Very good point, JECE.

Mujus: the onus of proof of the existence of a supernatural power is on you, not on me to disprove it. You already basically agreed that logic is not enough to understand 'God'. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. Hearsay is not proof. Your belief in something is not proof.

Kasimax, I respect everyone's right to believe and to worship as they choose to. However, I also believe that there is only one true God and one way to heaven, and that's through the promised savior, the suffering messiah of Israel, in whom God himself came down to Earth, lived among us, and gave himself up as payment for everybody who accepts his free gift of life. I think the problem comes when people believe that the faith we are telling you about is a blind faith, and that we didn't come to it with an open mind. Believe me, I am afflicted with the need to know/the need for proof, and won't take anybody's word for anything without figuring it out myself. I was raised in a church that my ancestors have been members of for over 500 years that we know of, and my relatives, including both parents, still are members, but I left it because there was something missing. And that something missing was the transaction in which you accept God's free gift of salvation, accept his payment for my sins, and all that entails. But growing up in that church, I kept struggling to find the truth. I knew it had something to do with church, but it kept eluding me. Finally I realized that I could just ask God--just ask him that if he existed, would he please show me. At that moment it dawned on me that I could have done that years before--a true "aha!" moment. And he did show me enough to convince me beyond any doubt. It still took some time for me to come to the point where I figured out what was missing in my experience, the actual acceptance of his gift ("God, I do accept your gift of Jesus' death as payment for my sins"), and sometime in there I wrestled mentally with the nature of God (what's with this three-in-one thing?), dialogued with members of two cults, and truly asked God to show me the truth no matter what it was. I had a truly open mind. JECE, you do not have an open mind when you use terms like "designed to be unfalsifiable," because it shows that you have already decided that there is no God and that all forms of worship are made up. Jesus said, "No one comes to the father except through me," but anyone can ask God to show them whether that's true or not, and even whether he exists or not. If you refuse to ask him, ask yourself why that is, and you may find that you do not have an open mind. "Come to me, all you who are weak and heavily loaded, and I will give you rest for your soul." Who needs that? I do. Everyone I know does. Isn't it worth forcing yourself to be open-minded about it??

Hearsay is not proof, Numbat, but testimony is evidence in a court of law as a way of establishing historical fact. There is enough evidence for you to consider the matter--that's all I'm saying. The rest is for you to figure out with God.

@ Mujus, "God is the author of Logic"
oh really???
This explains why the Bible is such a logically coherent work (ho ho ho )
and rather than revealing REPEATEDLY the ignorance & prejudices of it's human authors & it instead fast tracked us humans past all that nonsense about sickness and disease being God's punishment & provided the basis for the quick development of modern medicines, all we had to do was pray for two millenia (less 60 years), develop Humanism, Western Science & etc and Yippee, we had the first modern antibiotics.
All part of a benevolent & loving God's plans was it, too blind us with ignorant superstition for the best part of 2,000 years because he knew we'd get soft on gay rights sooner or later ???

@ Mujus, what about the "evidence" given in church run show trials
that
1 the earth was at the centre of our sun & planetary system ? ( trial of Galileo )
2 that infinity did not exist, that it was an evil heresy to discuss the nature of infinity ?
(trial of an Italian mathematician, burnt at the stake in 1600, I'll get you the name if required, I have lent that book on mathematics to my niece. )
The Church of Rome's early problems with the concept of infinity relates to their beliefs about God's creation, that God's divine act of creation produced a finite cosmos & if what God created was finite then to have the possibility of an infinite cosmos implies the existence of things not created by God & that's Heretical

A simple straight forward questions for you Mujus,
where those eminent Catholic clerics perjuring themselves or telling to the courts divinely inspired truths ?

It is noticeable that most if not all persons who swear "on the Bible"
that they will give truthful evidence in a Court of Law, and who then
choose to commit perjury, are immediately struck by a bolt of Divinely Directed Lightning and immediately burnt to ashes, this all makes the work of our Judiciary sooooooo much easier

@ Mujus
Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake in 1600
was the poor Italian mathematician chappy
At both his and Galileao's trial devout, well intentioned clerical chaps from the Church of Rome used exactly the same sort of bluster that you employ today to perpetuate ignorance & superstition.
They had spent their entire careers studying the Bible, they had access to the Vatican Libraries & learned theologians, like you they didn't just believe that the Earth was at the centre of of Sun & Planetary system, they claimed to KNOW IT TO BE FACT, divine providence had revealed this "FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE" to them.

Similar claims were made at Bruno's show trial, ie Bible based beliefs are facts.

So, whilst these clerical chaps told the courts, under oath what they earnestly believed to be the truth, with ALL THE INTELLECTUAL & SPIRITUAL RESOURCES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME at the time in support of their claims, it is correct to say (isn't it Mujus ? ) that their statements that the Earth was at the centre of our Sun & planetary system, or those related to the abstract mathematical concept of infinty were FACTUALLY INCORRECT ?

What if you are similarly self deceived Mujus ? All your "divinely inspired facts & truths" are in actuality just a grab bag of beliefs that you have chosen to believe.

Believe away Mujus, I am fine with that,
just don't make the mistake of converting belief(s) into fact(s) via prayer/Bible study,
because just like those well intentioned clerics of history it is inevitable that you will cock it up, hopefully your cock ups won't cost some intellectual their life

And for those who think, "Oh that can't happen today" what about the Doctors & Nurses injured & killed by the crazy "Right to Lifers" with Bible in one hand & shotgun in t'other,
all inspired by some religious nut jobs who think they have some divine right to impose their morality on the rest of their societies

@mujus: thank you for your long and detailed answer. i am an agnostic myself, maybe even an atheist, and i bet you know that, but thanks for your answer. really appreciate it. i simply think that many believers aren't like you and keep believing in what they always believed.

well I read that reply to you ( Kasimax) from Mujus as well
and I would make this point, spritual growth / enlightenment does not require the belief in a deity, and perhaps these deities & religions prevent many people from real spritual growth

Kasimax, thank you for the kind words. I also believe that many "religious" people believe only because they are told to believe, or because it is an integral part of their family or cultural identity, or because it makes them feel superior, or because they are brainwashed/emotionally manipulated by a cult, among other reasons. However, in my experience, it is also true that some people come to Jesus very young and therefore don't remember the first time they actually decided to trust God/accept Jesus as their lord and savior. The important thing is to decide for yourself, at whatever age, to accept Jesus' payment for your sins and to follow him as lord and savior.

mujus, you are probably the first sane religious person i talked with for a long long time.

still waiting for an answer Mujus

Kasimax, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. lol!

Mujus: No, I have not "decided that there is no God" because I have never believed and never questioned the existence of gods, ghosts, afterlifes, reincarnations, magic, spirits, spirit-forces, spiritual energy, souls, demi-gods, heavens, hells, angels, a life force, etc., etc., etc.
Be honest with yourself. You must realize that the structure of your respone assumes that I had religious exposure at an early age. It is the same line of reasoning agnostics tend to make: 'you've been told something which many people believe; therefore, it may be true'. The problem with such arguments is that they fall flat on their face when confronted with the few people fortunate enough to have grown up never having been told what must be so. Why on Earth would someone who has never heard of gods not go on their merry way never considering their existence?

Kasimax, there are quite a few "sane" Christians on this site.

Mujus: No, I have not "decided that there is no God" because I have never believed and never questioned the existence of gods, ghosts, afterlives, reincarnations, magic, spirits, spirit-forces, spiritual energy, souls, demi-gods, heavens, hells, angels, a life force, etc., etc., etc.
Be honest with yourself. You must realize that the structure of your response assumes that I had religious exposure at an early age. It is the same line of reasoning agnostics tend to make: 'you've been told something which many people believe; therefore, it may be true'. The problem with such arguments is that they fall flat on their face when confronted with the few people fortunate enough to have grown up never having been told what must be so. Why on Earth would someone who has never heard of gods not go on their merry way never considering their existence? Doesn't your assumption suggest which of us has the closed mind?

I put "designed" in quotes ("'designed'") for a reason. I'm not suggesting there was ever a deliberate structuring of religions so that they be misleading. I'm simply pointing out that religious arguments are invariably unfalsifiable in structure and/or nature. How the arguments came to that point is undoubtedly through centuries or millennia of theological discourse. Unless, of course, you believe in a 'Creator': in which case, then the absence of falsifiability must be designed; so I can't understand why you took so much issue with my phrase. Or are you instead suggesting that the existence of gods and related phenomena is in fact falsifiable?

Mujus: My latter post is the complete one.

still dodging and ducking Mujus ???

JECE, your response is correct in part and incorrect in part. I did not assume that you have had religious exposure at an early age. However, you are correct that I did make an unwarranted assumption: I assumed that you had considered the existence of God and rejected it. So are you saying that you never seriously considered the existence of God because you were raised in a non-believing environment? If so, the same point applies to you as to people who were raised in a faith community of any type: At some point you have to make your own decisions.

still embracing evasion Mujus ?
whats your opinion ? were those well intentioned, professional clerics from the Church of Rome who gave evidence under oath at the show trials of Bruno & Galileo, that as a result of Biblical study, prayer, divine intervention etc etc that they knew certain things to be FACT, such as the Earth being at the centre of our Sun & planetary system making statements that were FACTUALLY CORRECT AND TRUE ???
They use the same bogus reasoning as you use today, that beliefs can be converted to Facts by Biblical study/prayer/divine intervention. This is your problem Mujus, you are using the same bogus reasoning today, as did those cork brained clerical clowns in the 16th Century, and we all know,as do you,that they were clearly making statements under oath in a Law court (of sorts ) that are clearly FALSE and UNTRUE.
Those clerics are not guilty of perjury, at the time they made their statements to the Law Court(s) they absolutely believed in the veracity of their statements. To commit perjury is to make a statement under oath to a Law Court that the person knows ( at the time they make those statements) is untrue.
So it's unfair of me to put it as "Did they tell the truth or did they commit perjury ?"
(I'm surprised you had not spotted that )
The question therefore is, Did those clerics tell the truth or did they unwittingly make statements to the Court(s) that were untrue ?
Obviously there is only one correct answer, the statements made under oath were untrue and factually incorrect. That leads ot the inescapable conclusion that beliefs cannot be converted to fact by Biblical study/prayer/divine intervention alone.

This is the point you continually ignore because of some religious need to embrace self deception

Mujus: And can't you see that it is impossible to seriously question the existence of gods when you have no reason to presuppose that the question exists? It's not like I was brought up in an anti-religious environment.

This thread is disappointing.

It was a Jesus thread started by a Jesus person, presumably for other Jesus people. I can understand that not everyone that enjoys the use of these forums is a Jesus person, but people's insistence on trolling these threads is a bit wonky.

Yeah, I get it. Some of you think that Jesus is stupid. You also think that people who don't think Jesus is stupid, are stupid. Right-o, buddy.

But that being established, trolling people for making a sincere expression of beliefs, in a way that entertains plenty and victimizes nobody, is childish. Can any of you honestly imagine me (fat old man) standing next to a (high-school) cheer-leading practice and cat-calling the cheerleaders, simply because I think cheer-leading is stupid? Can any of you imagine me standing outside of a comic book convention and trolling the comic book nerds just because I think Magic the Gathering is stupid? Of course not. You'd laugh me off of this web site if I behaved like that.

I see three or four of you attempting to go toe-to-toe with Mujus here and, honestly, I have to score the first couple of rounds of this conflict to him. He knows the Bible backwards and forwards, and apparently he speaks Greek. Do you? I don't think so. I'd also be willing to wager that he would score higher than you guys on a scientific aptitude test as well, and probably an applied logic examination, but I'll admit that I'm speculating on those parts.

I'll also openly speculate that more Christians would jump over to the atheism bandwagon if it were a superior belief system. But it's not.

Critics help to improve things. Christianity could benefit from criticism, and has benefited from criticism. Luther and Calvin have both contributed to the faith.

Even Fred Nietzsche was able to articulate his particular angst with the Nazarene faith better than you kids.

Can you not admit that your contributions to this discussion are not that profound? Is no one allowed to have fun, to publicly pray? I generally feel that people have a right to openly express an opinion on anything done in public, but to tell the truth if the Jesus crowd started opening up about their opinions on things like drinking, gambling or risky sex you kids would have kittens.

You're not smarter than Mujus. You're not bigger than Jesus. Jumping on the Jesus people during their religious celebrations doesn't make you into Charles Darwin, it makes you a troll or a bully.



*this does not apply to things that I don't like.

JECE, so you haven't yet dealt with the question of whether there is a God? Or multiple gods? All I am really trying to communicate to you is that if you ever feel the need, you remember that there are people who have told you that yes, God exists, that he loves you and paid the supreme sacrifice to rescue you from the results of your own sins, and that you can call out to him at any time and he will answer.

Al, thanks for the praise, but only some of the nice things you said about me are true. I did get 100% on the GRE logic section, but I have to look up the logical fallacies on occasion--I understand them but don't have them memorized very well and sometimes I get them mixed up. I also barely speak Greek--just a few minutes of conversation exhausts my limited vocabulary--but I do know how to use the tools like interlinear Bibles and the (online now) concordances. And like every one of us, I have some great skills and some glaring deficiencies, academically.

That said, I want to thank you for pointing out very clearly what the issue is in a way that most people can understand and accept.

JECE, you ask "Or are you instead suggesting that the existence of gods and related phenomena is in fact falsifiable?" Well your wording did imply that religions are designed by people rather than by God, a god, or gods, especially now that you have stated that you not only don't believe in them, but you have never even considered the possibility of their existence. But yes, the Bible is very clear that there are false gods. But that doesn't detract from the primary message, which is that there is a God and that he rewards those who seek him.

The "you kids" routine is getting old, Al. Contrary to your impression, not everybody here is a prepubescent.

Religion isn't a harmless hobby. If it were maybe you'd have a point. Mujus's intention is to convert people. He is open about this. He says it over and over again. I think he's largely given a free pass for openly spamming this forum with his evangelism. If that's his intention he can't complain, and neither can you, when there is some critical analysis in response.

I think most of the responses here have been quite polite and respectful to Mujus. Certainly more respectful than when most people post deliberately provocative topics with the intention of converting people to one's own belief system.

I get it that you think Mujus is smarter than the atheists and are rooting for him to "win" the debate, so obviously he's going to appear smarter and more informed to you. It's cool these days to rag on opinionated atheists, as if we haven't been putting up with opinionated and forceful Christians since time immemorial. The people responding to Mujus are just as intelligent, and I'd venture to guess that they know several languages of their own, and might even have some knowledge about comparative religion or religious texts of various kinds. Believe it or not, not just the followers of the Egyptian sorcerer Isa/Jesus have studied religion and taken it seriously as a subject of study.

So sorry if people don't bow down and kiss Mujus's rearend because that's the outcome you want. People can have different opinions on a controversial subject. Deal with it.

There is a very basic logical problem which I believe negates the possibility of a god as typically defined. Maybe Mujus can clear it up.

1 - God is described as being 'timeless' - that is, existing outside of time.
2 - God is described as being a powerful causal agent, responsible for the creation of the universe, time & space itself.

Causation is a temporal relationship. It does not exist outside of the confines of time. Causation can only occur within time. How can a timeless being be a causal agent?



This logical problem for me renders all other arguments moot and meaningless. If the Theist cannot provide an explanation for timeless (and changeless) causal agents that are logically coherent then the whole thing falls to pieces.

Putin is right that I'm not special any more than every one of us on this site, and in fact everyone in the world, is special. But I doubt that I have ever said I want to convert anybody. That sounds so… imposed is the word I'm looking for, and God respects free will more than anything--In fact that may be the way that we were created in God's image--that we have free will just like he does. No, I just want to point out the light of Jesus so that anyone who wishes the same thing will see it and take it for themselves. It's not about a particular church--I rarely talk about the church we attend now because it is of very little importance compared to the relationship with the unseen God. Jesus wasn't about joining a particular church. He did say that he was the living water and that anyone who was thirsty should come to him and never be thirsty again. And Putin, thank you for not doing the other thing you thought Al wanted you to do. ;-)

Mujus, that's a matter of semantics. You repeatedly "invite" people to welcome Isa into their lives. Whether imposed or not, it is your wish that people come to believe, is that correct?