prove to me that god is real

[John Mark E]

Insults are the desperate last resort of a defensive but defeated mind! If you had any good arguments left, you would use them instead!

and yet how many times, throughout these posts, have theists and Christians been insulted, belittled, and ridiculed?

[the preacher]

if people dont want there beliefs laughed at, they should'nt have such stupid beliefs.

[John Mark E]

if people dont want there beliefs laughed at, they should'nt have such stupid beliefs.

One more insult to add to the list, showing, once again, the "desperate last resort of a defensive but defeated mind!" Your opinion of my beliefs doesn't hurt my feelings any. I feel sorry for you having this narrow opinion of others, though.

[the preacher]

no insult intended, my you are touchy.
just stating a fact.
what would you say if someone said, he believed he was issac newton. would you not think it funny, be honest, of course you would.

[Sarkus]

I think 'non-rational' is a more accurate expression Sarkus. Theism doesn't contradict reason, it is just not derived from reason alone.

I think I see where you're coming from, but I think "irrational" is accurate enough. It goes against reason to believe in something without evidence. Hence irrational.
Without evidence, the only rational course is not to believe in it's existence - which is NOT the same as to believe in the non-existence.
To claim theism is "non-rational" is more to say that one reaches it through instinct - without applying reason at all.
While this is certainly plausible, as soon as you do apply reason to it, theism becomes irrational when faced with the lack of evidence.

The atheist worldview limits our birthright to genetics and circumstance, and our purpose to whatever we make meaningful before we die.

No - the atheist worldview is purely to do with theism.
You are confusing atheism with the more general evidentialism. An evidentialist does not limit one's birthright or purpose, but would certainly not have a "belief" in any without evidence of such. Therefore their "purpose" would be entirely self-defined - which is as limiting or as limitless as one chooses for oneself.

The theist worldview of a loving God, holds that our birthright is to be unconditionally loved and our purpose is to love unconditionally. These are inherent in the worldview.

That's all well and good - and if it works for them then good luck to them. But there is still zero evidence.

The 'evidence' for this worldview is not objective facts, but subjective experience, and based on trust. As we progress and that trust is not betrayed, so the evidence from experience accumulates.

This is just bizarre!
Are you suggesting that you are relying on continuing negative-confirmation as evidence?
"I have accumulated evidence that the FSM exists through the fact that he has not contacted me in any way, or given me any sign of his existence other than an old manuscript written some 1000s of years ago, but I trust him, and he has not broken that trust!"

If he does exist, how is he possibly going to break that trust? - by coming down and saying "Sorry guys, I don't actually exist!"

What exactly would constitute, for you, a breaking of that trust to a theist?

Religion isn't science!!!

So it should be exempt from interrogation and scrutiny?
Why?

[John Mark E]

no insult intended, my you are touchy.
just stating a fact.
what would you say if someone said, he believed he was issac newton. would you not think it funny, be honest, of course you would.

Funny-humorous is one thing. And I would probably keep it to myself. Being insulting enough to say it (and they, in escence) were stupid would be something entirely different.

I personally think that most every atheist posting here is misled, and incorrect in their views. However, I am not going to say that they are stupid for believing that. Honestly, I'm sorry that they do feel this way, and hope that maybe something will be said from the alternate view to crack through the barriers that they have put up and are using to argue what I see as incorrect. I still have no intention of belittling any of them for their opinions.

[Sarkus]

Honestly, I'm sorry that they do feel this way....

How pleasantly patronising of you.

... and hope that maybe something will be said from the alternate view to crack through the barriers that they have put up and are using to argue what I see as incorrect.

Such as?

I still have no intention of belittling any of them for their opinions.

Doh! Too late.

[John Mark E]

Such as?

If I knew that, it would have already been said.

Doh! Too late.

Just because I think that many opinions and statements here are wrong does not mean I am trying to belittle them. I've not been the one to come out talking about what idiots these people must be for their beliefs, that they are nuts or "nutters", or any of the other slams which are so thickly laid in these posts. I'm am just stating that I believe that these are incorrect.

[Godless]

LOL, if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is no God, then any nonsense can follow.

If you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is a god, then any nonsense can follow.

And my it has, belief in gods throughout history has brought slaughter, destruction, human stagnation, crusades, inquisitions, which burnings, abortion clinic bombings, kamakazis, human bombs, all that for belief in fary tales.

it's time to give up dogma, and face reality. Religion will destroy the world, with it's stupidity!.

Godless

[cato]

If you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is a god, then any nonsense can follow.

And my it has, belief in gods throughout history has brought slaughter, destruction, human stagnation, crusades, inquisitions, which burnings, abortion clinic bombings, kamakazis, human bombs, all that for belief in fary tales.

I should ask someone, like Daniel Dennett, what he thinks about that. That could very well be the evolutionary niche that religion has carved out. its so simple to make that leap in a society that does not call you a moron for doing so. Moreover, by taking that leap, you open up a treasure trove of opium. hence the reason I call out such morons

[LiveInFaith]

I follow this thread, still got no answer regarding faith.
If there is faith, what's wrong when one follows one's faith? Considering no way to meet any required evidence on the object one be faith in.

[cato]

I don't think people should blindly follow their faith. the more extraordinary the claim, the better the evidence must be for its truth. otherwise you have people willing to do anything because they have faith that they will be given 47 virgins in some afterlife existence.

[the preacher]

If there is faith, what's wrong when one follows one's faith? Considering no way to meet any required evidence on the object one be faith in.

absolutely nothing, unless your trying to promote something as being real, then you must provide some evidence.

[John Mark E]

then you must provide some evidence.

How about 66 books written by more than 40 different authors, spanning a time frame of around 1,500 years, all having a common theme and no contradictions. Some topics were written from different points of view, since the authors ranged in occupation from shepherds to fishermen, doctors to military generals, politicians to princes and kings. It was written in at least three different languages, and even more countries than that. On top of that, throughout those books can be seen the historical accuracies related to the rise and fall of different nations and empires, as well as the prediction for political events that had not happened at the time of the writing, but did in the years following.

[cato]

just because a lot of people believe it, does not make it true. hear-say is not evidence.

[John Mark E]

just because a lot of people believe it, does not make it true. hear-say is not evidence.

I'm not talking about hear-say...I'm talking about:

1: archeological discoveries mentioning visiting Joseph in Egypt during a famine, since they were the only source of food...Professor Niebuhr's "Voyage en Arabie"

2: King Nebuchadnezzar's inscription found by Professor Oppert at a site known as Barzippa, 'tongue-tower', otherwise known as the Tower of Babel

3: Moses and Joseph both mentioned in the historical writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in his book Josephus Against Apion

4: Merenptah-the Egyptian Pharoah was originally discovered in 1898 by French archeologist Victor Loret. The medical examination was only completed in 1975. Due to the examination showing his death by rapid drowning and removal from the water, along with other study gave grounds for the most notable Egyptologist, Sir Flinders Petrie, to conclude that Pharaoh Merenptah was the pharaoh of the book of Exodus.

5: Numerous "seals" have been unearthed in different digs which were directly associated with different historical figures mentioned in the Bible. Among these: Baruch, son of Neriah, friend and scribe for the prophet Jeremiah; Shema, servant of Jeroboam; Abdi, the high official of King Hosea, the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel, before it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 721BC.

These are only a few of the evidences that give credit to the writings and figures of the Biblical scriptures. I can give more if it is truly desired.

[cato]

none of the, say anything about the divinity of anyone. they are simply evidence that the people and places were not made up. today, when people claim to have seen the virgin Mary, nobody doubts the location or person are real. they do, however, question the divine aspects.

[Godless]

How about 66 books written by more than 40 different authors, spanning a time frame of around 1,500 years, all having a common theme and no contradictions.

That's a laugh. The bible as well as the Quaran are full of contradictions. Even contradictions accepted by mainstream scholars.

click

click

Quaran contradictions

koran contradictions

nuff said.

Godless

[KennyJC]

And for any similarities to be there, it's easier to assume they were copying other text's rather than being inspired by a 'holy spirit'... Luke and Matthew seemed to have almost copied Mark to the letter in places.

[x3lawe]

Dansufc...
try gettin the movie if u dont like 2 read.. and check on mosus and prophet Mohammed and all of this is by god.. god gave them powers to do those things... and if ur tht ignorant and didnt realise this is about the muslim religeon...