well as from will to mind, and a confusion of sin with ignorance.

8. The idea that we are reincarnated in order to learn lessons we failed to learn in a past earthly life is contrary to both common sense and basic educational psychology. I cannot learn something if there is no continuity of memory. I can learn from my mistakes only if I remember them. People do not usually remember these past “reincarnations.”

9. The supposed evidence for reincarnation, rememberings from past lives that come out under hypnosis or “past life regression” can be explained—if they truly occur at all—as mental telepathy from other living beings, from the souls of dead humans in purgatory or hell, or from demons. The real possibility of the latter should make us extremely skittish about opening our souls to “past life regressions.”

Please Note: While I would agree with the demonic aspect, I do not agree with the idea of purgatory nor can I agree with the idea of the souls of dead humans communicating with living people. The dead are confined, according to Scripture, and cannot reveal themselves. This is suggested in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 and by the extreme surprise of the witch of Endor when she saw Samuel who was dead (see 1 Sam. 27:8f). She claimed to be a medium or one who contacts the dead, but when Saul requested that she contact Samuel and when God brought him forth, it startled her and brought great fear. This appeared to be her first experience with the real thing, i.e., with seeing the dead because this is normally not possible. When people do experience such experiences or contact, what they are seeing or experiencing is better identified as demonic.

10. Reincarnation cannot account for itself. Why are our souls imprisoned in bodies? Is it the just punishment for evils we committed in past reincarnations? But why were those past reincarnations necessary? For the same reason. But the beginning of the process that justly imprisoned our souls in bodies in the first place—this must have antedated the series of bodies. How could we have committed evil in the state of perfect, pure, heavenly spirituality? Further, if we sinned in that paradise, it is not paradisical after all. Yet that is the state that reincarnation is supposed to lead us back to after all our embodied yearnings are over.
https://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-reincarnation

Egyptians did not write the Bible. Not even they believed in actual re-incarnation. Even the pharaoh did not come back to this life. Like most faiths the soul endures but in a different realm in Egyptology.

Do you realize you are potentially wagering everything you have or will have on this idea you have forced into the mouths of authors that never believed it?
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
God is real, get over it people. The proof for god is astonishing and it is the same thing that people examine across the world. I guess I am the only person who claims to be a gnostic deist although an agnostic theist
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
God is real, get over it people. The proof for god is astonishing and it is the same thing that people examine across the world. I guess I am the only person who claims to be a gnostic deist although an agnostic theist

Pretty sure you wouldn't be the only one, but if it makes you feel unique, go for it.
I see no reason to believe in God. However, I wouldn't really claim there's no evidence for God. Instead, I would argue that the evidence is not compelling (to me).

Is there something you find indicative of A God, rather than Gods?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
However, I wouldn't really claim there's no evidence for God. Instead, I would argue that the evidence is not compelling (to me).

Im just the opposite.

There is no scientific evidence for any god at anytime anywhere. There is nothing to test for.

What evidence we do have is that all gods were created and defined by man, to meet his cultural needs, wants, and desires, and fears.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Pretty sure you wouldn't be the only one, but if it makes you feel unique, go for it.

I was actually only referring tot he forum, I have not encountered anyone to declare themselves a gnostic deist. Gnostic theist sure but not gnostic deist.

I also am unique. My mommy told me I was special :D(haha).

I see no reason to believe in God. However, I wouldn't really claim there's no evidence for God. Instead, I would argue that the evidence is not compelling (to me).

You have been listening to Matt Dillahunty to much I say.
I conclude that the definition of god is just over hyped and stretched beyond comprehensible knowledge.

Is there something you find indicative of A God, rather than Gods?

I find that both monotheism and polytheistic animism or pantheism are justifiable. Since the demiurge concept only applies to pre-creation it could be said for a panendeists(making up words here) like myself that god is equal to the singularity of matter while polytheism can be justified do to the varying constructs formed by matter.

Everything assigned to god whether it be beyond natural existence(such as emotions) all emanate from matter. Greeks say Zeus sends thunder, Apollo is of knowledge and Aphrodite of sex(which is boring).

Anything we conceive about god is materialistic in all regards even if it seems to go beyond. The conception of an afterlife is based upon our present natural life for example.

I have come to the conclusion that god is essentially any concept one can think of in regards to the physical world or products of the physical worlds(our thoughts). So god is and is also not the physical world itself.

An Earthquake is an act of the demiurge along with anything that occurs in our universe. But we can assign gods to anything deemed as a subset of matter or energy such as a planet or stars.

Just like the Gnostics and their conclusion that the Demiurge is separate from god, I to say the same. Except I find polytheism more emotionally necessary than monotheism or else the universe is one cruel bipolar deity.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Im just the opposite.

There is no scientific evidence for any god at anytime anywhere. There is nothing to test for.

What evidence we do have is that all gods were created and defined by man, to meet his cultural needs, wants, and desires, and fears.

You have just proven god, thank you.

Last I recall, you were the person who claimed that you could refute the existence of god to me then asked for my religion only to find out I was a Deist. You abruptly chickened out for some odd reason because the ignostic argument was a killer for you.


Please tell me what a god is. I would love to hear this first. Lets both lay our cards on the table and conclude what a god is before we start saying "there is no god"
 

outhouse

Atheistically
NEWSFLASH: the universe and everything in it was created and defined by humans!

Do we give credibility to mythological concepts because ancient men did not understand the natural world around them?


Because they chose a warrior god to protect them and make that deity a national deity, instead of the many they worshipped before, does that give credibility to that mythology?

Do we ignore they made mortal men divine?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Do we give credibility to mythological concepts because ancient [people] did not understand the natural world around them?

Hmm. I do seem to recall that you were one of the folks here on RF that doesn't get mythology, no offense. That you speak of the "credibility" of mythological concepts or allege it is grounded in our ancestors "not understanding" speaks to that. Mythos is a poetic map of the territory; it's storytelling, metaphor, and allegory; a way of expressing truths artfully.

But I'm not really that interested in diving deep into this line of conversation, honestly. I just like to point out that statements like "gods are human-created" sound really, really absurd to those of us whose god-concepts are synonymous with all of reality itself. I'm pretty damn sure we didn't make the sun.
 
Top