Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Master Bush]

God's gay. Carry on.

[motts444]

God's gay. Carry on.

hell yeah

[Truman]

God's gay. Carry on.

Yeah? And atheists are pedophiles.

[strike wolf]

with as many priests as there are that are being found guilty of that now of days, I would not have brought that up.

[Truman]

But belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Do I believe in god? no. Can i prove he doesn't exist? no. Can you prove he does? no. So save your attitude, it makes you look like a twat.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm trying to show how atheistic thinking is pure nonsense, along with the belief in the sacred cow of evolution.

Here's something to boil your blood for awhile.

Did you ever consider that atheists are not rational? I'll clarify. The word, "atheist" comes from two Greek roots: "Theos" meaning "god" and the prefix "a-" meaning "not." In English, it is translated to "atheist," meaning, "a rejector of 'god.'"

A "theist" is a believer of a "god." This is a belief in something. However, if a person rejects something that they cannot prove in the first place, how is it rational to believe so? For it to even come close to being a rational belief, one must be omnipresent: everywhere at the same time. Otherwise, you've got a flawed belief. It's like saying there aren't little green men living in outer space: there is only the option of believing that they don't exist. It is impossible to actually know that they don't, so rejecting this idea would be irrational.

If you could travel into outer space and search every star of every galaxy, every asteroid of all of space and come back to say, "I didn't find any, therefore, they don't exist," you would still be irrational in your rejection. Why? Because when you were searching that star over there, he zipped over to another one when you weren't looking. To prove that little green men didn't exist, you would have to be in every place at the same time. Otherwise, your rejection of their existence would be irrational.

Therefore, atheism is an irrational belief, because atheists reject something that can't be proven to not exist in the first place.

[Truman]

with as many priests as there are that are being found guilty of that now of days, I would not have brought that up.

Do I look afraid? A "priest" is from the Catholic religion, which is entirely different from Christianity.

[strike wolf]

Then why is it that my dad who's methodist calls the *insert word you would call him by* a priest?

[vtmarik]

with as many priests as there are that are being found guilty of that now of days, I would not have brought that up.

It's funny that the Church hasn't excommunicated those priests isn't it? They've just been moved around a whole lot.

[Jolly Roger]

But belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Do I believe in god? no. Can i prove he doesn't exist? no. Can you prove he does? no. So save your attitude, it makes you look like a twat.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm trying to show how atheistic thinking is pure nonsense, along with the belief in the sacred cow of evolution.

Here's something to boil your blood for awhile. 8)

Did you ever consider that atheists are not rational? I'll clarify. The word, "atheist" comes from two Greek roots: "Theos" meaning "god" and the prefix "a-" meaning "not." In English, it is translated to "atheist," meaning, "a rejector of 'god.'"

A "theist" is a believer of a "god." This is a belief in something. However, if a person rejects something that they cannot prove in the first place, how is it rational to believe so? For it to even come close to being a rational belief, one must be omnipresent: everywhere at the same time. Otherwise, you've got a flawed belief. It's like saying there aren't little green men living in outer space: there is only the option of believing that they don't exist. It is impossible to actually know that they don't, so rejecting this idea would be irrational.

If you could travel into outer space and search every star of every galaxy, every asteroid of all of space and come back to say, "I didn't find any, therefore, they don't exist," you would still be irrational in your rejection. Why? Because when you were searching that star over there, he zipped over to another one when you weren't looking. To prove that little green men didn't exist, you would have to be in every place at the same time. Otherwise, your rejection of their existence would be irrational.

Therefore, atheism is an irrational belief, because atheists reject something that can't be proven to not exist in the first place.

It sounds to me like you're saying (62 pages in) that logic does not dictate there is a God. It also sounds a little like you're saying that if we cannot prove that something does not exist, then we must believe in it (or at least reserve judgement). Regardless of the word origins, skeptical atheism, in my view, describes those who are reserving judgement. Atheists do not reject God-theories because the various Gods have not been proven to not exist; they reject the God-theories because they have not been proven to exist. True skeptical atheists would be inclined to change their minds in the face of hard evidence of God's existence. Arguments against evolution, big bang, etc. are not hard evidence of God's existence since they have nothing to do with God; the God-theory is simply a possible alternative. By weakening the big bang theory, one does not necessarily strengthen a God-theory.

If Bill, for example, says God is green and Bob says God is purple, any evidence presented contrary to Bob's position does not necessarily make Bill's argument true. For all we know, God is blue. According to your argument Truman, it would be irrational to believe that God is not blue since it cannot be proven that God is not blue. By the same token, it is also irrational to believe that God is not purple or green or argyle or whatever. Also, since it cannot be proven that God is not a complete fabrication, any believe to the contrary is completely irrational.

Perhaps I mis-read?

PS I think you assume that subsribing to evolution and being an atheist are one in the same. I'm not sure this is the case.

[strike wolf]

God is blue.

No god is the color of water! or at least that's what this book I'm reading says

[Truman]

It sounds to me like you're saying (62 pages in) that logic does not dictate there is a God.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Logic does, however, dictate that God created everything. Now you ask, "Why would the very idea of god be illogical and his creating of the universe logical? Isn't that a contradiction?"

No. See, since God cannot be proven to exist, it is illogical to claim to know He exists, but not illogical to believe he exists. God creating everything can be considered "logical" since everything is extremely complex. It seems that evolutionists proclaim that such "complicated" things like wooden boxes with nails in them could not possibly arrive by chance, but the human eyeball with its trillions of rods and cones that adjust to every tiny detail of everything it focuses on arrived by "a slow, gradual process which involved a light-sensitive hole in the head of a creature."

It is logical to conclude that everything was created, but not logical to claim to know it happened. Atheists claim to know that God does not exist by simply saying they reject Him as existing. But rejecting a belief in something is illogical since the belief was never proven in the first place, but never not proven either.

EDIT: But I must explain that I do not follow the rules of logic; I only know what they lay down. I know that God created the universe because I believe the Bible to be infallible and inspired by God. Therefore, I am not being logical; I am being a fundamentalist.

[Truman]

According to your argument Truman, it would be irrational to believe that God is not blue since it cannot be proven that God is not blue. By the same token, it is also irrational to believe that God is not purple or green or argyle or whatever. Also, since it cannot be proven that God is not a complete fabrication, any believe to the contrary is completely irrational.

Perhaps I mis-read?

Umm, yes? You keep saying that I say if you believe God isn't blue or that God doesn't exist or that God whatever is irrational. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that claiming to know these things is being irrational. That's what atheists do, and that's what rejection means. If you reject something you are saying that you know it never happened or that you know it never existed. This is being irrational.

You can believe whatever you want and be completely rational in your thinking, as long as you never claim to know something is what you believe it to be.

[kwolff]

Well you say god is logical lol , thats funny. I just cant get off the floor. And evolution is not all believable. Just because you dont believe in a higher being, doesnt mean you automatically believe in evolution or the big bang.


You dont have to have a belief of how we started, because its no big deal. You shoud enjoy the ride as much as possible then you done. Except that. If there is something else then your in bonus time lol. But its absolutely (and its your right to dissagree) to live your life with the expectation that there will be more. It's terribly a waste of time(like coming to this post is)


There are many religons and they all lead to the same thing. War and death. And the people just let it happen. Georgy Bushy (who I think is a good president) says god will protect us in this war......Islamic terrorist say the same ....whos right ? Neither. Its basically racism on a much bigger scale than can be imagined.

When something goes bad , ohh its god punishing us for our sins, two god loving people die or transform , its ohh they are in a better place now.... lol there is no logic to it all....



ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO GO TO HEAVEN IS AVOID EATING GREEN EGGS AND HAM, SAM I AM.......


I would believe that aliens put us here as an lab expierament , much like rats in a cage. They where put there by things that you cant imagine. Things that you have no knowlege that exist, and no its not god. There are theories and materials in existence that we have not discovered. And may not discover. This is as believeable as any.


Relgion is just like being in shcool and the world is the playground. Everyone relgion is the best and it will deystroy the world , unfortunately probably sooner than later. It sucks because its all such total fcking b.s.


Everyone tries to spread and force their religion (and im not talking about you) onto people and its going to be the end. Its depressing and sad, but I think you could say its the most logical theory in the thread.


RELIGION (a god of somekind) MAY HAVE OR HAVE NOT CREATED THE WORLD , BUT ITS A 99 % CHANCE THAT IT WILL END IT.


The only thing that really bugs me is that you think there is logic behind any of the theories discussed.

[Jolly Roger]

Now to be Jesus' disciple you have to sell all of your possessions, give that money to the poor, hate everything but God, and so you will enter heaven. (Luke 14:26-33).

EVERYTHING belongs to God. The above is a description of "following Him". We must be willing to give up all things to follow Him. Not that I am to sell my car or burn in hell but if God tells me too, that I would do it. (My possesions mean nothing)

I love how Christians always try and squirm out of this one. Look, if you're going to use Biblical passages to condemn the behaviour of others (e.g., homosexuality, abortion), you'd better be willing to apply it to yourselves just as rigorously, if not more so. It's right there in black and white - sell your stuff and give to the poor. In essence, jay, according to your own assertion that the Bible is the word of God, God HAS told you to sell your stuff. JC did not qualify what he said.

Turn the other cheek is another good one. How many times have you heard a Christian say, "Yes, I follow the Bible but I support the war"? jay, I believe you have asked rhetorically if the US was just supposed to sit back and do nothing following 9/11. The answer, according to your own assertion that the Bible is the word of God, is a qualified yes. I say qualified because your religion also requires you to forgive your enemy, love your enemy and show him the other side of your face so that he can slap it. Now, from a pragmatic standpoint, the war may or may not have been a good move (although I must say, I am very happy my country was not part of the coalition of the willing - I would not even follow Bush into a line-up at the grocery store); however, according to Christ's teachings (and Christian means followers of Christ, just so we don't forget), supporting and engaging in war and other acts of violence is immoral. The only way I can think of to reconcile the "turn the other cheek" philosophy with the "Bush doctrine" is to rack it up to the separation of church and state. Sure, the religious right is real serious about getting prayer into schools, 10 commandment statues into courthouses and nativity scenes on public property at Christmas but I don't hear too much from them when it comes to lobbying against war and for the fair distribution of wealth. If I'm not mistaken, the Christian right spent a lot of money fighting gay marriage up here in Canada (some of which was raised by US groups and sent here to support anti-gay marriage groups). Do you suppose they thought for a second about whether or not that money might better be used to feed starving people. I doubt it because if they had thought for a second, that money would never have been spent on lobbying. This is the hypocrisy you always hear the non-Christians laughing about. If you really want to "spread the news" and convert people (which you are required to do under the terms of your religion), maybe try adhering to your religion yourselves and teaching by example rather than spouting off about sensational issues and mindlessly telling others how to live their lives.

Now get out there and sell all your shit!

[gavin_sidhu]

I could be bothered to read that post Jolly Roger, it was good. U werent attacking Christianity, just Christians.

[jay_a2j]

Jolly, I will repond to your post later, no time now work beccons.

[heavycola]

A "priest" is from the Catholic religion, which is entirely different from Christianity.

?

[Jolly Roger]

I could be bothered to read that post Jolly Roger, it was good. U werent attacking Christianity, just Christians.

Not all Christians - just the outspoken ones who ignore those rules which might drastically affect their lifestyles while, at the same time, condemning the lifestyles of others. It is easy for jay to use the Bible to condemn abortion based on his interpretation of certain Biblical passages. jay, however, is not a 14 year old rape victim so his assertions have no significant effect on him. On the other hand, jay does own stuff and does not appear to have any intention of selling it. In this case, there is a Biblical passage which very clearly advises against this. Yet jay chooses to interpret this passage so that it does not affect his lifestyle adversely. Now, I'm sure that jay is both generous and charitable but, according to what he claims is the word of God, being charitable and generous is insufficient - he's got to sell it all.

And the God owns everything defense is not satisfactory. If God owns everything, it makes no sense for JC to counsel the rich man as he did. If no one has anything to sell, why would selling everything be identified as a "road to Heaven"? If, as is often said, JC was not speaking literally and meant that he wanted people not to worship the things they own, how can you give this to the poor? If a Christian says, "I don't worship my things...but I'm keepin' them", how does this benefit the poor?

[happysadfun]

We do not own anything. We are stewards. Now for war. God does not condemn being angry. God does not condemn defending your country. Find me a passage that says "Thou shalt not work to end terrorism and other practices which are blowing up buildings and killing innocent people." Try to find me a verse that says "Thou shalt not exercise force to help the greater good." And Canada is a MAJOR part of the War on Terror.

[Jolly Roger]

A "priest" is from the Catholic religion, which is entirely different from Christianity.

?

I too was perplexed by this. As I understand it, Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, the rock upon which JC builds his church. Peter was also told that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. I think that Catholics believe that Peter passed on these powers to his successor, the second pope, who in turned passed the power on to the third who passed it to the fourth and so on. Since, according to Catholics, all popes throughout history had the power to "bind things in Heaven", everything done or sanctioned by popes were, in fact, correct. This is the basis for the infallibility of the pope doctrine of the Catholic church and explains why the church is so reluctant to apologize for any of its practices, no matter how heinous or immoral they might seem. Not surprisingly, Catholics view their faith as the one true form of Christianity and, unless it can be shown that subsequent popes did not inherit Peter's special abilities, they are correct. In other words, if the connection between Peter and modern-day pope can be shown to exist, anyone who believes in the Bible but does not convert to Catholicism is a bit of an infidel.

[happysadfun]

I too was perplexed by this. As I understand it, Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, the rock upon which JC builds his church. Peter was also told that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. I think that Catholics believe that Peter passed on these powers to his successor, the second pope, who in turned passed the power on to the third who passed it to the fourth and so on. Since, according to Catholics, all popes throughout history had the power to "bind things in Heaven", everything done or sanctioned by popes were, in fact, correct. This is the basis for the infallibility of the pope doctrine of the Catholic church and explains why the church is so reluctant to apologize for any of its practices, no matter how heinous or immoral they might seem. Not surprisingly, Catholics view their faith as the one true form of Christianity and, unless it can be shown that subsequent popes did not inherit Peter's special abilities, they are correct. In other words, if the connection between Peter and modern-day pope can be shown to exist, anyone who believes in the Bible but does not convert to Catholicism is a bit of an infidel.

Catholics, although right in many doctrines, have weird practices never mentioned in the bible, and also believe that you must get to heaven via good works. They believe that Mary was sinless. They believe in Purgatory, which is nowhere in the bible. Not all groups believe these things. But many do. And the ones who do are basically a Catholic-like cult.

[Jolly Roger]

We do not own anything. We are stewards. Now for war. God does not condemn being angry. God does not condemn defending your country. Find me a passage that says "Thou shalt not work to end terrorism and other practices which are blowing up buildings and killing innocent people." Try to find me a verse that says "Thou shalt not exercise force to help the greater good." And Canada is a MAJOR part of the War on Terror.

If we do not own anything, then how can we enter the kingdom of Heaven by selling it and giving it to the poor?

I suspect that Iraqi "insurgents" are also saying that they are working to end terrorism and other practices which are blowing up buildings and killing innocent people.

As a Christian, it's your job to find your own verses. As a non-Christian, I don't really care about any of the verses. However, I believe there is a verse about "doing unto others" in there somewhere. Perhaps if you'd like to prevent your buildings from being blown up, you should stop blowing up other people's buildings. Perhaps if you'd like to see the killing of innocent people stopped, you could begin by not killing innocent people. In my opinion, JC taught that the true path was that of love, peace and humility, not hatred, violence and brute force. Of course, I don't believe in any of this stuff but you, apparently, do.

For the most part, I just try and play devil's advocate in this thread (both figuratively and literally) and will argue from whichever side seems most interesting. However, here's something I actually believe: Regardless of what your faith is, in the end, you will only be called to account for your own actions, not those of anyone else. If someone wrongs you, he/she will have to answer for their actions. You, on the other hand, will have to account for how you respond. Given that you have free will, you cannot account for your own actions by blaming them on someone else. It is one thing to be angry; it is another to be vengeful. And JC did not say that you should defend yourself when someone slaps you in the cheek; he said to offer the other one. You either follow this teaching or you don't. If you don't, it's somewhat hypocritical.

Yes, Canada is "fighting the war on terror" over in Afghanistan. My remarks were not meant as a "holier than thou" comparison between Canada and the US. I was not condemning war either. I was only saying that, in my understanding, JC condemns war and that the Christian right's support of war is wildly hypocritical and just short of absolutely ridiculous.

[Jolly Roger]

I too was perplexed by this. As I understand it, Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, the rock upon which JC builds his church. Peter was also told that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. I think that Catholics believe that Peter passed on these powers to his successor, the second pope, who in turned passed the power on to the third who passed it to the fourth and so on. Since, according to Catholics, all popes throughout history had the power to "bind things in Heaven", everything done or sanctioned by popes were, in fact, correct. This is the basis for the infallibility of the pope doctrine of the Catholic church and explains why the church is so reluctant to apologize for any of its practices, no matter how heinous or immoral they might seem. Not surprisingly, Catholics view their faith as the one true form of Christianity and, unless it can be shown that subsequent popes did not inherit Peter's special abilities, they are correct. In other words, if the connection between Peter and modern-day pope can be shown to exist, anyone who believes in the Bible but does not convert to Catholicism is a bit of an infidel.

Catholics, although right in many doctrines, have weird practices never mentioned in the bible, and also believe that you must get to heaven via good works. They believe that Mary was sinless. They believe in Purgatory, which is nowhere in the bible. Not all groups believe these things. But many do. And the ones who do are basically a Catholic-like cult.

Yes, but if they can make that whole infallibility of the pope thing stick, then the pope can make up anything he wants and it will be bound in heaven. Crazy, huh? God made a bad deal if this is shown to be on the level.

[happysadfun]

And the pope can't pull anything out of his a*s and call it truth. Truth is set. The pope is not holy.

[vtmarik]

According to the Bible he is. Dogmatic law and such, being what it is.

On a side note, this study seems to be very interesting...