I apologize wholeheartedly for mistakenly accusing you of arse-face related comments.
Let's just clarify something though, my belief in there being a God does not rely on the Bible at all. Religions exists across humanity, with or without religious scriptures. Take away the bible and I still believe in God. I may have a different understanding of him but the bible is not a necessity to believe. As I have stated several times, I see the bible as a guide to life that must be interpreted taking into account the historical and political context in which every page was written.
My belief is not a choice. If you have a red ball, no matter how many times you choose to say it's blue, it remains red and you will still believe it to be so. If, however, it can be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment to be blue and not red, them I would change my belief.
I think we agree that the variations in religion are a reflection on man but that does not logically lead to "therefore, he does not exist".
This is not about winning. This is merely about trying to get you to understand my position. I have already said that I think your position is valid and I understand that when presented with a lack of empirical evidence, people will take a particular perspective, regardless. Yours is atheist, mine is theist. We are not in a position to scientifically prove either way and our attempts at logical resolution are always flawed because we end up being reduced to a "tis" "tisn't" argument. The philosophy I find interesting but I sense you are tiring of it. Like I said about Schrodinger's Cat, God both exists and doesn't exist until we can prove it either way. Until then, you believe he doesn't and I hold to the contrary. I am happy to leave it at that.
Let's just clarify something though, my belief in there being a God does not rely on the Bible at all. Religions exists across humanity, with or without religious scriptures. Take away the bible and I still believe in God. I may have a different understanding of him but the bible is not a necessity to believe. As I have stated several times, I see the bible as a guide to life that must be interpreted taking into account the historical and political context in which every page was written.
My belief is not a choice. If you have a red ball, no matter how many times you choose to say it's blue, it remains red and you will still believe it to be so. If, however, it can be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment to be blue and not red, them I would change my belief.
I think we agree that the variations in religion are a reflection on man but that does not logically lead to "therefore, he does not exist".
This is not about winning. This is merely about trying to get you to understand my position. I have already said that I think your position is valid and I understand that when presented with a lack of empirical evidence, people will take a particular perspective, regardless. Yours is atheist, mine is theist. We are not in a position to scientifically prove either way and our attempts at logical resolution are always flawed because we end up being reduced to a "tis" "tisn't" argument. The philosophy I find interesting but I sense you are tiring of it. Like I said about Schrodinger's Cat, God both exists and doesn't exist until we can prove it either way. Until then, you believe he doesn't and I hold to the contrary. I am happy to leave it at that.
Love 'n' hugz,
Lord Chad
4th Earl of Catsuit
There is nothing more dangerous than a man who knows he is right.
Lord Chad
4th Earl of Catsuit
There is nothing more dangerous than a man who knows he is right.
