Why people want to believe there is a god.

Easy, there is no evidence for god(s)

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
And what about the question why do people want to believe there is no God?

---

All of the above with the addition of physical evidence. Show me an intelligent designed system and the proof that it is designed i.e. evidence for a designed species for example where all data from multiple disciplines supports design over evolutionary mechanisms.I would not mind some physical evidence for Jesus either...Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
So what kind of evidence do you want? Historical evidence? Evidence for prophecies fulfilled after the predictions in the bible? Evidence for Jesus?

---

Homer Simpson is God??? I Knew it!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Show me an intelligent designed system and the proof that it is designed i.e. evidence for a designed species for example where all data from multiple disciplines supports design over evolutionary mechanisms.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

What if you're a theistic evolutionist?

​

Well you included prophecies, and that means I can have a great deal of fun in this thread, probably offending every other Christian around.

---

​

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If most theists (Christian) believe that we're made in their god's image than god must have looked like an ape early on.

---

Hi nos482
You mentioned you are a victim of thalidomide? I am sorry to hear that. If I understand it correctly your genes are fine but thalidomide changes the timing of gene expression in the limb causing limb reduction. Ideally, one would be able to locally reactivate the development process and re-engage the limb development process. I agree that this would be a wonderful (though sadly very futuristic) application of gene therapy.Evolutionary developmental biology (EVO-DEVO) looks not so much at conservation of gene sequences but at conservation of gene expression patterns during development which has a much broader impact on phenotype than a specific point mutation in a non-coding gene. It is very likely that the small differences between chimps and humans for example will be due to slight shifts in timing of gene expression during development...there is already preliminary evidence that humans have altered gene expression in the brain for specific genes relative to other great apes...however, thus far, nobody has been able to track the changes during development.Over the next few centuries as we get a better handle on how all of these processes work I think some marvelous medical applications will be developed....and all of them will face incredible resistance from the radical right who will not understand the techniques but will be against them nonetheless.cheers,
Mammuthus

Greetings gene90
gene90 says:
Because you are here partly to prove the integrity of your faith. If you could just have faith given to you one day it would be pointless. [QUOTE][B]If one already believes in god than god doesn't have to appear to one since there is no need to prove god's existence to one who already believes.[/QUOTE]I say: that is completely circular...ok, if I don't believe (which I do not) then I am not here to prove my faith...so what are you doing here?gene90 says:
One thing that bothers me about atheism is the position that it is ok for you to not bother looking into religion because, if there is a God, you just assume that He will walk into your office one day and introduce Himself. Basically, it is an excuse to be lazy.I say: To put it mildly...horse caca! One, atheism is not a single position..it is as varied as those who are atheist...it is not some monolithic culture or religion. Second, why do you assume that atheists have not "looked into religion"? I looked into several and concluded none have merit. As an atheist I do not sit around waiting for a mythical god to come and prove he/she/it exists. I don't have a shred of evidence that there is one so I don't waste time thinking about it.gene90 says:
A common (and incorrect) belief amongst non-theists is that faith is something some people are born with and the rest have no hope. That's not true. The prophet Alma from the Book of Mormon:My guess is that some of you are also walking around with incorrect definitions of faith. Faith is the "hope for things unseen" not necessarily perfect, absolute knowledge.I say: A common and incorrect belief among theists is that they know what the correct definitions are and that everyone should agree with their version.gene90 says:
By the way, something else you don't realize: you don't need a physical manifestation of God to know that God is there, you just need to feel the Holy Spirit. It will confirm what is true. But manifestations, with very few exceptions, only happen to the extremely faithful and usually then only in holy places (temples).I say:
You could replace God in your sentence with UFOs or Elvis and it would be the same.gene90 says:
I hate to disappoint you, but even the atheists here really aren't eligible for Hell though they will be held accountable for their own sins.I say: Wow, there is an eligibility test for hell? Is it like the GRE's?cheers,
Mammuthus

Ooops missed this one. [QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Three replies so far, two down, one to go. [QUOTE][B]ok, if I don't believe (which I do not) then I am not here to prove my faith...so what are you doing here?[/QUOTE]I'm here to grow my faith. You're here for the same but what you do is your choice and you will be held accountable for it.
***********************************************************Pure unsupported speculation on your part. I am not here to grow my faith and if by accountable you mean in an afterlife I don't believe that. [QUOTE][B]I don't have a shred of evidence that there is one so I don't waste time thinking about it.[/QUOTE][/B]Because you are not looking you are sitting around in your office waiting, and since God didn't walk right up to you you assume there isn't one. Isn't that about right? You were the one who asked for a physical manifestation, I'm arguing about how absurd that is even if there is a God.
**************************************************************Usually I am working in the lab (except when I am posting here )...not twiddling my thumbs waiting for a god I don't believe in to come and prove that it exists. Why is it absurd to expect evidence for something that others proclaim as true? [QUOTE][B]A common and incorrect belief among theists is that they know what the correct definitions are and that everyone should agree with their version.[/QUOTE][/B]I say that if you won't agree on a simple definition you shouldn't have continued replying until the issue was resolved. It only wastes my time, and I feel obligated to reply to all of you. The frustration on my end is continuing to build.
***************************************************************Then stop telling me and others what non-theists believe. If you are getting frustrated because you are not convincing me, nos482, Schrafinator or John to accept the gaga you are spouting then that is your problem. [QUOTE][B]You could replace God in your sentence with UFOs or Elvis and it would be the same.[/QUOTE][/B]They don't have the holy spirit. Nor do they produce works.
Besides if you were actually interested you might try Alma's experiment and find out for yourself.
************************************************************If you don't believe in the holy spirit then that is also meaningless. And Elvis produced lots of works UFOs have produced lots of works if you count X-files and tons of strange movies [QUOTE][B]Wow, there is an eligibility test for hell? Is it like the GRE's?[/QUOTE][/B]As hard-headed and frustrating you people can be you don't know enough to be sent there. The more knowledge of God you have the more you are accountible for.
*************************************************So if one is stupid they can't go to hell? That should save a lot of people.Trust me though, you're going to stand trial for lots of things and testimonies will be given against you but you won't be thrown into the Outer Darkness. [/B][/QUOTE]***********************************************************Great to know...I'll hire a good lawyer and won't bother bringing a flashlight

How is this evidence of historical corroboration? After a religion is established and its text are widely translated this just establishes that the new testament was widely read. If a John Grisham novel is translated into 2,000 languages and we come back 10 years from now are the contents of his novel historically corroborated? By your standards yes. That the new testament was written down only corroborates that the new testament was written down...the contents are a myth.And it is always fun to watch one christian sect bash another

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Unfortunately for you then, if you want historical corroboration, the bible has it. There have been found over 24 000 manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence, plus 15 000 versions written in Latin and Syriac. (Compare this to only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings still existing today, 10 copies of the writings of Caesar). With the earliest manuscripts corresponding to the bible we have now, we have evidence that the New Testament has not been tampered with.

​

However, for the Mormon 'The Pearl of Great Price' (the book of Abraham) translation by Joseph Smith, there is substantial evidence it has been modified and tampered with, along with the fact that Joseph's translation of 'The Pearl of Great Price' was totally wrong, shown when the text Joseph Smith translated from, 'The Pearl of Great Price', was found and translated by recent Egyptologists using Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar', Joseph Smith's 'The Pearl of Great Price' was shown to be the Egyptian 'Book of Breathings'; which was even admitted by Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley. When the real manuscript of 'The Pearl of Great Price' was found, it was nothing like what Joseph Smith's translation.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002]

---

Maybe somebody hacked his account....or he is high on peyote. [QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][QUOTE]Maybe one of the requirements of "finding religion" is to have a lobotomy of the logic and reason centres of the brain?[/B][/QUOTE]OK, this it the "mean" part I am talking about. Try not to be mean.I'm not saying I disagree with you, but this situation is different. This is Gene, who used to blow me away with how bright he is and how well-informed he is in debate.Gene is still this person somewhere in there. One can't really unlearn critical thinking skills (at least I hope).[/B][/QUOTE]

Again, you say the bible is true because the bible says so...this does not prove anything...I am not sure how bashing the Quran adds any weight to your argument either. They are both mythological texts. Greek mythology also occassionaly refers to historical events...guess we should all watch out for Zeus. Oh yeah, and John Grisham has been translated into many different languages Praise thee oh Grisham

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

How is this evidence of historical corroboration? After a religion is established and its text are widely translated this just establishes that the new testament was widely read. If a John Grisham novel is translated into 2,000 languages and we come back 10 years from now are the contents of his novel historically corroborated? By your standards yes. That the new testament was written down only corroborates that the new testament was written down...the contents are a myth.

---

​

Mmm? really? I'll give you a few examples.
Biblical Manuscripts |Date written|Earliest Copy|Time Span|

​

Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)|1st century |50-60 AD |co-existant (?)|

​

John Rylands (John) |90 AD |130 AD |40 years |

​

Bodmer Papyrus II (John) |90 AD |150-200 AD |60-110 years |

​

Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)|1st century| 200 AD | 150 years |

​

Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)|1st century| 200 AD |150 years |

​

Codex Vaticanus (Bible) |1st century |325-350 AD| 275-300 years |

​

Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)| 1st century| 350 AD| 300 years |
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)| 1st century 400 AD| 350 years |

​

And since the John Grisham novel hasn't been translated into that many languages, even with all the printing resources, consider the bible; without printing presses that many manuscripts were produced in many different languages. Please contrast this with the Qu'ran. More than 100 years after Muhammed's death, we still do not have any verifiable Muslim documents. The primary sources to which Islam uses are about 150-300 years after the events they describe. Even if the documents had desintegrated, there should be fragments to which we could refer to. However, there is none. Two of the primary documents that Muslims use are the Samarkand Manuscript and the Topkapi Manuscript. However, these two were written in Kufic, which according to experts did not appear until the late 8th century.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-08-2002]

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by hell. Most Modern Christians get their idea of what hell is from Dante's Inferno.

---

Well, hell is a helluva lot worse than Dante's Inferno, let me tell you that.>So you have direct, reproducible evidence of hell...let's see it so we can evaluate the evidence you claim to have...this should be good

quote:

---

Apples and oranges. Plus, you got it backwards. First they put forth the theories then they search for the evidence and the theory which matches is the one which is used, if none match than a new theory is put forth. With Creationists they ignore all of the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".

---

We could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists. They ignore all the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".--An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind>Keeping your eyes closed and muttering the same creationist mythology mantra makes you blind...how about actually LEARNING something about science and the scientific method and actually READING a scientific description about evolution before spouting off nonesense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

You've been here a while and you still don't know what evolution is?

---

​

Random mutations + natural selection then. However, abiogenesis could certainly be classified as random chance.

​

--Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

---

Define random mutation
Define natural selection
Know what the neutral theory is?
How about genetic drift?Your above statement does not suggest you know anything about the theory of evolution.However, abiogenesis could certainly be classified as random chance.So could winning the LOTTO...what's you point?Glad to see your admission of the large number of inconsistencies in the bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Nope... NDEs are near death experiences. According to statistics, 33% of people near death experience an NDE, but quickly forget about it in a few days/weeks.

​

You just described drug induced hallucinations as well. So if a crackhead sitting next to you starts yelling that jesus is doing a jig on your head would you accept that as evidence for your beliefs as well?

​

quote:

---

Religion: "God did it and that is good enough for me..."

​

Science: "Let's see what actually happened and maybe learn something new and different..."

---

​

Mmmm, really? Then why would we need scientific institutions such as ICR?

---

The answer is WE DON'T need ICR for anything...except laughs.

Hey nos482blitz used near death experience as experimental evidence for hell and the ICR as a scientific institution...should we book him for a stand-up comedy gig

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by blitz77:

​

Science is based on statistics to check reliability of an experiment.

​

Experimental stats used in a lab are not the same thing as those used to on the outside world. It is a matter of scale and number of varibles.

​

Which books?

​

Exactly.

​

MonaStereo.com is for sale | HugeDomains

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B][quote]Hmmm? Try going to any hospital or nurse ward some time. Ask the nurses about near death experiences. Most will tell you about near death experiences by patients. There are numerous books on the subject-by psychologists, doctors, etc. Ever read one?Try talking to a person after a major traumatic event...they will tell you all sorts of strange things....or a tripped out crackhead....And I find it interesting that you reject evolution out of hand even though it is supported by thousands of scientists in multiple disciplines yet use the fact that psychologists or doctors analyzed near death experiences as somehow validating your view. So you only agree with science when it supports your religion but when you are shown to be wrong suddenly all science is bogus....By the way, what was the testable hypothesis examined for a near death experience...how does this provide evidence that there is a hell and what it is like (per your original post)?