Prove there's a god.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#744285 Jun 10, 2014
VOLKSTURM wrote:
<quoted text>
Get RID of RELIGION and guess what will happen.
THERE WILL BE PEACE ON THIS PLANET!
R'amen brother R'amen

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#744286 Jun 10, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof of a god's existence
.
There is no proof that Gods does not exist.
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>That isn't a problem for atheists.
So you're saying if there is no proof that God does exist, then atheist live they life by faith that God doesn't exist. Sounds like a religion.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744287 Jun 10, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If not that, at least watch Planet of the Apes.
It's funny you mention that.

My 7-year-old (at the time) great-nephew and I had looooong conversation about the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes.

We covered the advanced topics of space travel, time travel, genetic mutation, that humans are animals... and somehow wound up discussing Jonah and the Whale, among other things.

One point led to the next and eventually he informed me that I'd find out one day... if ya know what I mean.

Yes...

A 7-year-old said that.

He and his brother had been living with their grandmother (my sister) due to their mother dying and their father having to pay the bills (truck driver). She's a hardcore Christian and had them pretty well on the road to evangelism.

The good news is that they are now with their father, who has no use for religion, and have recovered from the indoctrination nicely.

We all laugh about it now... except for Sis.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#744288 Jun 10, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 U wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask IPSEC if he's an evolutionary scientist. If he's not, then he's accepting what evolutionary scientists claim, and he does so on FAITH. He TRUSTS that they're correct. That's what really drives these people insane about our beliefs. They want to say it's fact, but then they whine, cry, bitch, and moan when we claim our beliefs are supported by facts.
The FACT is, they place trust (faith) in science as a replacement for God, and then try to claim we're anti-science because we tell them that science can't do that no matter how hard they try. We're not anti-science. We just realize that science has limits on what can be proven and disproven. God is outside those limits and therefore not subject to them. They'll find this out someday. As it's written, every knee will bend in submission, before the Creator.:)
The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know,-- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.— Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To Dr. Lyman Abbott"

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#744289 Jun 10, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Every piece of evidence we have that could either support or contradict the story of Adam and Eve shows that it isn't true.
We have to classify the story as fiction, but more than that, it's fantasy and myth. You can't have a myth category if this story isn't included.
<quoted text>
The writers were ignorant and superstitious. The Bible is the very thing we would expect men like that to write.
<quoted text>
There are consequences for denying evolution, for the individual, and for the rest of us. That's true of climate change denial too. The effect may not be immediately apparent, but it can still be drastic. There are positive changes we could be making that we aren't making because people are uncomfortable with facts that contradict their beliefs.
People can believe whatever they want, even if it's incorrect or stupid. Don't I have the right to argue that it's incorrect or stupid?
Yes you have that right.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#744290 Jun 10, 2014
Food for thought originally posted on another thread:

The Gospels and Astrology I

According to a late gospel tradition recorded only in the text attributed to Matthew, magi journeyed to pay homage to the infant Jesus:
Matthew wrote:
<quoted text>After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked,“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”1
"Magi" is the Latin plural form of "magus". It derives from the Greek root word, "magos". "Magi" means magicians, a term that applied to astrologers, seers, magicians and folks of similar ilk in antiquity. Most English translations render the Greek of Matthew in the Latin form, "magi", or offer the equally opaque English, "wise men", rather than providing the more accurate rendering, "magicians" or "sorcerers". Of course, such opacity in these translations represents a Christian discomfort with actual meaning of their own scriptures.

By the 4th century, these magi, often numbered at 3 based on the number of gifts they supposedly brought, were frequently portrayed as Mithraic priests in Christian art. But scholars generally agree that the primary author of Matthew almost certainly intended them to be taken as Zoroastrian priests, who, as with their Mithraic off-shoots, steeped themselves in astrology. Indeed, the Greek word "magos" originates in the Persian word applied to the Zoroastrian priestly caste.

More than one scholar has noted that the gospel attributed to Matthew was written only a decade or so after Tiridates I of Armenia went to Rome with his Zoroastrian magi in tow to pay homage to Nero, suggesting that journey inspired the infancy narrative found in Matthew.

And as for the star those Zoroastrian astrologers supposedly followed? Both a simple and a complex theory hold considerable sway in the academy.

In antiquity, it was generally believed that everyone had their own, individual star, and the Star of Bethlehem could have merely represented Jesus' unique star for the Matthean author. On the other hand, Michael Molnar, a numismatist and retired professor of astronomy, acquired a coin from antiquity that celebrated a celestial event in Aries the ancients may have interpreted as portending the coming of a Jewish king in the then-dawning age of Pisce.2

Since the 2nd century, the Christian community has usually shown animosity toward astrology, but the 1st century gospel writers appear not to have shared that animosity. Greek astrology was all the rage in that time, and so it is of little surprise such imagery infiltrated the canonical gospels. As one scholar notes, the Matthean portrayal of the magi "is remarkably positive; there is no hint of explicit or implicit criticism of them in this pericope."3

The gospels' affinity with astrology does not end with the Matthean reverence for the magi. It goes deeper -- much, much deeper. It is, in fact, the lingua franca of the gospels, perhaps due in no small part to Hipparchus' discovery of the precession of the equinoxes about a century before the time of Jesus.

1. Matthew 2:1-2(NIV).

2. Molnar, Michael R., The Star of Bethlehem, The Legacy of the Magi (Rutgers University Press, 1999).

3. Hegedus, Tim, The Magi and the Star in the Gospel of Matthew and Early Christian Tradition, in Laval Théologique et Philosophique, Volume 59, Numéro 1,(Février 2003), p. 81-95, at p. 90.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#744291 Jun 10, 2014
Astrology and the Gospels II

Think not? Consider the Gospel of Mark, written a decade before Matthew and from whence much of the Matthean text was copied. There is no hint of the magi in Mark -- no infancy narrative at all. But the astrological references are unmistakable there.

While Jesus is portrayed in Mark as coming from the region of the Sea of Galilee, there is no reliable evidence for that. Mark tells us Jesus' family is still located there during his ministry and does not follow him4, and John 21, a 2nd century addition to John likely based on Mark's missing ending, has Jesus' disciples returning to that region after his death. But Acts has his family and disciples located in Jerusalem after his death, not Galilee, with his brother, James, seemingly leading the Jerusalem Assembly.5

So why did Mark's author have Jesus come from the Galilee region? The answer may have to do with the precession of the equinoxes. That is, in the night sky there are 12 constellations that form the Zodiac. Due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, these 12 formations take turns ruling the night sky during a Great Year, which lasts about 26,000 years. Thus, each sign of the Zodiac reigns for a little over 2,000 years -- an age.

Roughly coinciding with the time of Jesus' birth, the Piscean age was dawning. Now, 2,000 years later, in our time, the Age of Aquarius is nigh and represents the end of the Piscean age that began in Jesus' time.

But if Greek astrology had any influence on the gospel writers, and Jesus was a representation of the Piscean age, one would expect to see Piscean imagery in gospel texts.

And one does.

In Mark, Jesus walks on water6, controlling the sea and thus controlling the Piscean age. He has 12 disciples7, just as the Zodiac has 12 signs. He also feeds the multitude not with one fish but with two fish8, the sign of Pisces. And he recruits fishers as disciples, telling them he will make them "fishers of men".9

And when the Piscean age -- Jesus' time -- is to come to an end, who heralds it in? According to Mark, it is a "man carrying a jar of water"10 to a house in Jerusalem. Given that a man carrying a jar of water is a "very unusual sight in the East, where the water is drawn by women",11 this image from Mark must have special significance. And sure enough, it does; for it is the sign of Aquarius, the age that follows Pisces in the Zodiac.

But what did Jesus have to say about all this? According to Luke's author, Jesus said, "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars."12

Odd that, eh?

4. Mark 3, generally.

5. Acts 1:12-14; Acts 12:17.

6. Mark 6:45-52.

7. Mark 3:13-19.

8. Mark 6:30-44.

9. Mark 1:17(KJV).

10. Mark 14:13 (NIV).

11. Perowne, J.J.S., ed., "The Gospel according to St. Luke" in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1910), v. 39, p. 324.

12. Luke 21:25 (NIV).

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744292 Jun 10, 2014
Old_as_Dirt wrote:
<quoted text>.
There is no proof that Gods does not exist.
I never made the claim that God does not exist, let alone that I have proof one doesn't exist.

There's no need to disprove what hasn't been proven... is there?
So you're saying if there is no proof that God does exist, then atheist live they life by faith that God doesn't exist. Sounds like a religion.
I believe there's no proof a god exists. Call it faith if you like. I have no problem with that.

Again, a lack of proof isn't a problem for an atheist.

It isn't supposed to be a problem for a theist... but it usually is.
Cheetah

Lija, Malta

#744293 Jun 10, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
In your argument of dilemma---where did YOUR deity come into existence from(6000 years ago)?
You are shooting yourself in the foot here.
God has always existed, there can't be any other explanation.
It is hard for you, or me or anyone else to understand.
Can you understand infinity?
WE know that infinity exists, but can anyone measure infinity?
The universe, that is Space, is infinite. Can anyone ever tell where the universe starts and ends?
The Big Bang theory that the universe started at a certain date is mistaken. It is matter in the universe that started at a certain date billions of years ago, not the universe. This is the flaw in the materialist science reasoning. They can't think outside of matter.
All matter has a beginning and an end.
Infinity, as in the case of God and space, has no beginning and no end, because it is outside of matter.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#744294 Jun 10, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 U wrote:
<quoted text>
You wish you had undeniable proof. You're really convinced that there was no Adam and Eve, no Joshua at Jericho, no exodus? They haven't gone by the wayside. Not at all. Using science to disprove the bible is like using an electrical engineering book to disprove plumbing. It's a huge categorical error.
Your mind is committed to your atheist worldview. We have history, knowledge of culture, and personal experiences that cannot be explained by psychology or any other scientific method.
Of course you'll disagree, but that's okay. That's free will in action as God intended. I can't force you to be correct. Carry on.:)
Well perhaps you could explain to me how the Biblical Adam and Eve story is possible when we know for a fact that mankind started hundreds of thousands of years ago. When we know for a fact that some Neanderthals mated with humans 50,000+- years ago. When we know for a fact that ALL bloodlines go back to Africa 10's of thousands of years ago. When we know for a fact that other 'Homo' species walked the earth a million or more years ago.

Related to the above could you explain why if Adam and Eve never existed as written, and there was therefore no "Original Sin,' of what use was Jesus?

About the Biblical Exodus perhaps you can explain how it happens that the Sinai desert was scoured for a hundred or more years by hundreds of archaeologists looking for signs that a million plus Hebrews spent 40 years there and found....NOTHING....no evidence at all....not one speck.

Perhaps you can explain to me why so many Biblical scholars believe Moses was not real, and the Pentateuch was written by up to 4 different people hundreds and hundreds of years later then the reputed life of Moses. Can you explain the 'out of time' references made in the supposed work of Moses?

There's more of course but this will be sufficient to start. The things I have mentioned here can be shown to be true...it is not me that has discovered them. I just pass along what I have studied and learned.

I believe that just the disproving of the Biblical Adam and Eve is enough to destroy Christian Dogma as we know it today.

I could almost believe in a deist God, but the Christian one is ridiculous.
gort

Netherlands

#744295 Jun 10, 2014
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders."

you can't go by feelings
when did he become a fighter?
the few followers were jews
what were they?
he was a man of boundless love?
he summoned whom to fight the jews?
fashioning a whip to drive out moneychangers from the temple of prayer is not the same4 as executing 6 million.
how could he be a christian when there is no god?
using hitler to try to disgrace christ is typical of demons with no reasonable way of avoiding HIM.

plagiarism and amalgamation set your fanny where it belongs. you lie. repeatedly, viciously, selfishly, to turn people away from pursuing god. his most severe words targeted people in his day who did the same. satan isn't pleased with you either.

god's truth doesn't change

you are on the precipice of an eternity in the lake of fire. he is not mocked. what you sow you reap.

it takes far more faith to believe the nonsense you do than than to trust jesus. Hitler said he was real. he must be.
IPSEC

Bedford, TX

#744296 Jun 10, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 U wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask IPSEC if he's an evolutionary scientist. If he's not, then he's accepting what evolutionary scientists claim, and he does so on FAITH. He TRUSTS that they're correct. That's what really drives these people insane about our beliefs. They want to say it's fact, but then they whine, cry, bitch, and moan when we claim our beliefs are supported by facts.
The FACT is, they place trust (faith) in science as a replacement for God, and then try to claim we're anti-science because we tell them that science can't do that no matter how hard they try. We're not anti-science. We just realize that science has limits on what can be proven and disproven. God is outside those limits and therefore not subject to them. They'll find this out someday. As it's written, every knee will bend in submission, before the Creator.:)
There is no such thing as an "evolutionary scientist". I, however AM a biologist. You are a man of Fraud.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#744297 Jun 10, 2014
Cheetah wrote:
<quoted text>
God has always existed, there can't be any other explanation.
It is hard for you, or me or anyone else to understand.
Can you understand infinity?
WE know that infinity exists, but can anyone measure infinity?
The universe, that is Space, is infinite. Can anyone ever tell where the universe starts and ends?
The Big Bang theory that the universe started at a certain date is mistaken. It is matter in the universe that started at a certain date billions of years ago, not the universe. This is the flaw in the materialist science reasoning. They can't think outside of matter.
All matter has a beginning and an end.
Infinity, as in the case of God and space, has no beginning and no end, because it is outside of matter.
Just where is it 'outside of matter?' Can you point to it somewhere in the sky?

And can you explain to me how a uncreated 'God' is possible, and how you 'know' this?
gort

Netherlands

#744298 Jun 10, 2014
Think not? Consider the Gospel of Mark, written a decade before Matthew and from whence much of the Matthean text was copied. There is no hint of the magi in Mark -- no infancy narrative at all. But the astrological references are unmistakable there.

why use an amalgamated, plagiarized mythical fictional book and person to prove astrology

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744299 Jun 10, 2014
EDIT

"I believe there's no proof a god exists."

I believe there's no proof THAT a god exists.

<dangit>

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744300 Jun 10, 2014
Can you disprove my belief?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744301 Jun 10, 2014
That's my challenge.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#744303 Jun 10, 2014
gort wrote:
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders."
you can't go by feelings
when did he become a fighter?
the few followers were jews
what were they?
he was a man of boundless love?
he summoned whom to fight the jews?
fashioning a whip to drive out moneychangers from the temple of prayer is not the same4 as executing 6 million.
how could he be a christian when there is no god?
using hitler to try to disgrace christ is typical of demons with no reasonable way of avoiding HIM.
plagiarism and amalgamation set your fanny where it belongs. you lie. repeatedly, viciously, selfishly, to turn people away from pursuing god. his most severe words targeted people in his day who did the same. satan isn't pleased with you either.
god's truth doesn't change
you are on the precipice of an eternity in the lake of fire. he is not mocked. what you sow you reap.
it takes far more faith to believe the nonsense you do than than to trust jesus. Hitler said he was real. he must be.
Incoherence is a helluva thing.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#744304 Jun 10, 2014
G'night to everyone.

That includes you, RR.

“CHRISTIANITYIS AMENTAL DISEASE”

Since: May 10

"---TOO BAD IT'S NOT FATAL"

#744305 Jun 10, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yet they refuse to delete the xxx, gay male porn you linked.
And which you enjoyed *so* much

You're welcome!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate 4 min HipGnosis 1,965
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Robert F 599,544
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 12 min RiccardoFire 40,862
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 14 min The swamiji 7,491
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 23 min -Stray Dog 6,426
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 35 min Halle Berry Sister 2,774
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 45 min WasteWater 6,294
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,898
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 hr Pegasus 272,404
More from around the web