TV's Frink said:
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
Several people to be honest. My grandfather was the greatest influence on me in that category. But at the risk of sounding crazy, (Too late?) my confirmation came from God Himself. When I pushed everyone's opinions to the side and approach Him on my own.
I just played the greatest prank on my mother. Back when Pope Benedict XVI was elected I had DVDR'd it. My mother was in the kitchen doing the dishes. I put the dvd on in the living room and called "Mom! The new Pope! They're announcing him!"
She sprinted in front of the tv and bought it hook, line and sinker. I had a really hard time holding back the laughter. At one point I even had to say I had something in my throat to cover up my snickering. Meanwhile my dad was doing the "gullible" gesture behind her.
She was saying "we didn't even see the smoke!"
Then the part came
" Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
Habemus Papam;
Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum Josephum"
At which point she looked at me and saw me explode in laughter
"You jerk!! I thought I saw you snickering!!"
Imma tell you, I almost pissed my pants...
mrbenja0618 said:
TV's Frink said:
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
Several people to be honest. My grandfather was the greatest influence on me in that category. But at the risk of sounding crazy, (Too late?) my confirmation came from God Himself. When I pushed everyone's opinions to the side and approach Him on my own.
Honestly, this is where I get lost. What was the actual process of approaching God?
TV's Frink said:
mrbenja0618 said:
TV's Frink said:
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
Several people to be honest. My grandfather was the greatest influence on me in that category. But at the risk of sounding crazy, (Too late?) my confirmation came from God Himself. When I pushed everyone's opinions to the side and approach Him on my own.
Honestly, this is where I get lost. What was the actual process of approaching God?
They met on Craigslist, obviously.
TV's Frink said:
mrbenja0618 said:
TV's Frink said:
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
Several people to be honest. My grandfather was the greatest influence on me in that category. But at the risk of sounding crazy, (Too late?) my confirmation came from God Himself. When I pushed everyone's opinions to the side and approach Him on my own.
Honestly, this is where I get lost. What was the actual process of approaching God?
Approaching a God is a bit like approaching a beautiful woman.
If you have the best of intentions the worst that can happen is she could vapourise your planet and torture you for all eternity (some people see this as a blessing too) anything else is a plus.
Bingowings said:
I'd love to enter your box but could you do something about those funny noises?
I'm regrowing my Lego man beard, once you see how dashingly charming I look and am, you won't give a damn about those noises.
TV's Frink said:
Honestly, this is where I get lost. What was the actual process of approaching God?
Very carefully!
Winston Zeddmore says:
Ray, the next time someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!
HABEMUS PAPEM!
You'd think they'd have given up smoking by now.
Are you Catholic, Warb? I never realized that.
No, just fascinated by the history surrounding the Papacy and the Catholic Church.
Papa don't preach.
As is often the case, I ask you to forgive the formatting weirdness. Especially I ask that the reader forgive the overuse of caps, as the proxy server I'm using won't allow me to italicize. If you take the capitalization too strongly, imagine I merely used italics for emphasis.
darth_ender had before said:
"There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia."
CP3S then said:
"I think you are generalizing quite a lot here, and being very presumptuous. Not all atheists are materialistic atheists or ascribe strictly to scientific thought, or require demonstration or falsifiability to disbelieve in God or gods.
"And even for those of us who do, you're trying to spin the scientific process in a way that makes it sound extraordinarily limiting, in a way that it isn't to most of us. Ultimately, a scientist knows that we don't know even a small fraction of everything there is to know, and that the knowledge we do have is just a starting point to greater discovery and free thought. Where you make it sound like a brick wall that stops us in our tracks, it is really a wide open gateway and a series of bridges and roads to all sorts of exciting places that are still in the process of being built and paved."
darth_ender now sayeth:
Actually, believe it or not, I included an extra couple of sentences discussing atheists who do not fit the "scientific" mold. I removed it because I thought it detracted from my point. Now I see I should have left it. Yes, an atheist can believe in anything...except in a god of any sort: 'a-' meaning 'without,' 'theos' meaning 'god' (of any type), '-ist' meaning 'one who subscribes to that way of thinking.' But they can believe in the tooth fairy, fortune telling, horoscopes, or whatever. I should have been more specific in that I was referring to those who actually claim to hold to a truly scientific mindset. (I was alerted to this common misconception around 5 or 6 years ago when this idiot who wrote for the Arizona Daily Wildcat named Taylor Kessinger wrote a very condescending piece criticizing atheists who were, in his view, superstitious about other things; though he had often been condescending towards Christians without much backlash, you should have seen the responses to that article; I'll see if I can find it online; time lapse...ah, looks like Google gets some hits, but then I get the 404 error).
But don't misunderstand my intention, because you are actually reinforcing my point. I know that scientists know that they do not know everything. They acknowledge that they cannot. Those atheists who are truly scientific admit that they cannot possibly know those things they cannot test, even though they also acknowledge that just because it cannot be tested does not make it nonexistent or unreal. Thus, since God is untestable, a truly scientific atheist cannot with full conviction 'know' that God does not exist, but rather can be firmly convinced based on a perceived lack of evidence. Those that 'know' that God doesn't exist are not acting truly scientifically.
darth_ender earlier said:
"For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment. The atheist on the other hand feels that they can somehow disprove God's existence, though such is scientifically impossible. In other words, they are contradicting the only source of truth they even accept: scientific experimentation."
CP3S followed with:
"From a strictly scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to feel the need to disprove the existence of God. It is not that complicated."
darth_ender now replies with:
I agree. There IS no need to disprove him. It is not a falsifiable experiment. But as such, while one may criticize the testing of the reality of God, one cannot either prove or disprove his existence. Ergo, though one may hold a firm conviction that God does not exist based on a perceived lack of evidence, one cannot truly say with certainty that he/she 'knows' God does not exist.
CP3S went on to say:
"I'm going to use Odin, because he is by far the most badass god who ever existed. (See what I did there?)
"Now I am pretty sure none of you theists believe Odin exists. In fact, I am willing to bet you guys know Odin doesn't exist. The very idea of believing in this ancient Nord god in this day and age is silly. But at one time for a group of people who lived long ago, it would have been offensive to walk up to them and say Odin doesn't exist. It's very likely you would end up with a battle axe embedded in your skull, in the name of Odin, of course. Perhaps some of them would have just tisk tisked your lack of faith, or challenged you to disprove Odin, ranted about how their belief liberates them, or simply handed you a banana. Who knows.
"The definition of "atheist" is: "A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods."
"Darth_Ender, Warb, Mrebo, and any other theist here, I could be way off on this and just wildly assuming, but I am willing to bet you are all atheist. If you only believe in one god, it means there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in, or that you hold an atheist stance toward. In the end, I simply disbelieve in one less god than the countless number of gods you don't believe in. The same way you find no reason you should believe in Ra, I find no reason I should believe in your god."
darth_ender is now replying with:
In my mind you are correct in all that you say here, except for a bit of semantics. I won't argue much because I think it beside the point, but just for clarity, atheism does not mean one doesn't believe in certain gods, but rather that one does not believe in ANY gods: completely without belief in a divine being. Thus, I am not an atheist towards Odin or Ra or Jupiter. I don't believe in them, true, but I am still not without belief in a Divine Being. Everything else in the above quote does not disagree with what I am trying to say.
darth_ender earlier said:
"Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist."
CP3S then pointed out:
"Religion has done and does do a lot of shitty things. While I tend to be much more open minded about religion and its positive sides, I certainly cannot fault people for speaking out against it."
darth_ender now respondes with:
Nor I. That is not my point. My point is that the religion and those that hold to it are not exactly evidence that God does not exist. Let's turn this around. Nazis believed in the principles of evolution. Utilizing those principles, they theorized that they were a master race, that others were inferior, and some so inferior that they were not worthy of existence. Thus, these 'subhumans' were sent to extermination camps. So does the crappy use of an idea disprove evolution? Obviously not. It merely shows that humans can take an idea and twist it for evil use. The same applies with those religions and the people who have wielded them to do crappy things. It doesn't disprove God, it just discredits certain followers of him.
darth_ender previously said:
"Religious persons on the other hand are liberated in this sense. Their sources of knowledge are not limited to the scientific method (though they may be limiting themselves in other ways). They believe that God can prove his existence to them, and that they can 'know' he is real. The scientist may dispute this method, but the very fact that it is accepted on faith and not on scientific proof allows for a claim to knowledge, even if the non-believer disputes the reality of that knowledge."
Unimpressed, C3PS said::
"Wow. I don't even know where to begin in disagreeing with this, it is overwhelming."
So darth_ender cheerfully ;) said:
I hope you will find somewhere to begin, because I see no flaws in my logic, and I'm wondering if you misunderstand me. Let me summarize my point, with the hope that (relative) brevity will better explain what I mean:
Truly scientific atheists turn to one source for knowledge: the scientific method. They also acknowledge that nothing can be universally known, but can be demonstrated with great certainty. On the flip side, they acknowledge that there are things in this universe that cannot even be demonstrated with ANY level of certainty, but that do not preclude their existence. ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS, and using the scientific principles that scientists hold in consensus, one cannot truly 'know' that there is no divine being, though one can certainly be convinced based on what they see as a lack of evidence. There is simply no falsifiable experiment to disprove him.
Meanwhile, religious persons do not turn to the scientific method as the only source of knowledge (far too often many believers do not look to it for knowledge at all, sadly). They turn to faith and personal revelation. According to THEIR own standards, one CAN know something with certainty; one CAN test something that is not scientifically testable. And thus, according to their own standards, one CAN know that there is a God.
My point is not to prove that God exists with this argument; it is philosophical, not scientific in nature. My point is that atheists and believers follow different standards, and according to those standards, the believer is free to 'know' (even if his/her 'knowledge' contradicts completely with the 'knowledge' of a different brand of believer, and even if the non-believer sees such knowledge as nothing more than foolish, unscientific superstition), while the atheist, FOLLOWING HIS/HER OWN STANDARDS, cannot truly claim to 'know' that God does not exist. Make sense?
Bingowings said:
Papa don't preach.
?
mrbenja0618, it's refreshing to read a simple testimony. I really enjoy the philosophy and science surrounding the religious debate, but it's nice to read someone share their conviction based on the sort of knowledge I am arguing for.
Frink, I certainly don't like you better than Leo, I just better understand where you're coming from. I apologize for oversimplifying and generalizing about agnostics and any group in general. Such things are inescapable, as any argument is always an oversimplification of the real issue, but it looks like I OVER-oversimplified this time.
And I didn't even realize English was not Leonardo's first language! He writes like a native, IMO!
Oh, and sometimes I just have no idea how one should respond to the things that emerge from Bingowings' fingers :D
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Fact: if you know something, you must also believe it.
Fact(for myself): I can believe something without having proof that it is true, that is what faith is about). But I don't think I could claim to know something without proof.
I apologize for using the word arrogant.
With that, I give up.
btw black smoke again this morning, no Pope.
Fact anyone who starts a sentence with the word fact comes across sounding like an idiot.
if you say so.
Bingowings said:
As much as I appreciate the magic of believing in something regardless of proof why the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
And why worship the God from the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
He's really not nice.
I'd say it was rather nice of him to send down his one and only son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins.
Warbler said:
I'd say it was rather nice of him to send down his one and only son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins.
This.
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Fact: if you know something, you must also believe it.
Fact(for myself): I can believe something without having proof that it is true, that is what faith is about). But I don't think I could claim to know something without proof.
I apologize for using the word arrogant.
With that, I give up.
btw black smoke again this morning, no Pope.
Fact anyone who starts a sentence with the word fact comes across sounding like an idiot.
if you say so.
Bingowings said:
As much as I appreciate the magic of believing in something regardless of proof why the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
And why worship the God from the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
He's really not nice.
I'd say it was rather nice of him to send down his one and only son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins.
A) FACT so.
B) So what if he is real that doesn't make him automatically worthy of worship.
C) If your next door neighbour did this thing you'd phone the police, Killing someone in a horrid torturous fashion for something that someone who hasn't been born yet will inevitably do is not nice. It's sick!
TV's Frink said:
mrbenja0618 said:
TV's Frink said:
Who confirmed God to you, if I might ask?
Several people to be honest. My grandfather was the greatest influence on me in that category. But at the risk of sounding crazy, (Too late?) my confirmation came from God Himself. When I pushed everyone's opinions to the side and approach Him on my own.
Honestly, this is where I get lost. What was the actual process of approaching God?
Sorry for the delay, Frink.
For me, it was going into a room by myself with a bible, and shutting off the noise. No phones, tv, radio, whatever the distraction may have been I had to remove it. I learned that if my mind was busy, I was missing it.
I'm trying to explain this the best I know how, so please bear with me.
For me God speaks in thoughts. I fully believe he can speak as we do, but again, for me the way I'm talking about is the norm. Have you ever caught yourself having a conversation with yourself in your head. Perhaps you're debating an issue, trying to make a decision. For years I assumed I was conjuring both sides of the thought process, but then it hit me, I'm not. I'm debating with something else. In this case, God.
Now, I do believe in demons and angels, and believe they try to talk to you too. The danger is that demons will masquerade as light (God) and if you don't know how God talks (by studying the Bible) you could easily be duped. So with that I have experienced God talk in many ways, but those two being the most frequent ways He speaks.
Another component that confirms His voice to me is if it follows with a peace inside. If i'm at peace, then typically that is His direction. Jesus said, "Peace I give to you." Not world peace mind you, but a peace inside that can't be explained (to me) outside of God.
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Fact: if you know something, you must also believe it.
Fact(for myself): I can believe something without having proof that it is true, that is what faith is about). But I don't think I could claim to know something without proof.
I apologize for using the word arrogant.
With that, I give up.
btw black smoke again this morning, no Pope.
Fact anyone who starts a sentence with the word fact comes across sounding like an idiot.
if you say so.
Bingowings said:
As much as I appreciate the magic of believing in something regardless of proof why the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
And why worship the God from the Bible?
because I have faith that the God of the Bible is real.
Bingowings said:
He's really not nice.
I'd say it was rather nice of him to send down his one and only son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins.
A) FACT so.
B) So what if he is real that doesn't make him automatically worthy of worship.
C) If your next door neighbour did this thing you'd phone the police, Killing someone in a horrid torturous fashion for something that someone who hasn't been born yet will inevitably do is not nice. It's sick!
I could try to explain it to you, but either you wouldn't it get or you'd mock me and my religion and make jokes or both, so what's the point?
Bingowings said:
A) FACT so.
B) So what if he is real that doesn't make him automatically worthy of worship.
C) If your next door neighbour did this thing you'd phone the police, Killing someone in a horrid torturous fashion for something that someone who hasn't been born yet will inevitably do is not nice. It's sick!
I'll give it a shot.
This is the problem. You're taking God and making Him like us. He's not, He's God. You're using human measuring tape and trying to size up the creator of the universe who IS the standard of right and wrong, and you can't. Because you're human....Not God. You're equating our next door neighbor who like us sees things in beginnings and ends to God who sees the big picture that we don't see.
Go on Warb.
Explain to me how one of hundreds of thousands of human beings nailed up by the Romans in anyway makes my life or the life of anyone else who lived later any better than it was if it hadn't happened.
Taking as a given that Jesus existed, was the son of God and died in that fashion.
What does dying for our sins actually mean?
I promise I will not mock you just explain it.
If it's something I can't understand because I'm not the God of the Bible myself, why should this act in any way impress me?
Bingowings said:
Go on Warb.
Explain to me how one of hundreds of thousands of human beings nailed up by the Romans in anyway makes my life or the life of anyone else who lived later any better than it was if it hadn't happened.
Taking as a given that Jesus existed, was the son of God and died in that fashion.
What does dying for our sins actually mean?
I promise I will not mock you just explain it.
I'll give you a brief history lesson. There was mankind, and mankind couldn't get right. God punished man in different ways because He had to.
God introduces sacrifice. They took the most perfect unblemished animal (which was like taking a 10th of your wealth today) and sacrificing it to God in payment for sins. Romans 3:23 says: The wages of sin is death. Hence the DEATH of the animal.
Only problem is, we continue to sin even after this, and we keep having to sacrifice, and long story short, it's impossible for us to get into heaven without being sinless.
But God allowed this for awhile to beat into humanity how futile salvation is to us.
Fast forward God sends Jesus, His son. (Who is also God. That's for another talk) He's the ONE human that gets it right because He is God. He's sinless. Unlike the animal sacrifices, he actually is unblemished. We still owe a death, and Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified. The world would believe He was merely crucified because of the politics, but there was something bigger going on. He came to die to offer himself as a true and perfect sacrifice. The sacrifice fulfills the wage needed in full. We just have to accept the truth of Christ. That He is the Son of God, that He died for us, and rose again. That sinful me needs Him to cover my sins so that I can go to Heaven. Sin has been forgiven, except one. The unforgiveable sin is to reject the truth of Christ. Therefore you are at this point sending yourself to Hell.
That's it in a nutshell.
So God made man and insists that man obeys him of his free will and because we haven't he has repeatedly punished us with plagues and deluges and wars.
But this hasn't got us being obedient.
So he makes himself into one of us.
Allows himself to be nailed to a plank and hung on a post.
But comes back from the dead so that if we believe this happened we don't have to pay the penalty of hell for being disobedient.
Am I getting this right?
So, the last Pope was a Hitler youth... and the new one is from Argentina?
Could he be one of those Hitler clones?
