GOD-Who created GOD?

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

jesseandnikki

Nope - I disagree. Its all about justifying our beliefs. I think I'm right as I use many sources of evidence, don't make leaps of faith and examine (closely) aspects of the various christian beliefs as well as many faiths. Its not about being right or wrong, Ita about questioning what we think and why we think it.

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

RationalAtheist

I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

im_different

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

[QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

jesseandnikki

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

[QUOTE="im_different"]

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

RationalAtheist

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

god could have appeared their or the big bang could have happened their .all we know is some big explosion happened their. for all we know a really big star could of exploded and the force could of blown an immobile universe into motion. if space was in the singularity then if we can somehow move faster than light then we could eventually catch up to the edge of the shockwave or whatever and leave the universe. its so crazy now im just confused.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="im_different"]

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

im_different

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

god could have appeared their or the big bang could have happened their .all we know is some big explosion happened their. for all we know a really big star could of exploded and the force could of blown an immobile universe into motion. if space was in the singularity then if we can somehow move faster than light then we could eventually catch up to the edge of the shockwave or whatever and leave the universe. its so crazy now im just confused.

Seemingly so. Your argument was about credibility. I was outlining why the big bang is credible. Its based on rational deduction from the scientific framework for discovery. There is less credible evidence in support of god.

Every1 keeps saying TIME started after big bang..BUT there are some theories emerging that say time was there before big bang was just the start of THIS ERA..very intresting for me...its called something like a "Cosmic forgetfullnes-the mysterious past " woah :okirk4ever

Isn't that where you get a Big Crunch, and everything is drawn back to the same singularity? Then you get another Big Bang, and thus the start of a new era. I don't know, I'm just thinking back to my year 11 physics text book. Still, I don't know what was there before the first Big Bang.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

RationalAtheist

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was unthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of that scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

[QUOTE="kirk4ever"]Every1 keeps saying TIME started after big bang..BUT there are some theories emerging that say time was there before big bang was just the start of THIS ERA..very intresting for me...its called something like a "Cosmic forgetfullnes-the mysterious past " woah :opandadude01

Isn't that where you get a Big Crunch, and everything is drawn back to the same singularity? Then you get another Big Bang, and thus the start of a new era. I don't know, I'm just thinking back to my year 11 physics text book. Still, I don't know what was there before the first Big Bang.

The big crunch is what scientists say is the apocalypse ..the theory is that when you die and in the end of the world all your life flashes before your eyes again...right now universe in expanding thus time is going forward..in big crunch everything and the universe mainly De-expands so they say time will reverse and everything will go back in reverse thus you will see your life flash before your eyes..untill everything as you said makes a Black hole singularity..here is a scary BUT beautifull image to go with it..this image makes me Think alot and some what sad ... :( i will miss GS

[QUOTE="im_different"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="im_different"]

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

RationalAtheist

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

god could have appeared their or the big bang could have happened their .all we know is some big explosion happened their. for all we know a really big star could of exploded and the force could of blown an immobile universe into motion. if space was in the singularity then if we can somehow move faster than light then we could eventually catch up to the edge of the shockwave or whatever and leave the universe. its so crazy now im just confused.

Seemingly so. Your argument was about credibility. I was outlining why the big bang is credible. Its based on rational deduction from the scientific framework for discovery. There is less credible evidence in support of god.

god theory is more credible because it states that something always was which is possible whereas as the big bang theory states that something came from nothing which is not possible.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

jesseandnikki

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was inthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of thought scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

No, I am really serious. We have never crossed out what you wrote and replaced it with our interpretations. Its tantamount to libel.

Its not because of my opposing views that I reject the bible. Its on study and reflection of the bible's teachings. How is the bible structured so wonderfully? It seems quite a ramble to me. Please let me know more of this structure. Why were some testements left out of this structure?

I thought blood-letting got phased out in the 19th century. Its certainly not a general medical practice used today. So does that mean the bible is wrong?

If you look outside at night, it does seem that the earth hangs in space. Hardy a revelation!

People at that time had no concept of gravity. Please point me to the verse you imply fear of gravity is discussed.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

jesseandnikki

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was unthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of that scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

In what way, shape or form is that evidence? Please elaborate.

god theory is more credible because it states that something always was which is possible whereas as the big bang theory states that something came from nothing which is not possible.

im_different

No. The big bang theory does not include causality. It is possible that the crunch/bang theory would accommodate your "something from nothing" assertion.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="im_different"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="im_different"]

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

im_different

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

god could have appeared their or the big bang could have happened their .all we know is some big explosion happened their. for all we know a really big star could of exploded and the force could of blown an immobile universe into motion. if space was in the singularity then if we can somehow move faster than light then we could eventually catch up to the edge of the shockwave or whatever and leave the universe. its so crazy now im just confused.

Seemingly so. Your argument was about credibility. I was outlining why the big bang is credible. Its based on rational deduction from the scientific framework for discovery. There is less credible evidence in support of god.

god theory is more credible because it states that something always was which is possible whereas as the big bang theory states that something came from nothing which is not possible.

So, how was God created? There is no answer.

[QUOTE="im_different"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="im_different"]

and hey god and the big bang both really have the same amount of credibility. ever see the big bang theory? "we believe everything even space began in a singularity, but we dont know where it came from or why it came to be."

RationalAtheist

How else would you account for the red shift observed in stars, all seeming to travel away from a single point in space?

god could have appeared their or the big bang could have happened their .all we know is some big explosion happened their. for all we know a really big star could of exploded and the force could of blown an immobile universe into motion. if space was in the singularity then if we can somehow move faster than light then we could eventually catch up to the edge of the shockwave or whatever and leave the universe. its so crazy now im just confused.

Seemingly so. Your argument was about credibility. I was outlining why the big bang is credible. Its based on rational deduction from the scientific framework for discovery. There is less credible evidence in support of god.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/index.html

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

RationalAtheist

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was inthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of thought scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

No, I am really serious. We have never crossed out what you wrote and replaced it with our interpretations. Its tantamount to libel.

Its not because of my opposing views that I reject the bible. Its on study and reflection of the bobles teachings. How is the bible structured so wonderfully? It seems quite a ramble to me. Please let me know more of this structure. Why were some testements left out of this structure?

I thought blood-letting got phased out in the 19th century. Its certainly not a general medical practice used today. So does that mean the bible is wrong?

If you look outside at night, it does seem that the earth hangs in space. Hardy a revelation!

People at that time had no concept of gravity. Please point me to the verse you imply fear of gravity is discussed.

Thank you for proving my point, which was that the Bible stated things that scientifically wasn't around back then. Look, I'm not an encyclopedia, I know what I know, I can't write an entire book about it otherwise this thread would be over. Trust me. Do your own research if you're really interested, which IMO your not because the only thing you seem to care about is chastising my belief. I read a bunch of stuff that would prove you wrong and prove me right, unfortunately I don't have the brain of a computer so I can't memorize is verbatim.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

trix5817

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was unthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of that scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

In what way, shape or form is that evidence? Please elaborate.

I expected you to say that. I'm tired of trying to convince you of my point of view. You people are obviously to close-minded to even begin to accept anything I say as more than a religious person's babel. You've wasted enough of my time. Have a good night.

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

Thank you for proving my point, which was that the Bible stated things that scientifically wasn't around back then. Look, I'm not an encyclopedia, I know what I know, I can't write an entire book about it otherwise this thread would be over. Trust me. Do your own research if you're really interested, which IMO your not because the only thing you seem to care about is chastising my belief. I read a bunch of stuff that would prove you wrong and prove me right, unfortunately I don't have the brain of a computer so I can't memorize is verbatim.

jesseandnikki

I don't trust you. How can I when you purposefully misquote me and seem intent to score points than to seriously argue about faith and belief.

I have done my own research and have not come up with anything in the bible that talks about gravity. That's why I ask. The burden of positive proof to back up your assertions is on you, not me. If you can't, I call BS.

I don't care about chastising(?) your beliefs. It seems you take offense when you can't come up with suitable counter-arguments.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="jessandnikki misquoting RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

I guess I just can't explain exactly what I'm trying to say as thoroughly as I want to, because you're missing my point as well. It's still your word against mine. The only reason you think it's irrational to believe in God is because you don't believe...and that's also why you don't believe. That's why you think you're so right, and I think I'm so right.

It's your word, and my word. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. That what it all boils down to.

jesseandnikki

MISQUOTE: I think I'm right. Its not about being right or wrong...

Huh? lol. For the rest of your post: OK. You have your evidence and I have mine. So we agree on something? Yes? Good. Finally.

How dare you misquote me. That is a singularly naroow-minded thing to do, as it superimposes your view of what I said over what I actually said.

You have no evidence. If you did have some, you would have come out with it by now, surely?

lol is such a strong argument.

Is that a joke? Seriously, because you and that trix fellow have "superimposed your view of what I said over what I actually said" in some of my posts.

The evidence is there, you're just unable to see it or believe it because of your opposing views. My evidence, for example, is how structured the Bible is. How much the Bible has in it that, at the time it was written, was unthought of (such as blood being key to life, it was stated in the old testament even though at the time it was written it was believed that if you were sick that bleeding will get rid of the sickness. And also in the old testament the earth is described as hanging in space, while at the time the thought of that scared people to death because they thought gravity would cause earth to fall...they had no idea of this stuff, yet it is in the Bible).

In what way, shape or form is that evidence? Please elaborate.

I expected you to say that. I'm tired of trying to convince you of my point of view. You people are obviously to close-minded to even begin to accept anything I say as more than a religious person's babel. You've wasted enough of my time. Have a good night.

In other words, you don't know how that supports the existence of God. So yes, I'm going to conclude that all that was just a religious person's babel, because, well, that's just what it was.......

I'm close-minded? Why? Because I don't believe in something which has no evidence at all to support it other than a book of fairy tales (which isn't even evidence)? It's quite the opposite. You see, I like to use logic and reasoning. We don't have all the answers to everything, and I'm not going to create an answer just for the sake of having an answer and to live comfortably. I can accept that fact.

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

jesseandnikki

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

The strong positive correlation between the age of a set of beliefs and the number of deities leads me to think that each and every god is just a fabrication made by man; a manifestation of his inability and outright reluctance to live in the unknown.luke1889

Exactly. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.

When I find the source I read (over a year ago, which is why I can't remember enough to satisfy you guys) I will post everything that makes me believe what I'm trying to say.

The Bible is very structured, and if you knew anything about the Bible you'd know that, which is why I doubt that you did your "research."

As of now, I'll just leave you with this...which is nothing compared to the book I read, but it's a start.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

RationalAtheist

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

jesseandnikki

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

jesseandnikki

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

Have fun making up answers to the unknown!

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

RationalAtheist

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

Read the other parts. It's laughable.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

RationalAtheist

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

same here..im religious..but i hate it when ppl twist it for scientific stuff...those things had nothing to do with science

in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. jericho180

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

trix5817

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

Read the other parts. It's laughable.

I didn't make the site...but I'm not surprised you'd pick that one thing out and use it the way you did. The Bible isn't a literal text. It's meant to be interpretted.

I didn't make the site...but I'm not surprised you'd pick that one thing out and use it the way you did. The Bible isn't a literal text. It's meant to be interpretted.

jesseandnikki

You offered the site up as something that expresses your views on religion better than you can. Should I now disregard the site as being incorrect and open to interpreation now?

The site mentions this paragraph, immediately before the roundness claim:

"Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include: "

If the bible is interpreted, how can those interpretations be facts themselves? Or just interpretations? Is the site wrong? Should I look at more "evidence" from the site?

[QUOTE="jericho180"]in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. RationalAtheist

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

You can't stand when other people have a religious belief can you? You are here to chastice our beliefs. You come up with these rhetorical questions because you know it's difficult for us to come up with an answer. Just because some of us can't come up with good answers doesn't mean there aren't good answers out there. If only I could remember everything I've read or heard that could contribute to the argument.

"What evidence do you have that we have soulds?" WTF kind of question is that?

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

jesseandnikki

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

Read the other parts. It's laughable.

I didn't make the site...but I'm not surprised you'd pick that one thing out and use it the way you did. The Bible isn't a literal text. It's meant to be interpretted.

I read all those "scientific" quotes from the Bible, not just one........

But yep, keep making assumptions.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

RationalAtheist

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

Read the other parts. It's laughable.

I didn't make the site...but I'm not surprised you'd pick that one thing out and use it the way you did. The Bible isn't a literal text. It's meant to be interpretted.

"Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include: "

That's the part I was trying to explain earlier. Glad you found it.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"]

EDIT: And RationalAetheist...I didn't misquote you, I simply got rid of the redundant part of your post to reveal that you contradicted yourself in saying that you're right and then saying it wasn't about being right or wrong.

Get off your high-horse for a second. It's obvious that a person who doesn't believe could come up with an easy argument against religion, because to me aetheism is next to apathy, which is the easiest way out.

trix5817

Of course you did. The posts are here to read where you did just that. Deny all you like, its there is plain text.

I have not contradicted myself. I was talking about objectivity in logical and rational deduction - not about being right. You still don't get it, as you don't seem to know enough about logic and rational debate.

How is it obvious that there are easy arguments against religion?

Why is atheism next to apathy? How so?

Far easier not to question and accept that everything will be fine once you're dead and that there is some divine point to life. To me, that is weak-minded adherence to something that has no real context in modern life.

No...you contradicted yourself. Have fun looking forward to nothing.

I've got loads of things to look forward to, and I won't have to die first!

About your link: I've just had a very quick look at this:

Proof of the roundness of the earth: Isiah 40:22 - "t is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are...etc"

Hardly incontrovertible proof is it? A circle? As a proof of roundness? A circle is not a sphere...

Read the other parts. It's laughable.

I didn't make the site...but I'm not surprised you'd pick that one thing out and use it the way you did. The Bible isn't a literal text. It's meant to be interpretted.

I read all those "scientific" quotes from the Bible, not just one........

But yep, keep making assumptions.

I will if you continue to fail to lead me to believe you read more than just one.

[QUOTE="jericho180"]in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. RationalAtheist

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

God is like that danish someone brought in and left on the table in the office breakroom. No one knows how it got there, and no one dares to eat it. The danish just.... exists.JustPlainLucas

the danish just exists....i didnt know to laugh or to think deeply ...very nice :D

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="jericho180"]in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. jesseandnikki

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

You can't stand when other people have a religious belief can you? You are here to chastice our beliefs. You come up with these rhetorical questions because you know it's difficult for us to come up with an answer. Just because some of us can't come up with good answers doesn't mean there aren't good answers out there. If only I could remember everything I've read or heard that could contribute to the argument.

"What evidence do you have that we have soulds?" WTF kind of question is that?

Exactly. Just because we don't have an explanation of how the universe was created doesn't mean that we ever won't. Nor does it prove that it was created by intelligent design.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="jericho180"]in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. jesseandnikki

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

You can't stand when other people have a religious belief can you? You are here to chastice our beliefs. You come up with these rhetorical questions because you know it's difficult for us to come up with an answer. Just because some of us can't come up with good answers doesn't mean there aren't good answers out there. If only I could remember everything I've read or heard that could contribute to the argument.

"What evidence do you have that we have soulds?" WTF kind of question is that?

Of course I can stand others believing in religion. Why else would I spend hours on forums discussing faith?

I only asked a question. Is it wrong to understand why other people believe different things to you?

If you don't feel able to contribute to the discussion, why do you persist? I sense some anger from you now, which has no place in this board.

I notice that many people tend not to analyse why they believe. Many people never consider why they believe. Questioning your beliefs is healthy, as it defines how and why you live.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="jericho180"]in the bible is cleary states the the consept of god and heaven is to much and complex for the human mind. we will never know as humans, when our souls leave our bodies then maybe we will know the answer. jericho180

How terribly convenient.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?