(May 19, 2009 at 5:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm)Madscientist Wrote: You could be a real bad drugies, indulging in group sex and Jesus sacrifice will save you?

Just wanted to bold a part of your post I found rather interesting (and odd). Exactly why do you lump people who participate in group sex with "drugies"? What is wrong with group sex that you would think to lump them together with criminals?

Just put two of the things that seemend real bad from what i imagine to be a religious viewpoint together.
I have no prejudice toward drugies or people who have ''out of norm'' sexual behavior. In fact, i can be discribed as both to some extent. While i never participated in a group sex session (and not for lack of willingness, just lack of opportunity), me and my girlfriend are in what we describe as a ''free union''. As for drugs, while i dont nowaday, i once was a user of far more potent stuff than weed.

When i read the way i constructed the sentence, i fully see how it can lead to people making the assumption that i lumped drugs and free sexuality together, wich is in no way the case.

But just to be picky... You by the way you constructed yours, can be seen as lumping drugies with criminals, wich i personally don't even do...
I see drug use as a personal choice, and even selling it don't rate as a real crime in my mind. It is the violent metod the criminal gang use to keep their dominion over its trade that pose a big problem.
And also to some extent the behavior of people under the influence of drugs can pose problems, but i did enough of it to know that if someone is not the kind of person to commit crimes, drugs by itselfs won't make him do it.

Kyu Wrote:I know you claim that but you haven't demonstrated logically or reasonably why that should be so.

Kyu

I have Kyu. Not exhaustively and beyond question I grant you.

(May 19, 2009 at 4:40 pm)Saerules Wrote: The popular forms of gods (being all-powerful, all-encompasing, all-loving, and/or all-knowing [etc.]) are completely impossible. If one defines their gods without these charicteristics: their gods might be possible.

However, the Christian god is supposedly all-powerful, all-encompasing, all-loving, and all-knowing. This makes the Christian god false. Where there is falsehood... there is also truth. An unwavering will is only possible in those who cannot realize the truth. This is only possible through either extreme lack of inteliigence, or by serrious brainwashing.

icthus, if you have an unwavering will: one or the either must be true.

I'd prefer to see it as the popular forms of gods are completely impossible practically. There are still many things that cannot be explained, e.g. ghosts, U.F.O.s, etc, I think mankind hasn't reached that stage where he's able to completely dismiss a possibility, but rather he has the duty to think and question his belief, and believe accordingly.

Your second point does remind me of a part from Nietzsche's AntiChrist.

I quote, "In order that love may be possible, God must become a person; in order that the lower instincts may take a hand in the matter God must be young. To satisfy the ardor of a woman a beautiful saint must appear on the scene, and to satisfy that of the men there must be a virgin."

Yes, it does seem that the Christian God tends to all classes in society, especially in the distant past where conflict was abound. But nonetheless, if such a being does exist, his power to remain hidden from human eye would be out of the question, the real question would instead be why.

I would attribute a majority of Christians to severe brainwashing; to be brought up in a strict Christian family does leave a mark on a child's mind, so yes, in that sense, Christianity is rearing its head towards the younger generation in order to secure its place in theology in the future.

However, I wouldn't draw lack of intelligence to such beliefs. Some of the Christians I know are quite clever, some are even more versed in Philosophy than most of their age. Perhaps the lack of freedom of will? Or perhaps contempt and apathy within one's religion? Those would be better explanations.

(May 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I have Kyu. Not exhaustively and beyond question I grant you.

No you haven't Frodo, you have claimed it and you have argued it but in each and every case you have met a wall of opposition that basically says (at best for you) that the issue remains unresolved and, because you are claiming something which cannot be demonstrated, something extraordinary you are STILL required to supply extraordinary evidence ... only you can't because you have none.

Kyu

(May 20, 2009 at 7:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No you haven't Frodo, you have claimed it and you have argued it but in each and every case you have met a wall of opposition that basically says (at best for you) that the issue remains unresolved and, because you are claiming something which cannot be demonstrated, something extraordinary you are STILL required to supply extraordinary evidence ... only you can't because you have none.

Kyu

We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools. The descriptors of God are human descriptors with inherent human limitations.

The theological questions are not scientific questions requiring evidence. Even consideration of the problems are anti science.

(May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools. The descriptors of God are human descriptors with inherent human limitations.

The theological questions are not scientific questions requiring evidence. Even consideration of the problems are anti science.

So in theology are you free to make up whatever you want and say it's true, just because in theology evidence isn't requiered? Sounds very strange, if not stupid.

Also why can't and theist present any theoritical evidence? I mean the evidence of the string theory is just mathematical for an instant.

If there can be no evidence of any form for God's existence then there's no reason to believe that God actually exists.

Because if there WAS reason to believe God actually exists then that would count as evidence of some form.

If there is no evidence or reason at all to believe that God exists whatsoever... Then believing that he DOES exist is illogical because you are believing without good reason..

And if you have a rational reason to make a leap of faith in God's existence - then if you HAVE a rational reason that would equate to evidence so you couldn't HAVE faith because you can't have faith in something when there is evidence of it.

EvF

Well put EvF, I agree with you

(May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools.

How can you possibly know that?

(May 21, 2009 at 10:17 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools.

How can you possibly know that?

It's scientific. How would you measure an infinitely defined being then?

---

(May 21, 2009 at 7:21 am)Giff Wrote: So in theology are you free to make up whatever you want and say it's true, just because in theology evidence isn't requiered? Sounds very strange, if not stupid.

So you use reasoning for nothing then do you Giff? That's a very primitive reality your living in then. We are capable of thought and we use it. Just because we can't bang it with a rock doesn't mean we can't think about it.

(May 21, 2009 at 7:21 am)Giff Wrote: Also why can't and theist present any theoritical evidence? I mean the evidence of the string theory is just mathematical for an instant.

You've not heard of the Bible then Giff?