# Poll: God-yes/no



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Given some of the discussion lately, it is time for a poll:

DO YOU BELIEVE IN SOME SORT OF GOD? YES/NO


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Could be is not an option?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

No could be's... No waffling. It is on the line: yes/no.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Agreed, maybe and not sure would both have been good options but I'm a firm no!
I don't believe in God or god.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Zero evidence and no rational reason to think it is simply a matter of technological sensor limits = zero belief. 

I also don't believe in a special pencil hidden behind Alpha Centauri that controls our world or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With evidence, I am completely open to changing my understanding (ie. belief based upon knowledge and a reasonable consideration of uncertainty).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

As I've said before, if you're of the opinion that there's no good evidence either way, a rational person won't have any belief.

This is why all rational agnostics are atheists.

Cheers

(I was slow posting... Beej has already made this point)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> (I was slow posting... Beej has already made this point)


Do you believe that?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> This is why all rational agnostics are atheists.


All 'rational' people are atheists.... It is imposssible to be rational and 'believe' in something for which not one single shred of actual evidence exists.... And don't try to hand me any horse sh*t about 'faith'....... faith just means refusal to accept (lack of) evidence.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> All 'ration' people are atheists.... It is imposssible to be rational and 'believe' in something for which not one single shred of actual evidence exists.... And don't try to hand me any horse sh*t about 'faith'....... faith just means refusal to accept (lack of) evidence.


Not true. If someone agrees with the, in my opinion, faulty logic of believing being less risky than non-believing, then it is rational to believe. That is simply a difference of foundational assumption (nature of unknown God's pettiness), and such a thing is what many disagreements are based upon. Rational people can disagree on risk mitigation.

Also, there is the question of a person being irrational versus a person having irrational beliefs. That gets back into a much broader mess of God, LGMs etc.

And, finally, sometimes there just isn't enough information available to a given person. Take it on faith, gut, dice etc. That is not necessarily irrational, it is simply being forced to decide without real information. It can be rationalised, or it can be done by other means. Faith in the goodness of people, for example, versus a rational understanding in the statistical goodness of people. Different strokes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aw sh!t, now I believe in beejacon 

Go figure.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> isn't enough information available to a given person.
> That is not necessarily irrational,


Strikes me that that is the very definition of irrationality...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> Strikes me that that is the very definition of irrationality...


Yes, I think it is. However, I find it useful to differentiate between situations where rational decision-making is eschewed (Spaghetti Monsters) versus those in which it isn't a feasible/relevant option (random and/or practically zero information that still requires a decision).


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> Yes, I think it is. However, I find it useful to differentiate between situations where rational decision-making is eschewed (Spaghetti Monsters) versus those in which it isn't a feasible/relevant option (random and/or practically zero information that still requires a decision).


Isn't the _rational_ response to no information, no decision?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Flipping a coin requires no "belief"..just a handy, and rational way to short circuit indecision.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

rgray said:


> Isn't the _rational_ response to no information, no decision?


Assuming that is an option. Sometimes, just having an opinion (any opinion), with little or no information, can be a rational requirement for other real or perceived reasons. Other rationale (social interaction impulse, etc.) can require an opinion and no information vs totally inadequate information is a fine line, but opinions are "expected". 

I agree with you in a strict sense but find that there are too many random/near-zero information decisions in life that require my previously described "meh" factor. I wouldn't think less of someone for saying they have "faith" in the goodness of people vs someone who said their experience is that people are generally good. Vise versa too.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Define God or god and then I'll let you know if I believe or not.

Margaret


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> Define God or god and then I'll let you know if I believe or not.
> 
> Margaret


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Could be is not an option?


How agnostic of you!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Wrong! Flipping a coin relies on the "belief" that it will go up, go down and that heads or tails will be revealed.

Try this instead: flip a coin and "believe" that it will come to rest on its side, rather than its obverse or reverse. There you go. So some beliefs are better than others.




MacDoc said:


> Flipping a coin requires no "belief"..just a handy, and rational way to short circuit indecision.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I do not believe in the existence of God or gods.

Unless it can be measured, tested, proven, shown, then it does not exist.

A belief in God is a sign of irrationality.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

I spent most of my life not believing God exists, I was wrong. I base my believe in the existance of God on solid evidence of a very personal nature. Believing in God, does not mean accepting christianity, or "churchianity". I believe in God, not "religon". All those of you that have such hostility towards even the Idea of God, I pray for you. This is not coming from some geek that attends church and gets out of the shower to take a piss.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*Stickied: If kwmike needs a shower, it won't be at my place.*




kwmike said:


> I spent most of my life not believing God exists, I was wrong. I base my believe in the existance of God on solid evidence of a very personal nature. Believing in God, does not mean accepting christianity, or "churchianity". I believe in God, not "religon". All those of you that have such hostility towards even the Idea of God, I pray for you. This is not coming from some geek that attends church and gets out of the shower to take a piss.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

HowEver said:


> *Stickied: If kwmike needs a shower, it won't be at my place.*




like george costanza said : it's all pipes!!!!


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

Let us look at some of the pressuppositions here:
a) A belief in God is an irrational belief (never mind whether the person is rational in general or not)
b) There is zero evidence for God

And the contention is (a) follows from (b). Here are the questions:

i) Is (b) necessarily true? Or is it just an assertion based on intuition and not inquiry?
ii) How can one ascertain the truth of (b) from a naturalistic epistemology, when one of the axioms (which by definition is unproven) already presupposes the non-existence of non-naturalistic entities? (Or simply put, how can you check the truth of something when you've already decided that it is impossible to check based on your current framework of thought? The naturalist has a very hard time making an impartial case here.)

Science is the tool for discovering truth in the naturalistic universe. Philosophy is the tool for discovering truth in the non-naturalistic universe. They do not necessarily conflict. People are often studied in the former, but not the latter -- and the misapply the former to prove metaphysical premises.

In the philosophical community, people have moved away from calling theistic belief irrational. (Btw, theistic does not necessarily mean Christian) Implausible, improbable maybe, but not irrational. If you read secular philosophical journals in the past 40 years, you will find some very strong arguments for theistic belief -- which may not be true, but nevertheless, are very rational.

Most sophisticated atheists will concede that theists are within their epistemic rights in believing in theism, just as atheists as within their epistemic rights to have a lack of belief.

I just find the lack of respect for theists around here troubling. You may disagree with the premises of the theist, but name-calling is just in poor taste.

One of the most prolific atheist writers in the world is a guy by the name of Kai Nielsen (who is professor emeritus at the University of Calgary). If you've ever heard him in debates, he's always civil and polite, preferring to make his point with rational argumentation. 

If only people here would move beyond simplistic arguments and have a bit more respect for each other, then we'd have a discussion.

On the other hand, I understand, people just get on ehMac to vent after a hard day's work....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ernestworthing said:


> Let us look at some of the pressuppositions here:
> a) A belief in God is an irrational belief (never mind whether the person is rational in general or not)
> b) There is zero naturalistic evidence for God
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: 
Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'll second that! :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

There is no argument to be had with people who believe in a god. Since the existence of god cannot be disproved (it is virtually impossible to disprove the non-existance of anything), those of faith will always fall back on that reasoning.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

I believe in God because, I have seen the proof!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

kwmike said:


> I believe in God because, I have seen the proof!


And, this proof is....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I guess taking a look in the mirror isn't proof enough for you.

I hope it doesn't take you lying on your death bed to finally realize this.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I guess taking a look in the mirror isn't proof enough for you.
> 
> I hope it doesn't take you lying on your death bed to finally realize this.


What? What does looking in the mirror prove?

As a side note, this is Christianity at it's worse:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNG8TMU1KQ1.DTL&o=0


> In Left Behind, video game players must try to convert others to Christianity. If nonbelievers won't convert, players must kill them.


http://www.eternalforces.com/


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Unless it can be measured, tested, proven, shown, then it does not exist.


I wouldn't go that far. However, I agree that without evidence, assuming the existence of unmeasurable forces is irrational.

What qualifies as evidence may be different for different individuals. Certainly other peoples claims of religious experiences doesn't convince me of anything, however compelling they may find the experience. I might feel differently if any of these experiences happened to me, however, if such miraculous experiences occurred under conditions of physiological or psychological stress, I'd be inclined to attribute them to mundane neurological malfunction, rather than the supernatural.



ernestworthing said:


> How can one ascertain the truth of (b) from a naturalistic epistemology, when one of the axioms (which by definition is unproven) already presupposes the non-existence of non-naturalistic entities? (Or simply put, how can you check the truth of something when you've already decided that it is impossible to check based on your current framework of thought? The naturalist has a very hard time making an impartial case here.)


This is an important point that's worth considering more deeply. It is true that science makes the axiomatic assumption that supernatural forces either don't exist or don't affect the observable universe, and is therefore unable to address any questions pertaining to the supernatural. It is not true, however that all scientists make this assumption. Moreover, if observable reality is consistent with science, Occam's Razor applies, and adding supernatural complexity is not warranted.

So, if those of us viewing the universe from a scientific perspective are successful in explaining phenomena, it is rational to accept that these phenomena don't require a supernatural explanation.

Some people seem to feel that the inverse is also true: that any phenomena not adequately explained by science must require a supernatural explanation, but this is a fallacy. Our inability to elucidate a naturalistic explanation is not evidence that a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist. However, it certainly remains eminently possible for a supernatural entity to convince me, or any other scientist of their existence. 

My criteria are quite simple... if Zeus or any other god exists they are welcome to provide me with the winning lottery numbers in a dream (this, I feel is something any god worth his salt should have no difficulty with). If I ever have such a revelatory dream, I agree in advance to donate all the winnings from this lottery to a suitable charity (or build a temple with it, or whatever the god indicates would please them), so this is not an acquisitive scam on my part. Such a dream (given that the numbers turn out to be the winners), would convince me of the existence of a supernatural agent. As of this writing, I've never had any dreams about lottery numbers. I'll be sure to let y'all know if I do.

Cheers


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> There is no argument to be had with people who believe in a god. Since the existence of god cannot be disproved (it is virtually impossible to disprove the non-existance of anything), those of faith will always fall back on that reasoning.


You are correct in saying that the universal non-existence of anything is virtually undisprovable--because a person would have to have infinite knowledge in order to make a negative universal assertion, which is an immediate philosophical brick wall. 

Traditional atheists realize this, which is why most of them choose not to identify themselves as those making a creed of the disavowal of God, but instead choose other options like a definition of atheism being a profession of a lack of theistic belief (rather than a dogmatic assertion of the negative position), hard/soft agnosticism (cannot know, do not know, respectively), or nontheism (lack of theistic presuppositions, e.g. Buddhism).

However, depending on your position, the statement you made above seems to reflect atheists of certain stripes too who make the reverse argument (i.e. because theists cannot prove the existence of God, therefore there is no cause for theistic belief). 

Frankly, I don't know if any theists actually use that reasoning to prove God's existence--it doesn't sway one way or the other. It's just an equalizing argument, making the point that one position is not stronger than the other.

Now, this whole problem of the existence of God will never be solved exhaustively, to everyone's satisfaction. NEVER.

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean it cannot be *resolved to an individual's satisfaction* or discussed *meaningfully* without resorting to gratuitously circular arguments. We don't have complete knowledge about a lot of things, but it is usually still possible to talk about them meaningfully. 

So how do we argue and reason meaningfully?

Well, it seems to me that if one is really serious about inquiry, one needs to start from the laws of logic and examine presuppositions of each side, keeping in mind that the laws of logic can only *disprove* faulty arguments, it cannot *prove* anything. But it helps us at least have arguments that cohere. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

Then moving beyond that, we examine the evidence available to us to see if our coherent system corresponds to the reality that we perceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Of course, we can argue till the cows come home and still not be satisfied. Ultimately, what our perceptions of reality are must answer our existential questions. So at some point, we have to move towards a philosophy that doesn't just tell us what we must know, but how we must live. 

A worldview *must* meet some existential need. If one were to distill a worldview down to its basic elements, it must ultimately answer four questions:
1) Origin
2) Meaning
3) Morality
4) Destiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Everybody has a world view, atheists, spiritual people, animists, etc. The theist's assertion is that with a God, these 4 questions are answered satisfactorily. The atheist answers the 4 questions differently. 

I think if perhaps some of us were to study these things carefully, we might actually discover that the theistic arguments are not as untenable as most lay people make them out to be. It doesn't therefore mean that theism is necessarily true -- but it is not as dumb as we would think.

Note: I sometimes read Digg.com and people there are pretty anti-theistic (not just atheistic). But some of them are good natured enough to own that they don't have a church to go to (like the religious people) so they use Digg as a forum to have fellowship with other atheists and also to have a bit of fun. ;-) Fair enough. It's fun to watch a debate like a football game sometimes, and have cheerleaders cheering for one side.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> My criteria are quite simple... if Zeus or any other god exists they are welcome to provide me with the winning lottery numbers in a dream (this, I feel is something any god worth his salt should have no difficulty with). If I ever have such a revelatory dream, I agree in advance to donate all the winnings from this lottery to a suitable charity (or build a temple with it, or whatever the god indicates would please them), so this is not an acquisitive scam on my part. Such a dream (given that the numbers turn out to be the winners), would convince me of the existence of a supernatural agent. As of this writing, I've never had any dreams about lottery numbers. I'll be sure to let y'all know if I do.


This, in a funny way, gets at the science of God. If God were to provide evidence of its existence (no, a beautiful summer's day is not evidence), then it becomes part of the system of understanding. It isn't that God's existence can't be proven (definitions involving omnipotence and omniscience are trickier), it's that God is shy. 

With the zero evidence available, the likelihood of God's existence is equal to the existence of anything else a given person can imagine. 

It isn't more likely because it is an older idea, or because it's grander or because it gives someone a life purpose. Those aspects don't change likelihood, they change the impact of belief and the attractiveness of the belief being shared.


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

Thank you for your reasoned response. I appreciate it.



bryanc said:


> I wouldn't go that far. However, I agree that without evidence, assuming the existence of unmeasurable forces is irrational. What qualifies as evidence may be different for different individuals. Certainly other peoples claims of religious experiences doesn't convince me of anything, however compelling they may find the experience. I might feel differently if any of these experiences happened to me, however, if such miraculous experiences occurred under conditions of physiological or psychological stress, I'd be inclined to attribute them to mundane neurological malfunction, rather than the supernatural.


Correct. Personal religious experiences certainly may not prove any general truth (except perhaps a Kierkegaardian conception of truth) -- though it may be useful to the individual. 

And you are wise to not go that far -- that statement was originally made by the empiricist David Hume. It was buried for being self referentially inconsistent. 

His words were:
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Unfortunately, his very statement was not empirical or mathematical. Logical Positivism in the 1960s died the same death.



bryanc said:


> This is an important point that's worth considering more deeply. It is true that science makes the axiomatic assumption that supernatural forces either don't exist or don't affect the observable universe, and is therefore unable to address any questions pertaining to the supernatural. It is not true, however that all scientists make this assumption.


Again, true. Not all scientists make that assumption, but scientists who subscribe to naturalism and materialism do. Science assumes a naturalistic universe -- even if scientists have their own personal beliefs. 



bryanc said:


> Moreover, if observable reality is consistent with science, Occam's Razor applies, and adding supernatural complexity is not warranted.


The primary feature of Occam's razor is the principle of parsimony. However, Occam's razor is a heuristic and not an immutable, empirical law. It provides us with a guide, but is not necessarily true in all instances.

I sometimes work with statistical models, and the rule of parsimony applies there too -- fit the data with as few parameters as you can get away with and assume everything else is noise. Unfortunately this is just a rule of thumb -- you sometimes lose information on minor perturbations and variables with small autocorrelations, but which actually correspond to real phenomena.

I'll have to quote you George Box, the famous statistician, with respect to parsimony: all models are wrong, but some are useful. 

Also, some theistic arguments such as reformed epistemology argued by Alvin Plantinga do not require Occam's razor to be either true or false to make their case.



bryanc said:


> So, if those of us viewing the universe from a scientific perspective are successful in explaining phenomena, it is rational to accept that these phenomena don't require a supernatural explanation.


Sure, it is rational. 
But theistic belief, properly considered, is also rational. You will find arguments for this.

I think the contention is whether or not it is true. And that's a harder question to answer.



bryanc said:


> Some people seem to feel that the inverse is also true: that any phenomena not adequately explained by science must require a supernatural explanation, but this is a fallacy. Our inability to elucidate a naturalistic explanation is not evidence that a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist. However, it certainly remains eminently possible for a supernatural entity to convince me, or any other scientist of their existence.


Yes, the God of the Gaps argument is certainly not a very strong one in general.

Proving God's existence is impossible, and so is proving God's nonexistence. The only thing we have to work with is the nature and order of things, and inferring stuff from it. 

Science can tell us things about the universe. Interpreting and investigating the legitimacy of the inferences we make is the enterprise of philosophy.

People have proposed things like the cosmological argument, teleological argument, anthropic principle and so forth (some of which I am quite critical of). But we all come to all these things from a worldview -- and we do our best to understand these things without prejudice from within the confines of that worldview.


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

Beej said:


> With the zero evidence available, the likelihood of God's existence is equal to the existence of anything else a given person can imagine. It isn't more likely because it is an older idea, or because it's grander or because it gives someone a life purpose. Those aspects don't change likelihood, they change the impact of belief and the attractiveness of the belief being shared.


I agree with your last statement, that the older something is doesn't make something true. 

However, on the question of God though, I would suggest that there is more than zero evidence. (bearing in mind that evidence is not proof--which most of us agree is impossible to get at)

At the risk of rehashing my argument, I think if one were to look for naturalistic evidence as affirmation of belief in God, and only admit naturalistic evidence as the only form of legitimate evidence, then one might never come to discover a God, even if such a God exists.

But the theistic position is that there are other forms of evidence (that do not conflict with what we know about nature), and that belief in God is an eminently reasonable intellectual position to take.

Now each piece of "evidence" considered individually may not be convincing, but the sum total at least tells us there is something there worth looking into. I totally belief that correlation does not equal causation -- but I believe correlation is a clue to some underlying behavior.

(I was going to give an example from my work in multivariate analysis, but I decided it was too obscure to be of interest).

To avoid duplication of work, let me point you to the positions and counter positions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The thing is, theism doesn't require absolute proof -- it just requires proof (or evidence) beyond a reasonable doubt. 

p.s. btw, I am just presenting my opinions of theism -- I don't mean to preach to anyone. Forgive me if I sounded preachy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ernestworthing said:


> p.s. btw, I am just presenting my opinions of theism -- I don't mean to preach to anyone. Forgive me if I sounded preachy.


I have greatly valued your recent contributions and think that you have been less "preachy" than some atheists, including myself. Still, I won't change so maybe you should crank it up a notch?  

Overall, we disagree, but that isn't a factor for appreciation.

As for existence of God arguments, I'm familiar with most of them, but not by name. They are, in my experience, deeply flawed (beyond a reasonable doubt) in very basic ways unless one moves outside of logic which, to me, is the appropriate move. In short, God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.  But, once outside logic, it's more like trading witty phrases. That can still be fun.

If there are any specific arguments that you consider particularly strong, I'd be happy to bat them back and forth. Almost eager, in fact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well thought out posts, Ernestworthing.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> And, this proof is....


Very personal, God reveals himself if you ask, whole heartedly. I had to lose everything and everybody before I found myself humble enough to ask for God's help. Believe me, I am the last person an earth that I would have ever expected to believe in God.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

Dog is my co-pilot....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Chris said:


> Dog is my co-pilot....


I don't believe he's your co-pilot, but there is evidence he could be your driver!







 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

kwmike said:


> Very personal, God reveals himself if you ask, whole heartedly. I had to lose everything and everybody before I found myself humble enough to ask for God's help. Believe me, I am the last person an earth that I would have ever expected to believe in God.


Ok....go on...how did he reveal himself? What did he look like? What did he say?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Ok....go on...how did he reveal himself? What did he look like? What did he say?


God rarely answers my letters  but still, I don't find it fair to mock people who have found "God" in their lives. Spirituality takes on many forms and I respect that, what about you?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I respect people who find an inner spirituality. To proclaim to have personally met God? That's a different story.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> To proclaim to have personally met God? That's a different story.


Indeed. We have medication for that....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This isn't proof God exists but its certainly compelling evidence. 

A four year old raised by atheist parents that never discussed God comes to believe in God through personal experiences which she describes as visions. She begins to paint here spiritual experiences with skills way beyond her years becoming an artistic prodigy. Fascinating story.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/bestoftv/2006/12/14/beck.akiane.child.prodigy.cnn

Her description of Heaven are strikingly similar to those of people who have had a near death experience.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So God looks like Kenny Logins and Mary is actually white?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> So God looks like Kenny Logins and Mary is actually white?


Manny if you were there, please tell us what they looked like?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ernestworthing said:


> A worldview *must* meet some existential need. If one were to distill a worldview down to its basic elements, it must ultimately answer four questions:
> 1) Origin
> 2) Meaning
> 3) Morality
> 4) Destiny


I've enjoyed reading your contributions to this thread. I vaguely remember much of it from various philosophy courses I took as an undergrad, but I appreciate your distillation of it.

I would argue that a wold view need only provide answers to questions 2 and 3, above. As much as we might like to know from whence we came and our ultimate fate, we don't need to know those things in order to lead a meaningful and moral existence. In fact, I would argue that most people don't need to know much about their origins (it's nice to know your family history, but adopted people can be perfectly well adjusted without knowing this), and that none of us know our ultimate fate (despite many of us have strong beliefs about this, no one actually 'knows' anything).

Cheers


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Manny if you were there, please tell us what color they were?


Typical response. I expected as much.

I find it overly suspicious when a person who supposedly never heard of God, Jesus and Mary, paints imagery of a male god and a Mary that looks exactly like the statues of practically every church in North America.

I call bullsh!t.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Typical response. I expected as much.


Well Manny, when you imply Mary wasn't white, you would have to have some knowledge of what color she actually was to make that statement. And yes it would be a typical response because its the only logical one.



> I find it overly suspicious when a person who supposedly never heard of God, Jesus and Mary, paints imagery of a male god and a Mary that looks exactly like the statues of practically every church in North America.


Actually her painting was of Jesus and we assume he was male. As for our historical depictions of Christ, many artist from the earliest days of Christianity have based there depictions of Christ or Mary on descriptions given by people who claimed similar experiences to what this young girl claims. They also based it on religious relics such as the burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin. And of course many artists base there work on the depictions of other artists so you do see common themes in many depictions of Jesus and Mary. 



MannyP Design said:


> I call bullsh!t.


Of course you do because your mind is closed to the possibility that God exists. Its the only conclusion you could make. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Of course you do because your mind is closed to the possibility that God exists. Its the only conclusion you could make.


Is your mind closed to the possibility that God doesn't exist, and this story is, in fact, BS?

For all the power God is supposed to have, he couldn't help Ted Haggard or Paul Barnes. And those where men of God!

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_4189.php


> “I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy. ... I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.”


How would a 5yo child even know about homosexuality? ** cough * parent's brainwashing ** cough **


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm quite surprised at the results of this poll. The last census statistics I saw (which were for 2001) showed about 70% of Canadians identified themselves as Christians, 16% as having no religion, and 14% being adherents of other faiths.

Yet our little Mac community presents as having 50% atheists.

Maybe Mac users _are_ smarter  

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps EhMacers are less sensitive to the spiritual realm...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> Well Manny, when you imply Mary wasn't white, you would have to have some knowledge of what color she actually was to make that statement. And yes it would be a typical response because its the only logical one.


Logic? You want logic? Europeans and North Americans have homogenized the image of Mary into an icon that they can relate to. I guess you would assume Eve as caucasian as well?



> Actually her painting was of Jesus and we assume he was male. As for our historical depictions of Christ, many artist from the earliest days of Christianity have based there depictions of Christ or Mary on descriptions given by people who claimed similar experiences to what this young girl claims. They also based it on religious relics such as the burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin. And of course many artists base there work on the depictions of other artists so you do see common themes in many depictions of Jesus and Mary.
> 
> Of course you do because your mind is closed to the possibility that God exists. Its the only conclusion you could make.


Speaking of closed minds, apparently yours is tight enough to turn coal into diamonds. I don't subscribe to the _Christian_ idea of God, but I do believe that there is a higher power that is beyond our grasp and comprehension. The god that's in the bible is a figment of man's imagination that is bastardized and edited to suit particular mindsets and beliefs.

The Christian religion is cribbed from Eqyptian mythology: The immaculate conception of Horus by the virgin Isis; the celebration of Mithraic festival on December 25th; shepherds attended Mithra's birth and gave him gifts; Mithra shared a last supper with twelve of this followers (including the sacrament of bread and wine); redeemed mankind by shedding his blood and rising from the dead; and Mithraism was introduced to the Roman empire around 70 BCE, over _350 years before Christianity_. The idea of rebirth was actually integral to the Mithraic religion over 2000 years before Jesus was born.

How about this line:
_"He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."_​
Sound familiar? It's a prayer said at a Mithraic communion. Here's Luke 21:19 (when Jesus breaks the bread):

_"This is my body to be given up for you. This cup is the new covenant in my blood which will be shed for you."_​
I can go on... but Google can serve up more info if you're really interested.

_Merry Mithra_


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Is your mind closed to the possibility that God doesn't exist, and this story is, in fact, BS?


I wouldn't say my mind is closed to the no-existence of God, but I've seen too much evidence that compels me to believe otherwise. However, that doesn't prejudice me from claiming this is BS. Religion is not without its charlatans and its had its share, but I don't automatically conclude someone's lying because they espouse the supernatural.



> For all the power God is supposed to have, he couldn't help Ted Haggard or Paul Barnes. And those where men of God!


Actually claiming someone is a "man of God" can't be done based on outward appearances. Only God truly knows the state of our souls. Many have been hailed as such and carry the facade but in truth, money, sex or power may have been their true god. 
However, Christians are not immune to sin, anyone claiming such is delusional. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Manny: Those themes already existed in the Old Testament prior to Mirthraism--which changes somewhat to appear _more Christian_ as it evolved after the establishment of Christianity.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> I guess you would assume Eve as caucasian as well?


Actually no I wouldn't assume that. In fact I'm not convinced an actual person named Eve and Adam literally existed. But then again I'm not opposed to the idea either. Again its one of those biblical details I don't sweat over. Its really unimportant in the big picture. Like arguing if Jesus wore sandals or preferred to go barefoot. 
I do however accept the message of the story that the earth was created by God and upon temptation man sins and chooses to walk away from him.Thats really the crux of the story. How long or how God pulled it off is beyond me.


And yes, MacFury is right.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Wait... so Jesus is in the Old Testament?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Like arguing if Jesus wore sandals or preferred to go barefoot.


[obMontyPython]Follow the gourd! Follow the gourd![/obMontyPython]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

oops


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> Wait... so Jesus is in the Old Testament?





> The god that's in the bible is a figment of man's imagination that is bastardized and edited to suit particular mindsets and beliefs.


Yes but since you already believe this, it would be a waist of time to bother looking up the references.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Dodging the question eh?

As you were.


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

> The Christian religion is cribbed from Eqyptian mythology: The immaculate conception of Horus by the virgin Isis; the celebration of Mithraic festival on December 25th; shepherds attended Mithra's birth and gave him gifts; Mithra shared a last supper with twelve of this followers (including the sacrament of bread and wine); redeemed mankind by shedding his blood and rising from the dead; and Mithraism was introduced to the Roman empire around 70 BCE, over _350 years before Christianity_. The idea of rebirth was actually integral to the Mithraic religion over 2000 years before Jesus was born.


This reference only helps to prove the existence of God. The idea of a Messiah coming to redeem the world from sin would have been taught since Adam. 
If you were to read the bible with an "open mind" you would find that each and every prophet's main purpose in the Old Testament was to prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ. Examples: Isaiah, Jeremiah.


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

You can believe in gravity or you can choose not to. Either way walking off a cliff will cause you to fall.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Fisto said:


> This reference only helps to prove the existence of God. The idea of a Messiah coming to redeem the world from sin would have been taught since Adam.


That speaks more to the human condition than anything else. 

Another common feature, particularly in fantasy, is some past time of glory that was "better". There are many common themes that speak to us and examining the commonality and differences in context can lead to further understanding of the individual and the society. 

Religion, in its many forms, is an expression of a portion of this human condition. Some pieces are purely contextual, and some are more foundational. Not because of a God (reading divinity in between the lines) but because there are common trends/states of mind etc. The basics of "grass is greener" observations play a big role, as does the desire for meaning/purpose. Those motivating forces are what they are.

There is very little that applies to every person ever in existence, beyond basic biology, but there are many very common things, including fictional stories that have divine aspects, not because there is truly a divine aspect, but because such views serve a purpose, both individual and collective.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Fisto said:
 

> This reference only helps to prove the existence of God. The idea of a Messiah coming to redeem the world from sin would have been taught since Adam.
> If you were to read the bible with an "open mind" you would find that each and every prophet's main purpose in the Old Testament was to prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ. Examples: Isaiah, Jeremiah.


I guess an open mind means it's okay to

assume I haven't read the bible...
assume I have a closed mind...
assumed I don't believe in God...

Mithra pre-dates the new Testament and Jesus' birth by a considerable amount of time and, oddly enough, reads a lot like the life of Jesus Christ.

Odd innit?


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

> There is very little that applies to every person ever in existence, beyond basic biology, but there are many very common things, including fictional stories that have divine aspects, not because there is truly a divine aspect, but because such views serve a purpose, both individual and collective.


What does apply to us all is that we are all imperfect. With the existence of God comes the need for a savior. This God being a loving God would want us to return to him after this life. If I didn't have a knowledge of that idea my life would have much less meaning. The belief in God does nothing but good for the believer. It makes me strive to be a better person. Fiction for some Fact for others. We may not find out until we shut our eyes for good when we're done here. I would much rather live believing and open my eyes to find that I'm right than to live not believing and find that I was wrong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Fisto said:


> What does apply to us all is that we are all imperfect.
> ...............
> If I didn't have a knowledge of that idea my life would have much less meaning.
> ...............
> ...


Agreed, but what is "perfect"?
...............
Personal choice, nothing more, nothing less.
...............
Believers differ greatly on this, except under the strict assumption of "good" being if you follow the Word.
...............
Personal choice. You are welcome to it. "Good" is subjective. See: the news.

This is the risk-rationality of faith. I think that, when you really dig into it, faith in a god can not and must not be forced into logical terms because it is fundamentally incompatible. 

Funny sidenote: You'd never find out that you were wrong, you'd just cease to exist (notwithstanding being wrong about the type and mindset of a deity).


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> Dodging the question eh?
> 
> As you were.


Not at all Manny, I could give you numerous old testament scripture that pertain to Christ but what would be the point when you've already discredited the bible as a figment of man's imagination thats been bastardized and edited to suit one beliefs?

You've made it clear where you stand and I'll respect that and I'll save myself from carpal tunnel.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You're still dodging my original post.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Which one? The mithra theory or the fact artists often depict religious figures or even historic in their own ethnicity?

MacFury adressed the mithra theory. The old testament alluded to Christ long before Mithra came about. You could make an argument that Jesus was concocted from Old testament writings as well. And you also said Mithra gave his life like Jesus but what I've read is that he sacrificed a bull not himself? Actually animal sacrifice was not uncommon in those times. Big difference. 
The ethnicity variations would be artistic interpretation. If you asked me to draw a picture of Mohammed my figure would likely look more caucasian than that of someone from another race.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Fisto said:


> This reference only helps to prove the existence of God. The idea of a Messiah coming to redeem the world from sin would have been taught since Adam.
> If you were to read the bible with an "open mind" you would find that each and every prophet's main purpose in the Old Testament was to prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ. Examples: Isaiah, Jeremiah.


Is it possible that the New Testament writers had access to the old testament, and therefore write to conform to prophecy?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm tired of the dime-store philosophy of that comic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dime store is a significant improvement on your penny ante approach.

I'd say Wiley does quite well.



> Non Sequitur has been honored with four National Cartoonists Society Awards


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm tired of the dime-store philosophy of that comic.


Can you help me provide an adequate explanation to my 6-year-old's question regarding why different groups of people are so eager to kill each other over their different imaginary friends?

If this is 'dime-store' philosophy, perhaps you can enlighten us regarding the logical fallacies or flawed assumptions it makes use of?

For centuries the wisest philosophers and the smallest children have struggled to comprehend the stupidity and atrocity committed in the name of someone's god. I don't see anything 'dime-store' about it.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dime store, because it repeatedly asks the same question without offering any illumination. I'm not disagreeing with its message, just bored to death by the trite presentation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Dime store, because it repeatedly asks the same question without offering any illumination. I'm not disagreeing with its message, just bored to death by the trite presentation.


Okay.... I was never quite clear on the meaning of the 'dime-store' idiom. I agree that it's trivially obvious that organized religion has been a blight on human history, and the prospects for its dramatically reversing this effect in the future are slim-to-nil. 

So the question is why do we continue to tolerate it, let alone promote, cultivate and provide this widespread ailment of human society with tax-breaks?!?

cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So the question is why do we continue to tolerate it, let alone promote, cultivate and provide this widespread ailment of human society with tax-breaks?!?
> 
> cheers


And you’ll be delighted to know it’s growing:

“EDMONTON - Little girls in lacy dresses and white tights bounce in their padded pews as more than two dozen musicians warm up for the annual Christmas musical drama at Beulah Alliance, a cavernous evangelical church in the city's west end.
Near the church's coffee shop at the heart of the church -- the aptly named Higher Ground -- volunteers are lighting candles and putting the final touches on a toothsome dessert bar for after the show, a warm-hearted performance called I'll Be Home for Christmas.
It's a celebration of the season to be sure. But, as Senior Pastor Keith Taylor acknowledges, it's also a way to introduce the church to the community in an effort to draw more parishioners year-round.
After the 90-minute show, Taylor stands up before the crowd of several hundred and makes his pitch.
"If you have not been to our church before ... we'd like to invite you to come back," Taylor says.
This clear move to bump up his church's numbers may be one reason why Beulah Alliance, now undergoing a $3.3-million expansion -- its fourth addition in 16 years -- has tripled its weekend attendance since Taylor became lead pastor in 1991. But it's also true that other Edmonton evangelical churches, identified by names such as Pentecostal and Alliance, have been expanding their niche.”


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=76a56020-1cfe-48f2-8b21-c355fac7260f


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martman said:


> Agreed, maybe and not sure would both have been good options but I'm a firm no!
> I don't believe in God or god.


but i do believe pam anderson is a "goddess"

:heybaby:


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Unless it can be measured, tested, proven, shown, then it does not exist.


In the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey, Jodie's character says basically the same thing to Matthew. Matthew's character retorts that the same thing can be said about love. 

I think he says something along the lines of "Did you love your parents?"

"Of course!"

"Prove it!"

That always stuck with me.

Goes to show that even things that cannot be tested, measured, proven or shown exist. Obviously love does exist. So to do Billions of people Love God based on faith alone. Can this mass faith be evidence for something?

I beleive in and love God with all my heart. For an extensive post on the subject, see this link... 
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=293912&postcount=12

Beej will recognize that one!


Cheers!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

How did your courses work out?

Sidenote: Measuring love can be a technical barrier, but it's source doesn't need to be presumed to be divine just because we're still learning to measure it. With a God assumption, it is being used to explain something else, like earthquakes and life. And life's earthquakes.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Zoiks said:


> In the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey, Jodie's character says basically the same thing to Matthew. Matthew's character retorts that the same thing can be said about love.
> 
> I think he says something along the lines of "Did you love your parents?"
> 
> ...


That was seriously one of the worst movies of all time. Both the theistic and atheistic arguments put forth by characters in that movie were pathetic.

One thing that continues to cause me no end of frustration is the complete misunderstanding of what science is, what it does, how it works, and, most importantly, what it does _not_ do.

*Empirical science does not prove things.* Science can only _disprove_.

This is why hypotheses must be falsifiable in order to be tested by science. Modern religions define their gods in ways that make them non-falisifiable. (Interestingly, more primitive religions did not have this characteristic, and no one believes in those gods anymore).

With respect to the 'love is invisible and yet it a obviously exists' argument, there are several flaws in the extension of this frail analogy as evidence of the existence of god(s).

Firstly, we can measure certain aspects of love: the physiological and behavioral manifestations of emotional attachment are pretty obvious in many cases.

Secondly, because we can introspectively experience our own emotional state, we can directly know that love exists, and therefore the inference that other similar entities that behave in similar ways may be experiencing a similar emotional state is not unsupported.

Finally, because there are good evolutionary reasons for forming emotional attachments between individuals, and because we can directly experience these emotions ourselves, the suggestion that similar emotional states exist in others is not an extraordinary claim. Consequently, the evidence necessary to support this claim does not need to be extraordinary either. In contrast, the claim that a supernatural realm exists at all, let alone one that is populated by ill-tempered old men with long beards and scantily clad girls with bird-wings and harps, is most extraordinary indeed, and must therefore be supported by much more convincing evidence than 'I feel it must be true.'

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and of course there is chemistry - 












> The science of love
> I get a kick out of you
> Feb 12th 2004
> From The Economist print edition
> ...


http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2424049

Not a good choice of argument by comparative analogy.

Near death experiences, religious esctacy etc all point towards how similar all humans are beneath external appearances in their brain wiring.
Something perhaps borne in mind by " gay is aberrant" crowd.

There are even individual neurons that respond to famous faces and even brands. I suspect we have a Mac dedicated neuron or two common to all on this board.

No need to go beyond the marvels of life to instill wonder and awe.
No sophistry of love inputing a higher power needed.

Occam rules.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Thanks to MacDoc for posting that article tidbit. Love can be proven. Therefore it exists.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

> For a start, understanding the neurochemical pathways that regulate social attachments may help to deal with defects in people's ability to form relationships. [...] Defects can be disabling, and become apparent as disorders such as autism and schizophrenia—and, indeed, as the serious depression that can result from rejection in love.


Excellent find MacDoc! I agree! Perhaps atheists are defective and can't form a relationship with God.

Gasp! 

Hissssssssssssss!

[kidding, sorta]

Seriously though, I wonder if there has been any studies to show the chemical reactions in the brain of people after they 'find' religion. I bet it would not be too different from this.

beejacon Beej, thanks for asking, the courses went very well. I'm now holding my B.A. but I deceded to keep running with it. Because U. of O. is restructuring everything right now, they allowed me to add on an Honours with a Major in Psych and a Minor in English. The English component will give me one teachable for teachers college. Wish me luck! I find out on April 2nd if I get into teachers college.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Love can be proven. Therefore it exists.


Harruummpphh!  This is what happens when Economists review science!!!

In fact, what the scientists report is that there are neurological states which *correlate* with behaviour and with emotional states that can be described as "love".

This is the classic statistical fallacy of attributing causation to correlation. In my intro stats class, you flunk!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - it's all related to chemical reward systems which is why people on drugs often have "religious experiences".

Few deny the experiences are very real to those "under the influence"...just nothing supernatural or metaphysical about it.

Pick ur addiction. Just what WAS in that censur











> Irish incensed about holy smoke -
> DUBLIN, Ireland -- An Irish junior cabinet minister has warned that incense poses a health hazard and altar servers need to be taught to minimize that risk. Jim McDaid, a medical doctor and junior minister in the Department of Transport, made his remarks Aug. 20 during a radio program promoting the Irish government's plan to ban tobacco smoking in pubs, bars and restaurants.
> 
> During the show, he called on priests in the Raphoe diocese to take greater care in instructing altar servers about how to hold the censer properly. *"Incense is carcinogenic,"* he said. "Often you will see ... a huge cloud of smoke rising up into the child's face. It makes me cringe, particularly given the delicate nature of a child's lungs."


 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_38_39/ai_107929648


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly - it's all related to chemical reward systems which is why people on drugs often have "religious experiences".
> 
> Few deny the experiences are very real to those "under the influence"...just nothing supernatural or metaphysical about it.


If your theory is correct, then they must have been dropping incense with a crop duster here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly - it's all related to chemical reward systems which is why people on drugs often have "religious experiences".
> 
> Few deny the experiences are very real to those "under the influence"...just nothing supernatural or metaphysical about it.


I've heard that people even when not taking drugs fantasize about little green men and UFOs.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

Yes.

So now we're at 38 for yes, and 38 for no.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

No.

My mother is a reverend and has been unable to convince me otherwise. Seems so much like a "talking to the dead" experience to be taken seriously by me. That being said, given all the trouble I've had to endure over the years, I'm sure there is a devil.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Zoiks said:


> I'm now holding my B.A. but I deceded to keep running with it. Because U. of O. is restructuring everything right now, they allowed me to add on an Honours with a Major in Psych and a Minor in English. The English component will give me one teachable for teachers college. Wish me luck! I find out on April 2nd if I get into teachers college.


Good luck!


----------



## MacJunky (Oct 26, 2006)

No.

There is no evidence that can sway me, I need hard facts that are supported by more than a book that almost anyone of the time could have written.

Anyway, I am curious, if incest acts are wrong and sinful and such then how did adam and eve's kids reproduce?
Incest anyone?

That is just one of my many problems with a single "all-mighty" god that is said to have created everything.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacJunky said:


> Anyway, I am curious, if incest acts are wrong and sinful and such then how did adam and eve's kids reproduce?


Magic, or a miracle. Take your pick. Maybe Adam kept using up his rib bones. Mmmmm....ribs.....with corn bread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacJunky said:


> nyway, I am curious, if incest acts are wrong and sinful and such then how did adam and eve's kids reproduce?
> Incest anyone?


Actually, no. Within the account itself there's reference to other people outside the Garden of Eden. After Cain slew Abel, there's a mark placed on Cain's head to indicate that others are not to slay him as he wanders through the desert. I don't know how people of that time read or understood the account, but the reference to "other people" is clear.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Actually, no. Within the account itself there's reference to other people outside the Garden of Eden. After Cain slew Abel, there's a mark placed on Cain's head to indicate that others are not to slay him as he wanders through the desert. I don't know how people of that time read or understood the account, but the reference to "other people" is clear.


Hey, while we are on that topic... If people are to literally believe the Bible how do you account for the "other people"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Careful DJ - it's an addiction - don't be an enabler


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DJ: I don't account for anything. I'm just explaining how incest was never part of the original account. 

MacDoc is right that some beliefs migh be as addictive as belief in little green men and UFOs.


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

ernestworthing said:


> Now, this whole problem of the existence of God will never be solved exhaustively, to everyone's satisfaction. NEVER.
> .



Sure it will... haven't you read the book of Revalation?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Zoiks said:


> I think he says something along the lines of "Did you love your parents?"
> 
> "Of course!"
> 
> "Prove it!"


I don't see why this stuck with you. The proof is easily seen when you find yourself wiping your incontinent parent's butt while they are on a slow Alzheimer's decline. This is FAR easier to prove than the existence of God.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I see we are now tied at 42. Forty-two, for those of you into mystical, magical numbers, is the meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

42


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

When preaching why one belief is better than another, the best course of action is to tell kids Santa Claus doesn't exist. No word on how he proved God does.



> CHILDREN left a school Christmas assembly in tears after claiming a vicar said Father Christmas does not exist.
> 
> Teachers at St George's C of E Primary in Mossley told the Rev Martin Dowland he had upset children after reading `Why Jesus Is Better Than Santa Claus'.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/231/231338_kids_tears_over_vicars_santa_message.html

While we are at it, will the real god please step forward?
http://www.godfinder.org/


----------

