The real religion?

[Edwardo Piet]

This is as relevant as my mayo-making!

[SteveII]

And round and round the circle we go! Where it stops, everybody knows!

Don't worry, I'm all NT-argued out. Just bothers me when people say "there is no evidence for God" as a rebuttal in just about any discussion when their reasoning fails them.

[FatAndFaithless]

Not even gonna bother engaging that anymore.

[Edwardo Piet]

And round and round the circle we go! Where it stops, everybody knows!

Don't worry, I'm all NT-argued out. Just bothers me when people say "there is no evidence for God" as a rebuttal in just about any discussion when their reasoning fails them.

It's as reasonable as saying "There is no evidence for Zeus."

"It says in the NT that there is a God and he is X, Y and Z."

"Where is the evidence that he actually exists in the world and has those characteristics?"

"It's in the NT."

Circular much?



This is a fallacious argument, not evidence.

And an argument is not evidence anyway!

I haven't been taking you seriously on this thread, SteveII, because it's not worthy of seriousness. I've been rationally arguing against ridiculous religious shit like this since I joined in 2008. Tired of how pathetic it is to be honest. Nothing new. No evidence, just fallacies, biases and wishful thinking.

[ScienceAf]

We have loads of different theistic religions in the world right now. And every one of those claims to be the "real religion". They have it right, and everyone else has it wrong. They're worshipping the real god(s), in the correct way.

What would we expect to see from this? Let's pretend that one of these current religions is the real one.

Wouldn't it be absurdly obvious which one this is? Wouldn't those following the correct religion have some sort of noticable advantage? If God is doing anything at all in return for the worship it is receiving, wouldn't this be clear to all?

What I see is a bunch of people all claiming to have this amazing being on their side, yet none of them are any better off than any others because of it. I can only conclude that either none of them have it right, or God's blessings are so insignificant that I don't even notice them.

Here are the possibilities.

1.) "God" is not all powerful and just simply "evil" in our standards (all though some places and people still think killing non-believers/gay people is fine and threatening people with eternal torture... along with the rape of underage children and with the enslavement of non-believers).

2.) There is no god and the universe is an illusion and the people who created are universe has limited our resources and knowledge and we are their lab rats (metaphorically).

3.) The "Real God" is hiding himself from the world and just wants to see where the humans and other intelligent species take themselves before the death of the cosmos. And then this god will think of something else.

4.) There is no god, and we are the result of the fundamental forces, laws of physics, the physical expressions of maths, and the beauty of the cosmos...

It's not a matter of which is the most plausible (pseudo-science) but it is indeed a matter of which ones are the least plausible (true science).

[LadyForCamus]

And round and round the circle we go! Where it stops, everybody knows!

Don't worry, I'm all NT-argued out. Just bothers me when people say "there is no evidence for God" as a rebuttal in just about any discussion when their reasoning fails them.

And for as long as you can lie to yourself about the bible being "evidence" of God, you can continue to falsely accuse reasonable people of having a failure in reasoning, lol.

[LadyForCamus]

Also Steve, I noticed you went MIA yesterday when the discussion got down to the nitty gritty of the Epistles. I get you have a life, but care to respond to any of that? Particularly m.h.Brewer's question to you about the non-canonical writings? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these things.

[ScienceAf]

And round and round the circle we go! Where it stops, everybody knows!

Don't worry, I'm all NT-argued out. Just bothers me when people say "there is no evidence for God" as a rebuttal in just about any discussion when their reasoning fails them.

There isn't evidence for a god, or atleast testable evidence.

[robvalue]

Of course not. God is heavily science proof, he has to be. It's his number one ability these days.

[brewer]

Also Steve, I noticed you went MIA yesterday when the discussion got down to the nitty gritty of the Epistles.  I get you have a life, but care to respond to any of that?  Particularly m.h.Brewer's question to you about the non-canonical writings?  I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these things.

This might help, #469: http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-47.html