Prime example of what religon does to people...
- Thread starter Cmoke
- Start date
From a complete lack of factual evidence to support the Bible's outlandish claims.
The point is that any man can say anything he can make up. That does not mean whatever he has to say is true and should be taken seriously.
It IS just a book. Any book is just a book. Should I believe Dinosaurs are roaming the Earth somewhere again just because I read Jurassic Park? Why don't we worship Harry Potter? After all, there are books about him describing many "miracles" that he performed.
What experiences lead me to believe the Bible MAY not be all its cracked up to be? Maybe what lack of experiences lead me to believe this would be a better question.
My views on God do not come from anything written or influenced by any man. My views on God come from my own introspection and comptemplation.
Because God has never talked to me, therefore, its unreasonable to believe that God talks to people. You can SAY God talks to you however much you want, but anybody can SAY that. I could SAY tha if I wanted to. That doesn't make it true. I suppose you could say the reason why I believe what I do, is because there is no reason for me to believe otherwise.
This is your belief and you are entitled to it.
Now that we are entitled to our beliefs...
I believe something similar.
Your "logical" possibility is that God told this woman to do these things?
Did you see my first post in this thread? The one where I said I don't think religion is to blame for what this woman does.
I don't know. You're the one who said it can be done, not me.
I didn't say God definitely doesn't talk to people, I said I don't BELIEVE it. Until I have a logical reason to believe God talks to people, then the logical position to take is that it doesn't happen.
I was speaking strictly on the subject of God talking to people.
Absolutely nothing. Do parents teach their children things without evidence or support? Of course they do. What does that have to do with my statement? Children are not the most logical creatures on the planet.
The point is that any man can say anything he can make up. That does not mean whatever he has to say is true and should be taken seriously.
It IS just a book. Any book is just a book. Should I believe Dinosaurs are roaming the Earth somewhere again just because I read Jurassic Park? Why don't we worship Harry Potter? After all, there are books about him describing many "miracles" that he performed.
What experiences lead me to believe the Bible MAY not be all its cracked up to be? Maybe what lack of experiences lead me to believe this would be a better question.
My views on God do not come from anything written or influenced by any man. My views on God come from my own introspection and comptemplation.
Because God has never talked to me, therefore, its unreasonable to believe that God talks to people. You can SAY God talks to you however much you want, but anybody can SAY that. I could SAY tha if I wanted to. That doesn't make it true. I suppose you could say the reason why I believe what I do, is because there is no reason for me to believe otherwise.
This is your belief and you are entitled to it.
Now that we are entitled to our beliefs...
I believe something similar.
Your "logical" possibility is that God told this woman to do these things?
Did you see my first post in this thread? The one where I said I don't think religion is to blame for what this woman does.
I don't know. You're the one who said it can be done, not me.
I didn't say God definitely doesn't talk to people, I said I don't BELIEVE it. Until I have a logical reason to believe God talks to people, then the logical position to take is that it doesn't happen.
I was speaking strictly on the subject of God talking to people.
Absolutely nothing. Do parents teach their children things without evidence or support? Of course they do. What does that have to do with my statement? Children are not the most logical creatures on the planet.
But didn't you previously say:
If you are not saying the validity of the book should be questioned, how then can you say there is a complete lack of factual evidence to support the Bible's outlandish claims? Is it a complete lack of factual evidence or a complete lack of understanding on your part? Well, lets find out!
Have you yourself done ANY research into the topics contained in the bible? No?!?! If not, how can you logically say there is a complete lack of factual evidence to support the claims made within it? Simply put, you can't do it, and I'm not implying that you need to be a scholar, but what I am OPENLY stating is you HAVE NOT done ANY research pertaining to the subject matter, and proof of this is found in THIS thread AND in other threads. Remember, a complete lack of factual evidence implies that there is NO EVIDENCE. ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. If I can show one thing stated in the bible that has been proven factual and supported by scentific/historical evidence your claim falls to pieces. Now, the question is, do we need to go there, or should you be allowed to back peddle and change your words?
The point is that any man can say anything? We are past that point, because I've already said anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't mean it is true. However, what I am saying is to not discount the claim without looking into it or without taking the situation into consideration. You are not required to take the person serious, what you are required to do is look at everything presented before you, validate it (if possible), and apply it (if possible.) Again, if you question the validity of the messenger, it is only natural to question the validity of the message. However, you seem to imply that one should be done and not the other, and this isn't a great idea.
That is how you look at it. To others it is a collection of books. To others it is a learning God, to some it is the worst thing ever created, but to others it contains the word of God and the history (past,present and future) of mankind.
You are missing the point. Please, stay on track here, and read before you reply. Seriously, READ before you reply, and don't just read what I am typing, read what I am REPLYING to (your words.)
Did you not say, "I am not saying the validity of the book should be questioned"? Do you not understand that by reducing it to "just a book", and comparing it to fictional works such as J.P. or H.P. you ARE questioning its validity? Can you see what you are doing, or do I need to elaborate a bit more?
Fine, what lack of experiences led you to believe what you believe?
You are contradicting yourself. Your views on God did not come from anything written or influenced by man? So I take it you practice animism or simple supernaturalism? I take it you grew up in a place where God was not in the media, not ingrained in the culture, not mentioned in school, and not heard from a famility member? Your views on God DO come from written sources and things influenced by man, and I'll prove it with a a two part question. A yes or no will suffice, no need for an in depth answer.
Yes or no, have you read anything in the bible, not believed it, and had your perspective of God, and the idea of God changed as a result of that non-belief? A yes or no will suffice.
That makes no sense at all. Because it doesn't happen to you does NOT mean it doesn't happen to others. If we apply your logic that would mean you believe NOTHING exists outside of what you can sense through your five senses. A lion has never carved your face from your skull, yet it is unreasonable to believe lions can do it. A person has never robbed you, therefore, it is unreasonable to believe you will be a victim of a crime. Your parent never took you to the park, therefore, it is unreasonable to believe your parents will do fun things with you. Do you see where I am going here?
Who are you that God HAS to talk to you? Who are you that God NEEDS to talk to you? Who are you to say, SINCE HE DOESN'T DO IT TO ME, HE DOESN'T DO IT TO OTHERS? I am not saying to NOT base things on your experience. What I am saying, in this instance, is you CANNOT discount the experiences or claims of others based on YOUR EXPERIENCES ALONE.
Of course I am.
SEE ABOVE.
No you don't. Go back and read what you said you believed, and read what I said I believed.
And you wonder why I question your words and ask if you are being serious? I am NOT going to keep repeating myself. The logical possibilities have already been presented. If you want to play dumb thats on you, if you want to think the logical possibility is God, no problem, if you want to overlook the fact that I have listed several things OUTSIDE OF GOD that could be possible reasons for her behavior you are welcomed to do that also, but don't think that the convo is going to remain in the same tone--it's not.
I have no way to prove or disprove what was contained in the original post.
Your response was edited, at 12-05-2006 at 09:09 PM. My response on that page was at 12-05-2006, 06:07 PM. Simply put, I don't know what edits you made, what corrections were done etc. I gave my response, and that was the last time I had a response on that page. Do I see it now? Yep, back then? I don't recall, and since I don't recall, you never posted it (originally). Do you see how that works? I don't recall, so it was never in your original post. God doesn't talk to me, so he doesn't talk to others.
But you are the one asking. You are also saying it can't be done because you have not experienced it.
No, the logical position to take, considering you didn't say God "definitely doesn't" talk to people should be--"It hasn't happened to me, but since there is a possibility, and based on me not definitely saying God doesn't do it, I remain skeptical, and have no real opinion outside of my experience" That my friend is logical. However, you CONTINUE to want to have it both ways, and that ain't gonna cut it with me.
And I was telling you where the belief may come from.
No, it absolutely renders your statement invalid and borderline contrary.
Let us compare that to
(bold emphasis mine)
Your original statement suggests that unless there is evidence, it is illogical to believe something. The only criteria you presented for belief is evidence. However, you admit that parents do teach their children things without evidence to support it. You then proceed to reconcile the claim by stating that children are not the most logical creatures on this planet. They do not have to be the most logical and proof of this is found in the fact that they CAN learn and believe WITHOUT evidence to support the claim. :dead:
If you are not saying the validity of the book should be questioned, how then can you say there is a complete lack of factual evidence to support the Bible's outlandish claims? Is it a complete lack of factual evidence or a complete lack of understanding on your part? Well, lets find out!
Have you yourself done ANY research into the topics contained in the bible? No?!?! If not, how can you logically say there is a complete lack of factual evidence to support the claims made within it? Simply put, you can't do it, and I'm not implying that you need to be a scholar, but what I am OPENLY stating is you HAVE NOT done ANY research pertaining to the subject matter, and proof of this is found in THIS thread AND in other threads. Remember, a complete lack of factual evidence implies that there is NO EVIDENCE. ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. If I can show one thing stated in the bible that has been proven factual and supported by scentific/historical evidence your claim falls to pieces. Now, the question is, do we need to go there, or should you be allowed to back peddle and change your words?
The point is that any man can say anything? We are past that point, because I've already said anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't mean it is true. However, what I am saying is to not discount the claim without looking into it or without taking the situation into consideration. You are not required to take the person serious, what you are required to do is look at everything presented before you, validate it (if possible), and apply it (if possible.) Again, if you question the validity of the messenger, it is only natural to question the validity of the message. However, you seem to imply that one should be done and not the other, and this isn't a great idea.
That is how you look at it. To others it is a collection of books. To others it is a learning God, to some it is the worst thing ever created, but to others it contains the word of God and the history (past,present and future) of mankind.
You are missing the point. Please, stay on track here, and read before you reply. Seriously, READ before you reply, and don't just read what I am typing, read what I am REPLYING to (your words.)
Did you not say, "I am not saying the validity of the book should be questioned"? Do you not understand that by reducing it to "just a book", and comparing it to fictional works such as J.P. or H.P. you ARE questioning its validity? Can you see what you are doing, or do I need to elaborate a bit more?
Fine, what lack of experiences led you to believe what you believe?
You are contradicting yourself. Your views on God did not come from anything written or influenced by man? So I take it you practice animism or simple supernaturalism? I take it you grew up in a place where God was not in the media, not ingrained in the culture, not mentioned in school, and not heard from a famility member? Your views on God DO come from written sources and things influenced by man, and I'll prove it with a a two part question. A yes or no will suffice, no need for an in depth answer.
Yes or no, have you read anything in the bible, not believed it, and had your perspective of God, and the idea of God changed as a result of that non-belief? A yes or no will suffice.
That makes no sense at all. Because it doesn't happen to you does NOT mean it doesn't happen to others. If we apply your logic that would mean you believe NOTHING exists outside of what you can sense through your five senses. A lion has never carved your face from your skull, yet it is unreasonable to believe lions can do it. A person has never robbed you, therefore, it is unreasonable to believe you will be a victim of a crime. Your parent never took you to the park, therefore, it is unreasonable to believe your parents will do fun things with you. Do you see where I am going here?
Who are you that God HAS to talk to you? Who are you that God NEEDS to talk to you? Who are you to say, SINCE HE DOESN'T DO IT TO ME, HE DOESN'T DO IT TO OTHERS? I am not saying to NOT base things on your experience. What I am saying, in this instance, is you CANNOT discount the experiences or claims of others based on YOUR EXPERIENCES ALONE.
Of course I am.
SEE ABOVE.
No you don't. Go back and read what you said you believed, and read what I said I believed.
And you wonder why I question your words and ask if you are being serious? I am NOT going to keep repeating myself. The logical possibilities have already been presented. If you want to play dumb thats on you, if you want to think the logical possibility is God, no problem, if you want to overlook the fact that I have listed several things OUTSIDE OF GOD that could be possible reasons for her behavior you are welcomed to do that also, but don't think that the convo is going to remain in the same tone--it's not.
I have no way to prove or disprove what was contained in the original post.
Your response was edited, at 12-05-2006 at 09:09 PM. My response on that page was at 12-05-2006, 06:07 PM. Simply put, I don't know what edits you made, what corrections were done etc. I gave my response, and that was the last time I had a response on that page. Do I see it now? Yep, back then? I don't recall, and since I don't recall, you never posted it (originally). Do you see how that works? I don't recall, so it was never in your original post. God doesn't talk to me, so he doesn't talk to others.
But you are the one asking. You are also saying it can't be done because you have not experienced it.
No, the logical position to take, considering you didn't say God "definitely doesn't" talk to people should be--"It hasn't happened to me, but since there is a possibility, and based on me not definitely saying God doesn't do it, I remain skeptical, and have no real opinion outside of my experience" That my friend is logical. However, you CONTINUE to want to have it both ways, and that ain't gonna cut it with me.
And I was telling you where the belief may come from.
No, it absolutely renders your statement invalid and borderline contrary.
Let us compare that to
(bold emphasis mine)
Your original statement suggests that unless there is evidence, it is illogical to believe something. The only criteria you presented for belief is evidence. However, you admit that parents do teach their children things without evidence to support it. You then proceed to reconcile the claim by stating that children are not the most logical creatures on this planet. They do not have to be the most logical and proof of this is found in the fact that they CAN learn and believe WITHOUT evidence to support the claim. :dead:
Possibly, I mean I could have just posted a video instead of typing an in depth response. If he was posting in reference to me it doesn't matter. I am not giving him any of my attention any longer, so he can post hundreds of videos with all sorts of gurus--it won't bother me a bit.
BTW, since you want to pop up and make yourself known. Are you going to answer the question? How did these men and women protect her rights?
BTW, since you want to pop up and make yourself known. Are you going to answer the question? How did these men and women protect her rights?
Yes, it is rather illogical. The words 'all powerful' with regards to God usually envokes the word 'infinite' in my mind. God cannot make a rock that is so heavy that he can't lift it because it would lead me to the conclusion that God has made a rock of infinite weight but can lift it because of his infinite strength.
Key word "outlandish." The entire Bible does not make outlandish claims, but even you have to admit there are some pretty out there scenarios in the Bible.
Whatever research I may or may not have done is completely irrelevant. What I meant was that there is no evidence that supports Jesus being the son of God, Moses parting the seas, etc. (the OUTLANDISH claims). There is no evidence to support these claims. If you can prove these things are actually true, I'll happily take that statement back.
Like I said, maybe the Bible is fairy tales or historical fiction. Why question the validity of a work of fiction. I would rather question the validity of the messenger in this case, because maybe the Bible was never intended to be "Getting Into Heaven for Dummies."
I am not reducing it to anything. We wouldn't question the validity of Harry Potter or Jurassic Park, but we would question the validity of anyone claiming that these books are actually factual accounts of real life events.
any experience that would lead me to believe that the Bible is the unquestionable truth.
correct.
I don't know if I would say I "practice" anything in particular. Animism isn't quite it, because I do believe in God. I just don't view God the way Christians do.
I'm from America, so you already know the answer. That really doesn't hold any weight though, because I'm not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (the "big three"). I didn't even believe in God until a few years ago and I didn't change my mind based on anything written, told to me or anything I saw or heard in the media.
No.
There's no reason for me to believe that it does happen.
It can be proven that lions can and will do this type of thing though. It can NOT be proven that God has ever talked to anyone. If there is a way to prove it, be my guest.
I did not say that God HAS to talk to me or that God definitely doesn't do it to others. I don't BELIEVE God talks to people because there is no reason for me to believe so. If in fact it is proven that God actually talks to people, I will change my belief. People can say God has talked to them all they want, but I'm willing to bet that NOT ONE OF THEM CAN PROVE IT. Even you can't prove it.
Ok, its based on my experiences and a lack of proof from anyone who says that God has talked to them. If I have no way of knowing God has talked to someone, and God has never talked to me, what reason is there to believe that such an occurence actually happens?
I said I believe something similar, not that I believe exactly what you believe. I didn't go into much detail regarding my views on God because its hard to explain.
Cute.
No I didn't say it CANT be done. I said I don't BELIEVE it can be done, and as I have stated several times, there is no reason for me to believe so.
It is also logical to not accept something without a logical reason.
How? You asked me whether or not parents teach things to their children without evidence or support. You did not ask me a question regarding what is logical to believe.
Of course children can learn and believe without evidence. Does that make it logical? Children believe in the monster under the bed without evidence. Children believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy without evidence.
Whatever research I may or may not have done is completely irrelevant. What I meant was that there is no evidence that supports Jesus being the son of God, Moses parting the seas, etc. (the OUTLANDISH claims). There is no evidence to support these claims. If you can prove these things are actually true, I'll happily take that statement back.
Like I said, maybe the Bible is fairy tales or historical fiction. Why question the validity of a work of fiction. I would rather question the validity of the messenger in this case, because maybe the Bible was never intended to be "Getting Into Heaven for Dummies."
I am not reducing it to anything. We wouldn't question the validity of Harry Potter or Jurassic Park, but we would question the validity of anyone claiming that these books are actually factual accounts of real life events.
any experience that would lead me to believe that the Bible is the unquestionable truth.
correct.
I don't know if I would say I "practice" anything in particular. Animism isn't quite it, because I do believe in God. I just don't view God the way Christians do.
I'm from America, so you already know the answer. That really doesn't hold any weight though, because I'm not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (the "big three"). I didn't even believe in God until a few years ago and I didn't change my mind based on anything written, told to me or anything I saw or heard in the media.
No.
There's no reason for me to believe that it does happen.
It can be proven that lions can and will do this type of thing though. It can NOT be proven that God has ever talked to anyone. If there is a way to prove it, be my guest.
I did not say that God HAS to talk to me or that God definitely doesn't do it to others. I don't BELIEVE God talks to people because there is no reason for me to believe so. If in fact it is proven that God actually talks to people, I will change my belief. People can say God has talked to them all they want, but I'm willing to bet that NOT ONE OF THEM CAN PROVE IT. Even you can't prove it.
Ok, its based on my experiences and a lack of proof from anyone who says that God has talked to them. If I have no way of knowing God has talked to someone, and God has never talked to me, what reason is there to believe that such an occurence actually happens?
I said I believe something similar, not that I believe exactly what you believe. I didn't go into much detail regarding my views on God because its hard to explain.
Cute.
No I didn't say it CANT be done. I said I don't BELIEVE it can be done, and as I have stated several times, there is no reason for me to believe so.
It is also logical to not accept something without a logical reason.
How? You asked me whether or not parents teach things to their children without evidence or support. You did not ask me a question regarding what is logical to believe.
Of course children can learn and believe without evidence. Does that make it logical? Children believe in the monster under the bed without evidence. Children believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy without evidence.
Well, I quoted XxtraMannish. He wrote,
"Because God has never talked to me, therefore, its unreasonable to believe that God talks to people."
It is this idea that because one has not seen or heard something, therefore no one else has. "I am a fool, therefore all others are fools". I wasn't using that as a reference to you.
"Because God has never talked to me, therefore, its unreasonable to believe that God talks to people."
It is this idea that because one has not seen or heard something, therefore no one else has. "I am a fool, therefore all others are fools". I wasn't using that as a reference to you.
You know what? I came off hostile in my reply to him, and my hostility wasn't really meant to be directed at you. I was saying that to show him that it didn't matter if you were saying it about me because I really wasn't trying to go there with you like that in this thread.
My apologies.
BTW, Do you have more clips of that "guru"?
My apologies.
BTW, Do you have more clips of that "guru"?