True religion

[SPECTACULAR]

i'm wondering if we asked some one does not know any thing about religions

( who is your god ) i wondering what his answer

this person didn't know any thing he is ( eating and drinking and sleeping )

i mean he didn't know any thing about religions

some people say when the person come in this world he is ( a faithful person )

even if we do not teach him the religion ( he is a faithful )

he is a believer naturally

i do not know if this words right or wrong

[Sword of Christ]

It's not that one religion is entirely true and the others entirely wrong, a Christian can agree with a Muslim or a Jew on many points and disagree on a few other points. With atheism/naturalism you have more of an absolutest view where you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong about everything they believe there isn't a middle ground where you can agree on certain details. A believer can acknowledge/accept the scientific premise that when you can't know something for certain based on physical data then there is some room for doubt in your specific faith, but there has always been room for that anyway it's not a purely post Enlightenment occurrence or religion yielding to the pressure from science. Science is perfectly compatible with God of course seeing as for the most part it addresses as separate issue regarding the mechanics of how physical observable processes operate. Science doesn't and can't explain where why all these physical processes and laws of physics exist or where they came from to begin with however.

[EvolutionKills]

It's not that one religion is entirely true and the others entirely wrong, a Christian can agree with a Muslim or a Jew on many points and disagree on a few other points.

Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are the real deal-breakers, isn't it? The Jews don't follow Jesus, the Christians think he was the son of god, and the Muslims think he was just a prophet. If saying 'it's enough that we all believe in the same god', then please help me explain the thousands of years worth of interfaith violence, war, and death?

With atheism/naturalism you have more of an absolutest view where you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong about everything they believe there isn't a middle ground where you can agree on certain details.

Do you have evidence to support your position? No? Then don't whine and bitch about it to us. If your position lacks evidence, change your position; simple as that.

A believer can acknowledge/accept the scientific premise that when you can't know something for certain based on physical data then there is some room for doubt in your specific faith, but there has always been room for that anyway it's not a purely post Enlightenment occurrence or religion yielding to the pressure from science.

Reminder: If you have facts and evidence, one doesn't need 'faith'.

Science is perfectly compatible with God of course seeing as for the most part it addresses as separate issue regarding the mechanics of how physical observable processes operate.

Do you claim that your god affects the natural world? If so, then your god can be tested. If not, then your god is unfalsifiable; but conversely unable to affect the natural world. So which is it? Do you have an interventionist deity that interacts with the world, and yet we have no evidence for? Or can he do nothing to affect nature, and is in essence identical to a non-existent god?

Science doesn't and can't explain where why all these physical processes and laws of physics exist or where they came from to begin with however.

Who in the hell are you to say what science can not explain? Everytime anyone has every drawn that line in the sand, it has eventually been crossed by the unrelenting forward march of scientific progress. All one can say with confidence is that science hasn't explained it yet.

[Sword of Christ]

Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are the real deal-breakers, isn't it?

When it comes to faith and what you can't know for certain there is quite a lot of room for disagreement. Atheists have decided to disagree with the whole entire thing in absolute totality which is a little bold of them. Ok so we don't have hard scientific factual data of Gods existence so it's possible he doesn't exist but that's just something you decide to take on belief like anyone else so I don't see what deal is meant to be broken.

The Jews don't follow Jesus, the Christians think he was the son of god, and the Muslims think he was just a prophet.

It's good to have the choice I guess, it's best not to give anyone a faith monopoly. So most people tend to stick with the what they were raised with though that's not always the case and those who don't tend at least understand the other points of view and consider them. Atheists are influenced by the common beliefs and views of the culture into which they were born as well in any case. Since the 17th century atheism/naturalism has become very well rooted into Western culture, for educated people it has now become the default worldview of choice and our culture/media has become saturated with it. Popularity and cultural transmission of ideas is not an indicator of truth though so there is nothing delusional about a belief in God, a God you can pray to who does interact with you.

If saying 'it's enough that we all believe in the same god', then please help me explain the thousands of years worth of interfaith violence, war, and death?

You would still have violence, war and death without religion or belief in the supernatural as Fascism and Communism demonstrated very well. The question is whether the positive changes religion brought to the world would have occurred if there had been no spiritual inspiration or belief in any power/authority beyond that of man.

Do you have evidence to support your position? No?

It depends what kind of evidence you mean. If you mean scientific evidence the best you can do is put what we know into the context of a purpose made creation as we can't study God directly only what he made. If you put our scientific understanding into the greater context with humanity as a integral part of the whole then then it makes a great deal of perfect sense. You will wonder why other people can't see it once you come to this understanding.

Then don't whine and bitch about it to us. If your position lacks evidence, change your position; simple as that.

Evidence of a certain kind with good solid arguments in support of it is what you have. No-ones saying that God is a scientific claim science studies the universe God created, the stuff we can physically see and/or detect and that's the limit of it. It doesn't necessarily mean we're limited to that kind of knowledge if there is another kind of knowledge out there we can attain.

Reminder: If you have facts and evidence, one doesn't need 'faith'.

Well yes that's why it's called faith. You see there is a chance whatever you believe is wrong but there's a chance atheists are wrong to not believe in God, not to pull a Pascals Wager on you. So You have to take the facts and arguments you have and decide what you want to believe. As long as you know the option is a real and valid one that's the best I can do. You can lead a horse to water and all that business.

Do you claim that your god affects the natural world?

Yes but what we scientifically observe of the natural world will just become part of science and we can't observe everything. God sustains the existence of the universe and I believe is manifested in life and consciousness, particularly in the grade of consciousness that mirrors his image, that would be humanity and anything equivalent should life exist elsewhere I would suggest it does.

If so, then your god can be tested.

I suppose not if God is beyond what we can observe and test. You can try to experience the presence of God for yourself through prayer though that is subjective to yourself. There is parapsychology and NDEs and that kind of thing which does come a little into what we can observe or obtain data from but I wouldn't base a faith on it. Though inconclusive scientifically I think there is something there of interest in terms of the nature of consciousness and it's interaction/relationship with physical matter.

If not, then your god is unfalsifiable

You can't demonstrate Gods existence through science so you will have to fall back on personal experience, rational deduction and external revelation from God.

; but conversely unable to affect the natural world.

God is the creator and sustainer of the natural world and every person, creature, star and planet within it, he does more than just affect it you're looking at the reason why it even exists at all the underlying context of everything. This is kind of a big deal here not something arbitrarily thrown in that we could don't particularly need.

So which is it? Do you have an interventionist deity that interacts with the world

The interaction is continual and you live within the interaction and you are the result the interaction so it's difficult to know what you would want to physically see that would satisfy you. There isn't anything of God you can physically see. There were real historical people people who say had an experience of the risen Christ whatever that experience entailed but we can't subject their experience to science, this is something is beyond what we can observe and is forever beyond our reach.

, and yet we have no evidence for?

Evidence of a certain kind if you're open minded and/or you are impressed by the rational and moral arguments for God.

Or can he do nothing to affect nature, and is in essence identical to a non-existent god?

Nature is the effect and life/consciousness and freewill is the interaction. If you mean miracles they would be built into the nature of reality and there would be some kind of context into which such events could operate they wouldn't just happen. But even you were to witness such an event yourself that wouldn't necessarily prove God exists to you seeing as for all we know it is possible for an advanced alien like the Q from Star Trek to replicate some kind of Biblical feat without the aid of God. So you will still require faith in God based on the same reasons.

Who in the hell are you to say what science can not explain?

It only covers what we can visibly observe and/or detect, there is a lot we can't normally see and detect that science has revealed and no doubt there is a great deal more. But God by definition is forever beyond what ever can be seen, observed and detected. You can observe the interaction but the interaction covers the whole of the universe 24 hours of the day, or whatever hours in a day a planet has. So that doesn't really help if you're trying to "prove God with science" you can't do that so don't worry about it.

Everytime anyone has every drawn that line in the sand, it has eventually been crossed by the unrelenting forward march of scientific progress.

But there isn't a line to draw when it comes to God and faith in a revelation from God and our relationship to God. You can't drag God into a laboratory for testing, you have nothing physically there and if there was that wouldn't be God.

All one can say with confidence is that science hasn't explained it yet.

It explains what we are able to physically study and observe we can't go beyond that.

[KUSA]

Klingon Jesus is the true savior.

[Rampant.A.I.]

KAPLAH

[EvolutionKills]

Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are the real deal-breakers, isn't it?

When it comes to faith and what you can't know for certain there is quite a lot of room for disagreement. Atheists have decided to disagree with the whole entire thing in absolute totality which is a little bold of them. Ok so we don't have hard scientific factual data of Gods existence so it's possible he doesn't exist but that's just something you decide to take on belief like anyone else so I don't see what deal is meant to be broken.

So a lot of people believe a lot of crazy things for bad reasons and no evidence, and that's somehow makes the atheists assholes for not buying into any of it? Are you that stupid?

The Jews don't follow Jesus, the Christians think he was the son of god, and the Muslims think he was just a prophet.

It's good to have the choice I guess, it's best not to give anyone a faith monopoly. So most people tend to stick with the what they were raised with though that's not always the case and those who don't tend at least understand the other points of view and consider them. Atheists are influenced by the common beliefs and views of the culture into which they were born as well in any case. Since the 17th century atheism/naturalism has become very well rooted into Western culture, for educated people it has now become the default worldview of choice and our culture/media has become saturated with it. Popularity and cultural transmission of ideas is not an indicator of truth though so there is nothing delusional about a belief in God, a God you can pray to who does interact with you.

Evidence motherfucker. None of those faiths have it, so quite your bitching and weak attempts at equivocation.

If saying 'it's enough that we all believe in the same god', then please help me explain the thousands of years worth of interfaith violence, war, and death?

You would still have violence, war and death without religion or belief in the supernatural as Fascism and Communism demonstrated very well. The question is whether the positive changes religion brought to the world would have occurred if there had been no spiritual inspiration or belief in any power/authority beyond that of man.

Three response in and you're already trying the Nazi card? In case you hadn't notice, I hadn't made an infantile remark along the lines of 'it's enough to say we all don't believe in any god and that will lead to world peace'. Because that would be stupid.

Do you have evidence to support your position? No?

It depends what kind of evidence you mean. If you mean scientific evidence the best you can do is put what we know into the context of a purpose made creation as we can't study God directly only what he made. If you put our scientific understanding into the greater context with humanity as a integral part of the whole then then it makes a great deal of perfect sense. You will wonder why other people can't see it once you come to this understanding.

Testable, verifiable, objective science; also known as just science. What you said amounts to 'if you allow cognitive bias, it all makes sense!', which is true, if you allow cognitive bias and ignore evidence.

Then don't whine and bitch about it to us. If your position lacks evidence, change your position; simple as that.

Evidence of a certain kind with good solid arguments in support of it is what you have. No-ones saying that God is a scientific claim science studies the universe God created, the stuff we can physically see and/or detect and that's the limit of it. It doesn't necessarily mean we're limited to that kind of knowledge if there is another kind of knowledge out there we can attain.

Do you have any evidence for the 'knowledge' you claim to have? No? Then you don't know it, and it's not knowledge, it's just empty assertions and conjecture. If you can't show it, then you don't know it; and you need to stop pretending like you do.

Reminder: If you have facts and evidence, one doesn't need 'faith'.

Well yes that's why it's called faith. You see there is a chance whatever you believe is wrong but there's a chance atheists are wrong to not believe in God, not to pull a Pascals Wager on you. So You have to take the facts and arguments you have and decide what you want to believe. As long as you know the option is a real and valid one that's the best I can do. You can lead a horse to water and all that business.

No, you don't choose belief. You can claim to, but that's not how belief works. Belief is an obligate condition based on our knowledge. I know too much about the polytheistic pagan origins of your religious texts, the evaluation of evidence, and how the universe works; to ever believe in your Yahweh. Until there is some solid evidence for anything supernatural, god-claims get put into the same dustbin as all other unsubstantiated claims; such as auras, meridians, faith healing, psychics, astral projection, dowsing rods, etc.

Do you claim that your god affects the natural world?

Yes but what we scientifically observe of the natural world will just become part of science and we can't observe everything. God sustains the existence of the universe and I believe is manifested in life and consciousness, particularly in the grade of consciousness that mirrors his image, that would be humanity and anything equivalent should life exist elsewhere I would suggest it does.

If you claim that your god 'sustains' the physical universe (whatever that means), then it can be tested. Do you have the evidence to support that assertion? No? Then you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

If so, then your god can be tested.

I suppose not if God is beyond what we can observe and test. You can try to experience the presence of God for yourself through prayer though that is subjective to yourself. There is parapsychology and NDEs and that kind of thing which does come a little into what we can observe or obtain data from but I wouldn't base a faith on it. Though inconclusive scientifically I think there is something there of interest in terms of the nature of consciousness and it's interaction/relationship with physical matter.

So you have no evidence, but you lack the shame to prevent you from making wild claims on reality despite that. So you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

If not, then your god is unfalsifiable

You can't demonstrate Gods existence through science so you will have to fall back on personal experience, rational deduction and external revelation from God.

Right, so no evidence then. Why should anyone believe in your particular brand of woo-woo bullshit if there is no evidence? So ultimately no evidence again? Then you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

; but conversely unable to affect the natural world.

God is the creator and sustainer of the natural world and every person, creature, star and planet within it, he does more than just affect it you're looking at the reason why it even exists at all the underlying context of everything. This is kind of a big deal here not something arbitrarily thrown in that we could don't particularly need.

Can you prove it? Do you have any evidence to support your blanket assertions about reality? No? Then you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

So which is it? Do you have an interventionist deity that interacts with the world

The interaction is continual and you live within the interaction and you are the result the interaction so it's difficult to know what you would want to physically see that would satisfy you. There isn't anything of God you can physically see. There were real historical people people who say had an experience of the risen Christ whatever that experience entailed but we can't subject their experience to science, this is something is beyond what we can observe and is forever beyond our reach.

So no evidence again for any of your claims? Then you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

, and yet we have no evidence for?

Evidence of a certain kind if you're open minded and/or you are impressed by the rational and moral arguments for God.

Objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable evidence? Right, you don't have any of that. You have personal subjective experiences, and hearsay account from non-eyewitnesses pass along the longest game of telephone in history; also known as 'not evidence'. So you're a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

Or can he do nothing to affect nature, and is in essence identical to a non-existent god?

Nature is the effect and life/consciousness and freewill is the interaction. If you mean miracles they would be built into the nature of reality and there would be some kind of context into which such events could operate they wouldn't just happen. But even you were to witness such an event yourself that wouldn't necessarily prove God exists to you seeing as for all we know it is possible for an advanced alien like the Q from Star Trek to replicate some kind of Biblical feat without the aid of God. So you will still require faith in God based on the same reasons.

So still no evidence then? Then you're still a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

Who in the hell are you to say what science can not explain?

It only covers what we can visibly observe and/or detect, there is a lot we can't normally see and detect that science has revealed and no doubt there is a great deal more. But God by definition is forever beyond what ever can be seen, observed and detected. You can observe the interaction but the interaction covers the whole of the universe 24 hours of the day, or whatever hours in a day a planet has. So that doesn't really help if you're trying to "prove God with science" you can't do that so don't worry about it.

Funny how your god used to have a thrown on top of the firmament, until we realized we didn't live inside a cosmic snowglobe. He used to come down and show himself in the flesh to Abraham and wrestle with Jacob, but he hasn't done that since the invention of the camera. He was threatened by the encroachment of the Tower of Babylon into Heaven, yet made not a peep when we set foot on the moon. Why is your god always just out of reach? Why now do you have to define him into effective nonexistence? Because of the relentless advancement of science. But instead of coming to terms with reality and saying 'there is no evidence for this god concept, any belief in it is entirely unsupported, and thus unwarranted', you just continue to lie and make up wild bullshit and play word games.

So still no evidence then? Then you're still a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

Every time anyone has ever drawn that line in the sand, it has eventually been crossed by the unrelenting forward march of scientific progress.

But there isn't a line to draw when it comes to God and faith in a revelation from God and our relationship to God. You can't drag God into a laboratory for testing, you have nothing physically there and if there was that wouldn't be God.

So it can never be tested and verified, what reason do you have to believe in it? Beside the fact that you're still a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

All one can say with confidence is that science hasn't explained it yet.

It explains what we are able to physically study and observe we can't go beyond that.

Claims made without evidence are unjustified, and can be dismissed without evidence. So you're still a liar who makes baseless assertions in the advancement of your prefered delusion.

[Esquilax]

It's not that one religion is entirely true and the others entirely wrong, a Christian can agree with a Muslim or a Jew on many points and disagree on a few other points. With atheism/naturalism you have more of an absolutest view where you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong about everything they believe there isn't a middle ground where you can agree on certain details.

I wish you'd relinquish this deathgrip you have on the idea that you know more about what atheists believe than they do, because it really makes conversations hard. Truth is, you and I probably agree on a great many things, bar the existence of your god and the magic claims associated with it. It's simply untrue to say that you're wrong about everything, but you are wrong about this specific genre of things.

This kind of misunderstanding is what happens when you decide to speak in absolutes about a class of people whom you've never been one of; theistsplaining is never going to actually get to the heart of the issue. Especially when you begin by ascribing us 100% certainty, when generally speaking we're a group of people who don't think certainty is possible on any issue, bar a handful of axioms.

Science doesn't and can't explain where why all these physical processes and laws of physics exist or where they came from to begin with however.

Science won't even attempt it until there's some reason to believe that the laws of physics "came from" anywhere, rather than just being an inherent property of the universe. Do you have any evidence of that?