Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
What has evolution got to do with anything here? I was referring to the fact that you claimed the documents and records were
manipulated, written much later etc.

Nothing...hence my reply to tb_fanboy when he mentioned his research into the subject...here
And as for the last part, I've actually done a basic amount of research on the evolution theory, the Cambrian explosion and I've made the choice for myself.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
Nothing...hence my reply to tb_fanboy when he mentioned his research into the subject...here
I think you accidentally quoted spartanwa. I think it does have somethings to do with religion namely being the Atheist's first alternative to creation. No, it doesnt actually argue for or against a God but the general consensus is that it would disprove a creator. For example, It seems to be Richard Dawkins main argument against a God. I've looked into the theory and from what I've discovered Macro evolution seems pretty hard to believe. I posted a video of William Lane Craig (I wondered who watched it) explaining why it's hard to believe from a theists stand point, and he stumped Hitchens with that. With that almost out of the picture for me, what other argument is there against a creator? The Cambrian? Looking into the theory of Macro evolution has made my belief in there being a God who used intelligent design grew stronger. I also wonder how many people would genuinely believe the theory if it wasn't taught by scientists in public schools.

Oh and by the way, I think Craig would pants Dawkins In a debate.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I think you accidentally quoted spartanwa. I think it does have somethings to do with religion namely being the Atheist's first alternative to creation. No, it doesnt actually argue for or against a God but the general consensus is that it would disprove a creator. For example, It seems to be Richard Dawkins main argument against a God. I've looked into the theory and from what I've discovered Macro evolution seems pretty hard to believe. I posted a video of William Lane Craig (I wondered who watched it) explaining why it's hard to believe from a theists stand point, and he stumped Hitchens with that. With that almost out of the picture for me, what other argument is there against a creator? The Cambrian? Looking into the theory of Macro evolution has made my belief in there being a God who used intelligent design grew stronger. I also wonder how many people would genuinely believe the theory if it wasn't taught by scientists in public schools.

Oh and by the way, I think Craig would pants Dawkins In a debate.
I am not an atheist and I certainly have no need to find an alternative for Biblical creation any more than I have a need to find an alternative to unicorns.
Both either are or are not.

This infatuation with Craig's ability to pants Dawkins in debate is simply anotherside show.

Can you explain how the result would in anyway go toward evidence for God/gods?

A third of the worlds population believe in a God of sorts, that belief has absolutely no bearing on whether God/gods actually exist.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I never said you were an atheist I was just explaining why I think evolution plays apart in the God debate and that's because it is a deciding factor for a lot of people that are atheist and infact I agree with you, it shouldn't be a deciding factor. I suppose the reason people use against God is that is requires none, which is why it is poor.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
I'm an atheist.
I don't believe in the existence of gods. I can argue that point because it is relevant to me being an atheist.

That doesn't necessarily make me anti-xian or anti Muslim or anti Buddhist.
It doesn't make me an evolutionist, hedonist, scientist, liberal or pragmatist.
None of those are relevant to the issue of the existence of god/s.
As PE says, they are just sideshows.
Too frequently used by either side to derail the central issue of belief in gods.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I never said you were an atheist I was just explaining why I think evolution plays apart in the God debate and that's because it is a deciding factor for a lot of people that are atheist and infact I agree with you, it shouldn't be a deciding factor. I suppose the reason people use against God is that is requires none, which is why it is poor.
Evolution is only ever mentioned in religious debate when the "statement", as it is not an argument or a question, "Then who did create the universe?" is made by someone on the religious side of the discussion.

For the atheist, anti-theist or non-theist their is no "who" only the universe.

The fact that the question is irrelevant unless you are actively searching for someone to credit gets on their goat more than anything.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
25,175
Likes
12,130
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
As a lifelong bone idle w@nker, your latest signature really speaks to me.
I prefer the swear filter version.

Listen to the bone idle M O O S,

does the swear filter think we are cows when we use the term w@nker. We are not bovine. We are human. Onomatopoeia, has no matter of poeia on this forum.

 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
So you don't believe there was a first century Palestinian Jew named Jesus Christ?
NO.In case I'd failed to answer this.
I think the "Jesus" or "Christ" myth is a mish-mash of hi-jacked older mythology, rumor and recycling of parables which predate the alleged time frame. I think the name "Christ" is a misappropriation of the name of a real, and well documented person who claimed religious status called Chrestos who lived 30-60 years before Jesus supposed birth and is who was credited with exactly the same supposed miraculous talents.
I believe that every single story in the old testament was borrowed from far, far older societies and that the new testament is a total confabulation, constructed by the Christian Church established by a Roman Emperor for the express purpose of uniting all the wild eyed religious sects of his time and strengthening the foundations of his power and empire. I believe that since the establishment of the Christian Church various powers have used the organisation as a tool of repression and control over population at a time when the only other option was physical repression, not that Christianity did not murder millions who did not tow the line along the way, and that the Christian Churches sole priority since it's establishment is to increase it's power, wealth and control over the populace of the world.
That's exactly what I believe and exactly what all the actual evidence taken as a whole points to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,310
Likes
27,192
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,791
A scientist (who is a devout Christian) has found a reasonable scientific basis for the parting of the red sea as told in the bible. Winds up to 60 mph blown In from the east could of and probably would of separated the red sea of they reached this speed. Computer simulations show a 4km long and 3km wide parting in the red sea that would of been open about 4 hours.
They teach you this at bible class?

Not possible.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,310
Likes
27,192
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #2,792
I was talking about the existance of Jesus Christ, who from as far as I can tell you denied? There's no point discussing the rest if you're going to dismiss this.
  • Do you beleive that there was a 6th century Arab called Mohammed? (fact)
  • That he claimed to be a prophet of God, and that God had given him a mandate to unify the world through Gods will (fact)
  • That he led an army of warriors against a far larger force, won against all the odds, and then unified the enitre Arabian peninsuala, exactly as prophesised (fact).
Ergo, (according to your logic) he must have been a Prophet of God.

He said Jesus was not the Son of God, and was merely an earlier Prophet (in a line of many prophets), of which Mohammed was the final Prophet. He also expressly told you (through Gabriel who was dictating from God directly) how to live your life.

Why arent you a Muslim?

Why are the words and miracles of Jesus and his predecessors to be accepted, yet the words and miracles of Mohammed to be discounted?
 

timskul

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Posts
585
Likes
116
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
  • Do you beleive that there was a 6th century Arab called Mohammed? (fact)
  • That he claimed to be a prophet of God, and that God had given him a mandate to unify the world through Gods will (fact)
  • That he led an army of warriors against a far larger force, won against all the odds, and then unified the enitre Arabian peninsuala, exactly as prophesised (fact).
Ergo, (according to your logic) he must have been a Prophet of God.


He said Jesus was not the Son of God, and was merely an earlier Prophet (in a line of many prophets), of which Mohammed was the final Prophet. He also expressly told you (through Gabriel who was dictating from God directly) how to live your life.

Why arent you a Muslim?

Why are the words and miracles of Jesus and his predecessors to be accepted, yet the words and miracles of Mohammed to be discounted?
In all fairness, what Muhammad claims would then discount what Jesus claimed. They can't 'both' be right, therefore one has to be wrong. The fact that Muhammed seemingly changed his mind on topics he wrote about that coincided with changes to his own circumstance may (from my perspective) suggest a lack of final authority of his words. Add that to the fact he did not in fact perform any miracles, and a number of other differences, and it is pretty clear which one of the two would have a greater stake as the 'divine' character, and who would be your normal human being
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
  • Do you beleive that there was a 6th century Arab called Mohammed? (fact)
  • That he claimed to be a prophet of God, and that God had given him a mandate to unify the world through Gods will (fact)
  • That he led an army of warriors against a far larger force, won against all the odds, and then unified the enitre Arabian peninsuala, exactly as prophesised (fact).
Ergo, (according to your logic) he must have been a Prophet of God.

He said Jesus was not the Son of God, and was merely an earlier Prophet (in a line of many prophets), of which Mohammed was the final Prophet. He also expressly told you (through Gabriel who was dictating from God directly) how to live your life.

Why arent you a Muslim?

Why are the words and miracles of Jesus and his predecessors to be accepted, yet the words and miracles of Mohammed to be discounted?
I am not a Muslim because the Islamic view on God is not consistent with an absolute God such as their beliefs that salvation is from human acts. As timskul said, Muhammad's acts far less suggest divinity than Jesus Christ, if any and it's not a hard option believing which of the two were truly divine, and therefore a Prophet of God.
 

cancat

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
5,707
Likes
581
AFL Club
Geelong
I am not a Muslim because the Islamic view on God is not consistent with an absolute God such as their beliefs that salvation is from human acts. As timskul said, Muhammad's acts far less suggest divinity than Jesus Christ, if any and it's not a hard option believing which of the two were truly divine, and therefore a Prophet of God.
Just say it. You're not a Muslim because you're a Christian. It's not like you have put one up against the other in a unbiased comparison.
 

timskul

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Posts
585
Likes
116
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
Yes at least one implied the two Upton :p

And the above I struggle to comprehend. Everyone has a 'viewpoint' of some sort on just about everything that they comment on. Using that logic no one can argue for anything because everyone is biased towards something.
It is possible, and I would say normal to critically analyse or question ones own beliefs. You can quite easily compare the pair of Muhammad and Jesus and make a critical assessment of their words/actions/evidence for their life etc, whilst distancing yourself from, say, a particular experience in your faith that may otherwise cause the core of your belief to be unshakeable or unchangeable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom