Jklint wrote:Since there was never any historical manifestation of one and even science can't find a reason for there being one or in any way needing one that would confirm to me that majestic silence in the wake of ITS complete nonentity.

One's flavor of God only exists when YOU wish to create something out of nothing and then challenge others to "disprove" it!

Jklint wrote:

dparrott wrote:

Jklint wrote:Since there was never any historical manifestation of one and even science can't find a reason for there being one or in any way needing one that would confirm to me that majestic silence in the wake of ITS complete nonentity.

One's flavor of God only exists when YOU wish to create something out of nothing and then challenge others to "disprove" it!

Historical manifestation like Jesus? Your wrong about science it's not that it can't find a reason for there being one it is that science is not looking for a reason for there to be one. The only thing I've ever heard of that created something out of nothing is God.

In light of the fact that you believe Jesus was God or the Son of God who was merely considered to be another trouble maker and crucified along with so many thousands of others in the history of the Roman state and who left a travesty called Christianity in it's wake - the world's longest and most successful criminal institution - all your subsequent responses make complete sense. As for creating something out of nothing in nature there is no such thing as NOTHING. Only man has the ability to create something out of nothing. That's why "Gods" exist...even when they don't!

edelker wrote:dparrott


Actually, there are many physicists who argue that from all evidence the universe appears to have come from nowhere.

Also, I would point out that the reason science isn’t looking for god, though certain theological claims are testable scientifically—in fact, many are, it is that there’s no way to describe god as an operationally defined force capable of being manipulated. In order to test causes-one needs variables and functionally testable means to employ in order to “see” more clearly whether or not a particular hypothesis is credible or at least refutes null-hypotheses. “God” concept has no agreed upon definition-and sicne it is theologically dressed in mystery, there’s no real or practical way to “test” natural phenomenon for evidence of that god.

Eric D.

Xris wrote:Who wants to disprove god? I have no intentions of doing such a thing but I will oppose any description that I consider false. I have a god that stands investigation but I doubt if any one else has. I consider most gods as simple idols that need sacrifice or worship.

Wooden shoe wrote:Hi James, you wrote:
Of course he was talking to the Juus specifically. They chose to murder him as well, as well as every other christian they could find. For what? for speaking the words, "love thy neighbor"? Well, yeah, I guess Christians certainly deserve the worst torture imaginable for that "crime".

Well James, actually it was the Romans who killed Jesus, but the Jews wanted him dead for a very good reason, because Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and because the Jews believed in one God, and to the Jews Jesus was advocating what the Jews recognized as the much hated Egyptian religion, which believed in a trinity, much as the christians today believe, they wanted him dead because under Jewish law blasphemy carried the death sentence.

Just to show how soon christians became intolerant, at about 350 AD the christian talked Caesar into helping them to eradicate the source of the dominant competing religion which originated in Egypt and as a result its priests were killed, its holy places destroyed along with the city of Alexandria with its magnificent library, and the hub of knowledge at that time.

Intolerance is the hallmark of all deity based religions.

Regards, John.

Xris wrote:

dparrott wrote:

Wooden shoe wrote:Hi James, you wrote:
Of course he was talking to the Juus specifically. They chose to murder him as well, as well as every other christian they could find. For what? for speaking the words, "love thy neighbor"? Well, yeah, I guess Christians certainly deserve the worst torture imaginable for that "crime".

Well James, actually it was the Romans who killed Jesus, but the Jews wanted him dead for a very good reason, because Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and because the Jews believed in one God, and to the Jews Jesus was advocating what the Jews recognized as the much hated Egyptian religion, which believed in a trinity, much as the christians today believe, they wanted him dead because under Jewish law blasphemy carried the death sentence.

Just to show how soon christians became intolerant, at about 350 AD the christian talked Caesar into helping them to eradicate the source of the dominant competing religion which originated in Egypt and as a result its priests were killed, its holy places destroyed along with the city of Alexandria with its magnificent library, and the hub of knowledge at that time.

Intolerance is the hallmark of all deity based religions.

Regards, John.

Intolerance is the hallmark of all uneducated/closed minded individuals. Only the open minded can be tolerant.

What causes a mind to be closed? A dogmatic attachment to religion is the usual cause but it can be any strongly held belief.

Xris wrote:I am an agnostic and you are theist. By that you have closed the subject. You have decided, that becomes a dogmatic stance. Something that can create a closed mind. It may not be in your case but it is something we so often see in religion.

Joshua McHenry wrote:

dparrott wrote:

Xris wrote:Who wants to disprove god? I have no intentions of doing such a thing but I will oppose any description that I consider false. I have a god that stands investigation but I doubt if any one else has. I consider most gods as simple idols that need sacrifice or worship.

This is definetly reasonable Xris.

Yes reasonable yet completely dogmatic. One of the Mayan God's, Quetzalcoatl ,did not require sacrifice are you going to put him on the pedestal with your God? Or are you going to put him in a different category because his people are dead?

Joshua McHenry wrote:

dparrott wrote:

Joshua McHenry wrote:

dparrott wrote:

Xris wrote:Who wants to disprove god? I have no intentions of doing such a thing but I will oppose any description that I consider false. I have a god that stands investigation but I doubt if any one else has. I consider most gods as simple idols that need sacrifice or worship.

This is definetly reasonable Xris.

Yes reasonable yet completely dogmatic. One of the Mayan God's, Quetzalcoatl ,did not require sacrifice are you going to put him on the pedestal with your God? Or are you going to put him in a different category because his people are dead?

I've never heard of Quetzalcoatl is this who you believe in?

No Quetzalcoatl is a Mayan and Aztec god whose followers practiced no sacrifice. He is not well known but his brother is Tezcatlipoca, a Mayan and Aztec god who thrived off of sacrifice.

Xris wrote:

dparrott wrote:Sorry about that this is the question I thought you were talking about. "So here is a question that i thought of when reading your post. Do you think it is so great that they were christianized and that we destroyed quite a few cultures? AND acctually yes he is a Mayan and an Aztec god he was just less known in the Mayan theology."

No I'm not going to have faith in Quetzacoatl any time soon. I'll put him in the category of pagan god.

But christianity is pagan. The story of jesus is a message but christianity is pagan. Even the christian priest wear the same clothes and worship at the same time as pagans. The ritual and reverence of pagan sites continues to this day. Even the cross is a pagan symbol. Sacrifice , resurrection, virgin birth, miracles are all pagan in concept. God started as a simple expression of thanks to the sun and we just complicated it, to make it more interesting and magical. Fear made us sacrifice and fear today keeps the faithful from accepting the truth.

Xris wrote:

dparrott wrote:Like I said they parrell but it doesn't make them the same thing. A good example of this would be philosophy and science.

Not a very good analogy Paro. So how would you explain the similarities? What makes them different in historic terms?