God (or gods) do not exist

^yes. I used to be an atheist like you seem to be, demanding proof, talking up science for my arguments against theists. We had all kinds of clever points (though I never heard the IPU one), and many I still agree with. But I noticed that all these atheists are doing is discrediting a literal sort of reading of God (usually the christian biblegod). They have almost nothing to say about a mystical god of the more pantheistic variety. Nothing, that is, except saying they disbelieve until they see proof. But as it's been said, proof is knowledge, and knowledge is relative. How can you prove through relative means something that has no comparison?

I'm an atheist when it comes to Biblegod, the person in the sky variety of god. But who can say anything for or against a universal force pervading all? This seems a more reasonable sort of "god" and even science is pointing that way. But still, it's something you just have to check out for yourself.

 

what is the body without its environment?

what is a hard drive without a computer?

a hard drive can be taken from one computer to another and it maintains its data. the computer im using now is a different one to teh one i used before about a week, but the computer itself is the same, just running at different speeds, but doing the same things.

if a brain could do the same, the mind would be moved as well, it just so happens that the brain is too physically complicated to perform such a task.

i can have an organ transplant and still be the same person. i could have a transplant of every organ except for my brain, and i would still be the same person, but if i had a brain transplant, my person would go with it. it would just from that point on percieve the world different. perception constantly changes anyway, so perception is not part of 'I', teh results of changing perception though do go to create 'I'.

this is why i am housed in the brain. i am my brain. this is the boring lump of flesh, supplying signals to my body to produce energy to keep me alive, among other things.

some could say 'oh but the brain relies on the body to supply it with the energy to think in the first place'

which came first?

well in the womb, the mother supplies the energy to the growing parasite until the parasite grows a neuron that makes its heart pump. the body doesnt supply the brain with its initial energy, the mother does.

then the brain controls teh body, which fuels the brain, which controls teh body, and yadi yadi ya.

the body is slave to the brain.

a master needs people to control. yet he is still the master. he can be given other people to control and he will continue to be master.



what would god be without people to worship him?

 

I can see what you're saying about atheists, but do you not think that's the best way to be?

Science works in such a way as to look at the world around you and to learn from it, to see what happens... from this observation, and then later experementation (such as changing something to see what happens) we can draw evidence, then from this evidence, we can draw up some conclusions.

Generally religion works the other way around, they already have the conclusions, based on sacred texts or whatever, then go looking for evidence that supports it, often rejecting any evidence that does not fit with what they're trying to achieve.

If I was to say to you that I've got a dog that can pee wine, you would want evidence to prove this, you should not take it at face value that what I'm saying is true. Now this is how atheists (and true men of science) work... we're not going to believe an idea just on the whim of the person who is clamning it. Do you know what I mean?

Now, as to regarding the whole 'the universe is god', again, I don't truly accept that idea, it sounds to me like people are just trying to persontise (sp) the universe... something that ultimatly, there is no evidence for, and if you ask me, kind of pointless..

 

but to christians, the prophecy is you saying your dog can pee wine, and then they believe they have indeed found a dog that pees wine. i meann talk to campbell, he is a conert after he realised how much proof there is behind the bible......?

 

Wel, you know what? if indeed they think they've found a dog that pees wine, I wanna watch them drink it!!

 

why is it when people tend to percieve neurochemistry they think of it literally as some 'bag of chemicals'?

neurochemistry involves a labarinth of many more tunnels than there are stars in our galaxy, each tunnel a specifically designed pathway for a single type of response.

teh difference between these things you speak of is, due to the perspective most people take on the physicall structure of teh brain (no one can deny what is under the microscope), beyond the physical capacity for most people's brains to comprehend.

and that probably doesnt make any sense to most people either?

you cant expect to understand neurochemistry from even a whole forum of posts, for we are still uncovering the complexities.

then people cite this as a reason it is not true, the fact that we dont even know about it.

pfft

 

It appears to me when evidence is found which supports the scriptures, and recent evidence of late which is much stronger evidence that a tooth or a piece of bone that much of evolution is built on. That evidence is rejected out of hand, by those who donot want to believe the Bible. You can find all tweleve land marks around mount Sinia, you can finds pharoahs armies remains in the Red Sea, or pillars marking where the Children of Israel entered and exited. And you will have those who do not want to believe saying. That doesent prove anything. The very story is found at the spot carved in stone in an ancient lanague. And they will say thats not evidence. I find it is science that often works the other way. The evidence is so strong yet the problem is the world does not want to draw any conclusion. Because if they do, it would point in the direction of a Bible that speaks truth. And science could never accept that. And that is why they also rejects the prophecies to.

 

First, analogies to machines only go so far. We can't transplant brains. Second, it's hard to say if you'd be the same person after such a transplant; even with normal transplants, sometimes people have new memories or knowledge about the donor that they shouldn't have.

The thing is, the body and brain develop together in the womb. In fact, the brain develops later; at birth the baby has fully functional, mature (though not full size) organs, except for gonads and their brain. It's foolish to elevate the brain so high up, when it's just another organ, a part of a single, cohesive and entirely integrated system.

And you're right, the body without an environment is worth nothing, in fact, it's dead. We are more than our body. There is one self, and it is the universe. Not a fact, but a good argument can be made. The thing is to think in terms of systems, not parts. In the end, there is only one system.

No, strict materialism is what's gotten this world into such a mess. Science without a moral foundation of some sort is blind. You can use it for great medicine, or you can create atomic bombs. Face it, most new technology is made during wars. All this thinking "objectively" (quotes because objectivity doesn't exist) is what lets us do such harm, because you're always doing it to the Other. Here's you, but that forest you're cutting down is over there, and those villagers your bombing are over there, and the old lady who's purse your grabbing is over there. But in reality, all things are connected.

The best is neither religious dogma nor scientific dogma. Both are in the past, in old (or new) scriptures, or knowledge. The best would be religions moral foundations and inductive reasoning (intuition, i guess), science's pragmatism and deductive reasoning, and (here's the key thing) a fully aware consciousness.

And I'm not personifying the universe, i don't see it as a humanized, thinking entity. Consciousness is much more than just thought.

 

Well first I need to point out that your first point is wrong based on the fact that there are a number of extra non biblical accounts of Christ by a number of authors who lived at that time. Also, some of the writings come from the enemies of Christ, which even proves all the more His existance.

Secondly I need to point out, that if the prophecies were fabricated it is unlikely that His followers would of died such horrible deaths, when a simple denial on their part would of allowed them freedom. Not many men will die for lie.

The story of Jesus matched more than just Mythra, there is actually about five similar stories that match the biblical account. Yet if you know anything about Satan an the Bible, it is his way to duplicate God in every way. For everything that God has or will do, Satan will have a counterfeit. God has the Trinity the Anti-Christ to come will have his unholyTrinity. Satan has been working from the beginning to deceive and confuse at every junction. It should come as no surprise that the virgin birth would be duplicated in a number of other cultures. If anything, it should be an eye opener to the importance of the actual event.

And yes there are lots of people who try and foretell the future. Usually if they have a 10% accuracy rate that is considered fantastic and all of their false predictions are soon forgoten. Yet the Bible tells us that if the man is speaking for God nothing short of 100% will do. The Bible reflects this accuracy, Nostradamus and all others do not.

Sorry dude, I did my research.

 

You're full of talk, but so far I've not seen any evidence to prove any of this.... I could sit here all day saying that I can lift a truck above my head, but without any evidence, I'd not expect anyone to believe me... The same goes for all this 'ground breaking' evidence of the remains of the egyption army in the sea, etc.... Where is your evidence?

Fair enough, you've done your research, but you're being very subjective yourself - you're taking the evidence that fits in with your own worldview, and ignoring everything else.... you're also making HUGE assumptions... assuing that these other 'virgin birth' stories are the product of the devil... do you have any evidence to back up this theory?

If you ask me, it's far more likely that these other stories or virgin births and other jesus like activities are more likely due to early christianity *borrowing* stories and ideas from other cultures.

 

you can sit and argue religious stories and beliefs all day, but you can never prove there isnt someting out there greater than us.

 

First of all, define 'greater' - if you're talking about greater in relation to size, then sure, I fully accept there are things greater - the planet earth on this we live is greater in size, the universe itself is greater still, etc..

But I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about, so in relation to your statement, sure.. I admit that I'll never be able to prove there is nothing greater, because it's next to impossable to prove that something does not exist... to an extent, all it means is that we've just not found it 'yet'.... BUT... you also can't prove to me that something greater *does* exist.. in fact, from what I've seen, most scientific knowledge that we do know about the universe tends to prove that something greater is not needed, because the world we live in now is the result of natural occurances.

 

it doesnt necesarily have todo with the universe and how it began.

 

This thread is boring. Let's get pizza.
Seriously, I hate it when people think they have some unique and valid point that NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER CONSIDERED and they can single-handedly prove/disprove the existence of a higher power on an internet thread. Atheists, quit being so dogmatic, you're so rigid in your attempt to be 'free-thinkers' that end up defending your LACK OF belief with such passion you sound like whacky bizzaro negative fundamentalists. Christians-- quit being yourselves..

 

I'm not saying that I've got some fundamentally diffrent view to everyone else, I'm just inviting people to try their best lines on me... So far, I've not heard any good ones.

As to atheists and what they believe, or their lack of belief - we're just making logical conclusions based on the scientific evidence available to date, I'm sorry if you think we're rigid, but the fact remains that if an object looks like an orange, feels like a orange, smells like an orange, and tastes like an orange - then that object is an orange - it's not us being rigid - it's the orange.

 

^Unless you're hallucinating, or dreaming. The hallucination is as real for the hallucinator as "reality" (just a common hallucination) is for us "normal" people.

Besides, it's only as true as the evidence for it. All things being relative, nothing known "objectively" is ever completely known. And all the things we know are known in a human way, not an objective way. WE are an integral part of our theories.

And yeah, y'all do sound rigid. You with your atheism, christians with their dogma...I'm not saying you're not open minded, but it seems you and believers have a lot in common as far as strength of belief. The mind may be open, but not very much. You've taken science as your dogma, which may be better than old books, but it's still something. What if there were things that are not scientifically provable? Some spontaneous sorts of things, that may not be repeatable? The universe only happened once (if it "happened" at all), so that's not repeatable.

 

Yes, I do admit that we may well be rigid.. but only because, as I explained with the orange, that's the way the world is.

You claim we're not open minded (or not as open as we could be), but I think that's unfair.. it's not a case of not being open minded, but rather not accepting things without proof.

We are willing to entertain new ideas (after all, science is forever changing, evolving - it was only a few hundred years ago that we believed everything was built of 4 elements - water, fire, air and earth - which has now been updated because we know more about the universe and it's basic building blocks), but only if they have the evidence to back them up.

 

a system of life? but life is not what the mind is?

 

Because something is not proven to be true it is therefore in fact false. This is a descrete, either-or, description of interpretation of experiment and does not include other than 0% and 100% probabilistic interpretation. We might say we have no known logical reason to believe it is true so we, therefore, cannot conclude but have strong indications that it is not true. Intuitive knowledge, and conjecture in connection with intuitive knowledge, has often proved to counter the "'logically' arrived at presumption" or interpretation that that "something" cannot be so. Oftentimes assumptions are useful and important but I believe that we, humans collectively, have much to learn about the rules regarding the utilization of assumption in our affairs.







.

 

One word Jesus...nuff' said, but I will go on...


Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life. All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If one follows that, if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth.
Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options. I choose to follow the risen Lord. Amen...