You sure like covering old ground. I don't know all the answers. Ergo, I don't make them up out of whole cloth.

I must ask, though, why's it ok for YOU not to know all the answers, but when i dont, my theory's an absolute farce? please, explain your logic to me.

I think this was covered a long time ago.

See: Burden of proof and proving a negative.

It's because you are claiming to know the answers. You've made several claims about the existence, behavior, and motivation of a being/deity that has supposedly created the universe we live in. You've even gone so far as to excuse genocide done in the name of said deity by being sure that the souls of the slaughtered were ushered right in to eternal rest.

These assertions are wishful thinking at best and willful ignorance at worst.

Just saying that there's a hole in your theory, just as you claim there's holes in mine.

Anyway, i digress. back on topic:

Explain to me why, if there's suck insurmountable proof of no existance of a God or Goddess, why is it that there's still many many many more who DO believe than not?

EDIT: didnt see hrae's post. Once again, the word you're looking for is faith. i have FAITH That there's something more. i have FAITH That Whichever God is up there is merciful. I have FAITH that if there was a mass genocide (which wasnt really the case, seeing as all that happened was durring war, usually not started by isreal, but by some country taking over and enslaving them and preventing any form of monotheistic worship) that he would guide the souls of the innocent to heaven.

Not sure what that argument has anything to do with anything. That's a sociological question and not a religious one.

There was once upon a time when slavery was viewed as the correct way society worked but that didn't make it right either.

That's a really interesting question, one that could fill up pages of discussion of its own. It involves evolutionary biology (cognitive neuroscience) coupled with anthropology and statistics. I'm perfectly willing to try and explain if you're willing to do the reading.

^ Perhaps you're correct, but still, there's plenty of people on the planet who are just as smart as you, or hrae, or vasu, and still believe in religion, and still think freely. why is that?

sorry, that was directed at Ralath.

Anyway, Hrae, my point is not that people naturally believe in God, but people who think freely, and are as intelligent as you or any atheist, and who have mulled this over, still believe. Why do you think that is?

Argumentum ad Populum.

But as Hrae mentioned, it also in a strange way involves Evolution. Dawkins deals with it in an interesting way in "The God Delusion". I can sum it up for you if you like.


I was just about waiting for you to degenerate to this level, no offence meant. You have basically admitted that there is no proof but you believe it for personal reasons, because it seems right. God's malevolence is staring at you in the face and you put a mask on it and say something unfounded to cover it up. I just CANNOT prove anything to you now. I am using the BIBLE the book you claim is 100% true, to prove something to you, and you claim something that isn't really in it, and say that you have FAITH that it happened. Well, I also have FAITH that invisible pink unicorns exist. That doesn't make me right.

There IS proof, but once again, you would claim that it's false, and cooked up by the Church. You'd claim it was all just lies. i tried to show proof earlier in the forum (i.e. the incorruptibility) and Hrae dismissed it as nothing more as wax dolls. He has no proof of them being wax, but he insists that it's just a lie cooked up by the church. It gives the feeling that no matter what proof i give you, you'll just deny its credibility with no real credibility of your own.

However, I dont see how it is that a being who sent himself to be tortured and killed in one of the most horrible ways imaginable to free US is Malevolent.

And you dont really have faith in that; you're using that as an example to how you feel religion is ridiculous. However, you could take that, and say that your faith in the invisible pink unicorn gods/goddesses is nothing more than your soul making an attempt to call out to God, and that he sees and accepts that.

But the "proofs" are so distant and don't really correlate.

It goes like this:

1. A bunch of saints died and didn't decompose.
2. Therefore god exists, and is benevolent, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, and x and y and whatnot.

Because he is the same person who personally killed all the firstborn of people who did not even do wrong, and has ordered all kinds of rape and pillage, while he could have avoided that. Coming to the point, even the death of Jesus could have been avoided. He just seems like a bloodthirsty maniac to me.

Way to miss the point. The point is that just because you have faith in something doesn't mean it's true. And I could take your faith in god's existence and say that it is your soul calling out to the FSM.

Talking about seeing and accepting that, why didn't he "see and accept" the "callings of the soul" of all the people murdered in the OT who didn't worship him?

You have a very distorted view on the OT. He never murdered anyone who didnt first oppress and attack his people. Im sorry, but the Jews in the old testament went through alot of crap. From Exodus, to Maccabees :/

and what the incorruptible saints DO prove is that there's SOMETHING to Christianity. Unless, of course, you're claiming that these people were just fungus-resistant.

My point is that nobody need have been murdered, and yet he let it go on.

Correlation does not equal causation. It's like saying this:

1. Only John Doe can jump up 6 feet high.
2. John Doe is a Buddhist.
3. Therefore only Buddhists can jump up 6 feet high. (AKA The fact that he was Buddhist helped him jump 6 feet high)


EDIT: So your argument goes like this:

1. Some saints' bodies didn't decompose.
2. The saints were christian.
3. Therefore their christian-ness helped them not decompose after death.

No, because jumping six feet high is naturally possible, albeit hard. It's not natural to not decompose. It's not something that you can train yourself to do, or anything like that.

And it wasnt murder so much as slave rebellion and an attempt to teach humanity to keep their hands off of the isrealites. he took care of his people.

Replace that with ten feet, and what do you get? It was just an example.

Isn't everyone "his people"?

At the point in time, the isrealites were the people he chose who would demonstrate his law and set the example for the rest of the world.

It's not quite the same, seeing as it's not defying the laws of nature.

So at that point in time, he didn't give a rat's a** about the rest of the people in the world?

Jumping 10 feet into the air doesn't defy the laws of nature?


You know what? All of this isn't relevant, this naturally possible thing. Correlation still doesn't equal causation.

What, then, do you suggest is the cause?

and i suppose this all goes back to the first covenant with abraham, really.

To tell you the truth, I don't know. But then again, has any research been done on the matter? Has a scientist/researcher been allowed near the bodies? Have they studied the location of the body to see if there was anything at all that could have prevented decomposition? Has an unbiased person analysed the situation?

In what way? You haven't really replied to my post. Do you mean to say that at that point of time, unless you were a jew, god couldn't care less about you?

No, i meant that God made a promise to abraham that his decendents would be numerous, and so he had to protect the Jews. Besides, they're the only ones who had acctually ever listened to him, at the time.

Also, i havent done too much research on that part of the topic. i'll check it out if i get the time.

i THINK i read something saying that a doctor was allowed to check... im not entirely sure if i read it right, or if the source was reliable though. i'll check it out, though.

WHATEVER god had promised, WHATEVER he set out to do could have been done without bloodshed unless it was a promise to kill someone (which also proves my point BTW). There isn't really much research required.



Yeah, the only reason I asked is because for some reason dead bodies are considered sacred by many religions.

do any of those ones not decompose? o_o

And the only thing God did was assist his people in battle when others enslaved and attacked him. Sometimes revolution was required, back then. I.e. Maccabees.

The fact that these did not decompose makes it even more interesting and is a reason why the cause should be researched. However the general attitude I would expect is that the bodies are sacred and not to be disturbed or whatever.

He could have prevented ALL wars, even those initiated by others.

Oh, i thought you meant like, dead bodies of important people in different religions; but yeah, i agree that it should be researched.

And dont forget, he did give us free will. He tried to tell us right from wrong, but we didnt listen to what he said, and chose instead to begin wars. Isreal listened to him, so they were, at the time, his chosen people.

So basically those who listened to him were "his people" and the rest could f*** off?

No, it wasnt that. everyone else just closed their heart to him and attacked others unprovoked at random. Then again, im not a theologist, i dont know the exact doctrine of the church on that.

No worries. The original theologians made it up as they went along, too.

God is omniscient. He saw that most would not "open their hearts" to him.

God is omnipotent. He could have prevented them from beginning the wars which hurt "his people".

Free Will.

If he truly gave them free will, then he shouldn't even have intervened when they imprisoned the Israelites, and killed them. They would just repent for it in the afterlife.

Free Will =/= Impersonal.

He lets us make choices, but, back then at least, he would intervene and bless those who were fair, and just.

Can you distinguish between the two please?

Free will means we make choices for ourselves. Being impersonal means he neither supports, nor decries the decisions, and will favor neither side, therefore not giving either side his blessing.

So if we have free will, and god intervening does not go against free will, why isn't the evil in the world today being stopped by him?

Perhaps after the NT he/she stopped intervening without us asking first. im not sure *Shrugs*

I have to admit I stopped reading this thread because it's said the same thing in different ways over and over.

I came across this nice review, thought of making a new thread but well, it fits much more nicely here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ut-design.html

Read the comments that follow. I always find them fun and informative, more or less extending the scope of the article they correspond to.

And for those who don't have the motivation to read, the nice review is about a book that discusses how life exists without the need for a "designer".

So you could say he's become impersonal?

No, im saying perhaps he wants us to come to him. Perhaps he's always wanted that. Im not sure, i havent really studied the bible heavily. Books i've read include most of maccabees, all of genesis, some of exodus, all of revelations, all of acts, and a bit of all the gospels.

So if I was to pray sincerely for world peace, he would give it?

You should ask all of the religious amputees how well prayer works.