You didn't answer my question...

Actually, I think he did.

Its almost always in your best interests to swear on it though. See Lenny Bruce's case. People think you're a real weirdo in America if you aren't a Christian.

That's because I think it's a silly question. Just because someone believes in god, doesn't mean that they will necessarily believe someone who claims to have talked to god. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it would appear to be a fundamental tenent of many religions these days that there is no direct contact between man and the divine.

Or, to put it another way; just because a man believes in god, doesn't mean he can't believe in fruitcakes.

I realize that, but quite often you see these people not even thinking about the possiblity of it being true and dismissing the idea the first chance they get. Ofcourse they don't have to automaticaly believe it's true, but giving it a fair considiration, as a fellow believer, might just only be fair.
But why are you comparing god with a fruitcake?

fruitcake = insane person

god = insane nonperson/nonobject.

Haha.

Anyhoo, okay Nate. What if tommorow the pope would come out and tell all christians on the planet that god spoke to him and ordered him to kill all the jews? The pope is the highest religious power we can actualy see, so would people doubt him as fast as they would a random person down the street?

Well there is the doctrine of papal infallibility so he probably should be believed:p . I suspect that if he did though, the Vatican would quickly put out a press release claiming ill health and over tiredness.

So even the pope is crazy when he talks to god now? This is getting more ironic by the minute. Believing, sure. Praying and requesting things is all fine, but if he chooses to answer you, you're in deep shit. Better hope your prairs(sp) arn't answered then before you end up in the mental hospital.

He's got you there Nate. If you pray for him to help you, but claim it is lunacy if your prayers are answered, it is getting a bit bankrupt.

It's not lunacy because, as I stated earlier, many religions have a fundamental belief that no-one talks to god these days.

In any case, the Catholic church has a department who's purpose is to check miracles. Example: they hire a doctor at Lourdes to verify the thousands of claims of miracles every year. In the last century they have verified only two (2!) as being miracles.

My point being that if someone stood up and claimed to talk to god, everyone would be right to disbelieve him until he showed some sort of proof, given that even the Vatican needs proof.

Yeah, not to mention the fact that the Pope killing all the Jews is a terrible terrible example.

Wouldn't have been 2000 years ago...

Anyhoo,

Last time I checked, there are thousands of people talking to god every sunday. Or every single day for that matter. But yea I get what you mean, it is believed god doesn't talk back.
So is he antisocial or something? Create an entire planet, an entire universe and then just sits there in the corner not even daring to talk to his creations? Oh wait let me guess. Somewhere in the bible there is a reason for that as well.
You can't see him, you can't touch him, you can't smell him and you can't even eat him! You pray to him, he doesn't answer back but if he does then people don't believe you because god doesn't talk to us humans! It's such a funny religion, the bible seems to only want to disprove the existance of god these days. Funny how that works.

Face it Havoc, you just don't get religion on any level. Thus you probably shouldn't debate it, just like if I were to hoe into a conversation on rap music. Or the feminine psyche.

1000 years ago, maybe. 2000 years ago, Jesus was about 12 and Judea was a powerful province of the Roman Empire under Herod the Great.:p

1000, 2000, 5000 for all I care. You know what I mean.

And you are right, I don't get religion. I don't understand any of it. I don't understand why people put their faith into an invisible father figure high up in the sky. I don't get why everyone gets their opinions from a book. I don't get why idiots are killing gay people because a book says they have to. You know what would be scary? If I actualy did get it. Because if I understand something, that would mean it has logic behind it. Religion, of any kind, doesn't not have any logic behind it at all. So no, I don't get it. But I've asked time and time again, if it apparently is so easy to understand, then why don't you explain it to me?
Furthermore, stop implying that I don't know anything about religion in general. I've spend half my life on a heavily christian school, each morning started with praying and reading stuff from the bible when I was f*cking 4 years old, alright? I know the stories of the bible, difference is that I enjoyed reading them as I do any other fairy tale.

*feels awkward*



Why does the Vatican need to prove miracles, when by definition miracles are based upon faith, and proof denies faith? This confuddles me.

^ This has long been a back and forth argument. After all, teh Church say you don't need to prove God, because you should have faith in him without need for pproof. Atheists say you can' believe in something without proof, and that as the Bible has miracles they are proof of God so faith is useless. The Church say the miracles are proof of faith, not of God. Atheists say that there must have been a God to cause the miracles, so therefore there isn't a God as God only exists through faith. It's kind of a Catch 22 argument.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, especialy coming from the athiest side.

1. The church indeed says that god should be a matter of faith and not of proof. I guess that's why they put Intelligent Design in science books...

2. You can believe in something without proof, but not the other way around. You can't disbelieve something that is proven... Then again, christianity has been doing a great job at that so far so I might be wrong.

3. The bible is a book which we don't even know to be authentic. For all we know it's a same kind of story as the three little pigs or little red riding hood. For all we know it was an ancient fairy tale and some idiot started to believe it.

4. If any miracles have ever happened (unexplainable things have happened, yes, but that doesn't automaticaly make it a miracle) then isn't god the only one who could have performed them? No points for the church.

5. And that last argument from the athiests is so stupid that I'm not even going to contest it. It's basicaly like saying that god does exist only they don't realize it...

I never said that you don't know anything about religion, I merely said you didn't get it and, as such, are completely unable to debate it because any answer a religious person can give will go over or around your head. To stretch my previous simile, it would be like debating with a penguin. Or a walrus.

Will you settle for a tiger?
If I debate I'm always open for the other side's arguments, because that's only fair. But if I see all kinds of holes where I can rip the arguments to shreds, then I will do so. When I debate I do it fairly, never with already preformed stuff in my head. I don't start a discussion but already dismiss everything being said by the other party because I don't want to hear it.
So I say again, if you think you can make a valid point and convince me that my arguments are based on stuff that isn't true, then please let us hear it. But don't avoid the questions whenever I make a comment which you don't have a good answer for or whatever.

And I say again, I'm not criticising the way you debate. Merely that nothing you can say will convince a religious person that you're right. And probably nothing that they can say will give you an insight into their mindset.

All of which is a complicated way of saying that I'm bored of this discussion and defending religion when I'm not even religious myself any more.

Hell, I'm bored with reading it.

QFT

Damn.

I'm not saying it's my personal argument, just one that is out there. The Church say proof denies faith, yet they constantly talk of God's miracles which, if they were miracles, are proof of his existence, so either they're contradicting themselves or are saying the miracles weren't really divine (Not explicitly, more through the fact that they preach the miracles yet claim to not preach proof of God). That may not make much sense, but I've heard that explanation-thing said quite a bit.

Unfortunately, although (see my earlier proof) it is impossibly unlikely that any religion is true, it cannot be proven that a religion is false unless its predictions are shown to be false, and most religions do not have testable predictions that occur within a finite timeframe. Also, religions cannot be proven as it is impossible to prove any theory. Therefore, this religion debate will continue between the sceptics and the believers i.e. (those who don't believe until proven) and (those who believe until disproven) forever, or, at least as long as Homo sapiens lasts, which probably isn't going to be very long. I don't really have any problem with people believing things I believe to be ridiculous, or doing things I believe are pointless(e.g. Homosexual relations/sex) except when they try to force me to believe the same thing, which strains my mental structure. Of course, you could argue that since no religion makes predictions of the sort mentioned earlier, they are perfectly acceptable as theories unless they self-contradict (which some do), but I prefer to use the principle of parsimony.

It's a matter of faith, not logical reasoning.

That's exactly what I said about belivers. I said they would believe until the idea was proved wrong, which is true in this case, as most religions cannot be disproven.

Then they aren't true believers. A true believer is someone who will stick with what they believe in no matter how many reformations of their faith go underway by other people. They believe in what they were taught in the beginning and won't shift gears out of fear or doubt.

Anyway, I don't really care. God or life can't be explained in a way that allows humans to fully understand either concepts. With all the scientific advancements humans have made, God is starting to look questionable and with the mystery of life itself, believing in a god makes it much easier to have those mysteries solved without having to actually solve them, so in the end, the best solution to all of this is to simply live life in the way that pleases you most. I'm not saying religion isn't somehting to explore. I myself have dabbled in a few faiths and it was pretty refreshing. It's fundementalism that's bad. To take religion for word for word. To not look for symbols or to not read between the lines.

I agree, and I think I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that believers will believe without proof, while sceptics require proof. I'm not trying to convert you or anything, and I agree about fundamentalism. For my point of view, see my av.

You worship fairies? Lawlz.

What is your problem? How come belief in God is acceptable, while my rather personal religion is not? It just shows how biased our culture is.

Well, some religions are hard to believe and then some religions are down right retarded. The worship of faeries would fall under the latter.

Just like it was your choice to have kids at whatever age, it's my choice to believe in faeries. It's no more unbelievable than Islam or Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism for that matter. It is as valid as all the others except that it has fewer followers.

Magic does have a point, believing in a fatherly figure high in the sky which no-one has ever seen is no less retarded then believing in faeries...

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter. )

You dare deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?!!

FSM rules. Have you seen the video of the giant inflatable FSM towering over buildings on the website that some German guys filmed?

Glad to be, if not believed, then at least supported.

But at least other religions have scriptures. What exactly does your religion have?