ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers? Or maybe you prayed selfishly. God does not cater to selfishness. And whose promises? The promises in His word will be fulfilled, in the life of those for whom the promises are. If they weren't fulfilled in your life, then you weren't looking at the right promises.
See? No matter what I provide, you deny, deny , deny. Nothing but denial. You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite. And I didn't just overcome an addiction to porn. It went away, instantly. My desire to view pornography, or go into a strip club, is gone. I don't desire to see naked women, in order to gain fulfillment. He is sufficient for all my needs. Pornography only provided a counterfeit.
I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.
I've been a Christian for a little over twenty years. And His word has not returned void once. You weren't testing His word. You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God. And since He didn't bring you what you wanted on a silver platter, you folded your arms, stomped your feet and ran away pouting like a five year old.
Alright, firechyld.
Anyway...I have God's word, available to me. I know what it says about the state of men's souls. I presume nothing. And nothing I have said leads to the conclusion that I believe I can read minds. I know the proof is out there, because I see it. You say that you do not see the proof. You yourself are the one who has provided me with the information that you do not see the proof. If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it. Because you have already denied that. I don't need to be able to read minds to see that.
Yes, I know what you're going to say. Which is why I will not cater to your childish attention seeking immaturity.
I didn't say that I couldn't be certain that some of them are. I am certain that God exists. I am certain the He loves me. I am certain that he sent His Son to die, for all the sins of men, for all time. I am certain that I was forgiven my sin before I even asked. And there are many more things I am certain of. Those first two I was certain of when I first came to TOL. The last two I disagreed with. But I was wrong. Now I am certain of the truth.
I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.
None of my bad behavior is God's fault.
Lighthouse,
(maybe you prayed selfishly. God does not cater to selfishness.)
Maybe I did, maybe I didn't.
(Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers?)
See what I mean? When it doesn't work for someone there's no possibility that you could be wrong, but it's the person's fault. I'm blind.
(You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite.)
I believe in myself, LH. I know that I'm real. You believe in god and you have no evidence to support your belief. You say that the proof for you will not work for anyone else, so is it really proof? I beg to differ.
(I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.)
You compared to one who is blind, how was I supposed to take it, LH? And yes, you did side step me. You say the proof is there, but that I can't see it. That's an avoidance.
(You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God)
You can read minds! Just not very well....
(If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it.)
Just because rainbows exist doesn't mean that pots of gold and leprechauns do. The existence of the creation simply means that at one point is was created, that's all it proves.
(I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.)
Islam makes the same claim of validity and exclusivity as christianity. No one religion can lay claim to the truth as though they had bragging rights to god.
If your faith were so true everyone would believe it. If it were so pure in it's indisputable, undeniability than everyone would believe it and there would be no discussion.
(maybe you prayed selfishly. God does not cater to selfishness.)
Maybe I did, maybe I didn't.
(Unanswered prayers, or were you just blind to the answers?)
See what I mean? When it doesn't work for someone there's no possibility that you could be wrong, but it's the person's fault. I'm blind.
(You have no proof that what you believe is real, either. You are a hypocrite.)
I believe in myself, LH. I know that I'm real. You believe in god and you have no evidence to support your belief. You say that the proof for you will not work for anyone else, so is it really proof? I beg to differ.
(I didn't sidestep you. And I didn't call you blind, either. I said you refuse to see that which is in front of you.)
You compared to one who is blind, how was I supposed to take it, LH? And yes, you did side step me. You say the proof is there, but that I can't see it. That's an avoidance.
(You were out to gain what you thought you deserved from God)
You can read minds! Just not very well....
(If I told you that creation is proof of the existence of a Creator, you would deny it.)
Just because rainbows exist doesn't mean that pots of gold and leprechauns do. The existence of the creation simply means that at one point is was created, that's all it proves.
(I just felt I should address Islam, since you brought it up. I didn't want to skip any of your points.)
Islam makes the same claim of validity and exclusivity as christianity. No one religion can lay claim to the truth as though they had bragging rights to god.
If your faith were so true everyone would believe it. If it were so pure in it's indisputable, undeniability than everyone would believe it and there would be no discussion.
I wonder where Clete gets these ideas that Jesus would say stuff like that. :think: What an imagination he has.
I mean, just because Jesus is quoted saying those things in the Bible, doesn't mean He ever actually said them, right Wick? We're lucky to have you around to inerrantly reveal to us which parts of the Bible are true and which are false based on how they sit with your sensibilities.
Last edited:
All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for.
You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite. And I said the proof will not work for you. I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.
It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?
I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.
See? I was right. You denied it.
And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false. The Quran does not effect Christians in such a way to make them believe it, and deny the Bible.
:darwinsm:
My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?
"And when Muslims are confronted with who the Bible says Christ is, they believe the Quran to be false. The Quran does not effect Christians in such a way to make them believe it, and deny the Bible."
Oh yes. Every Muslim who is confronted with the New Testament converts to Christianity on the spot.
Brandon, get a clue.
Oh yes. Every Muslim who is confronted with the New Testament converts to Christianity on the spot.
Brandon, get a clue.
Oh, so Jesus said he would grind people into powder. Can I have chapter and verse with that please?
Also if you can demonstrate where Jesus himself ever said "It is more blessed to give than to receive"--note I say JESUS, not someone QUOTING him out of thin air--it'd be appreciated.
You haven't challenged me with anything!
With this statement you admit that you can't validate your senses or your reason. I think you need to stop criticizing others about their lack of proof for their views. Lest you be labeled an irrational hypocrite, you need to cease and desist from claiming to "deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity." From where I'm sitting, you're guilty of the very thing you accuse of others.
No you don't. You admitted this. You cannot validate your senses or reasoning faculties. If you cannot validate them, then you cannot be certain about anything. If you cannot validate the means by which you presume to know things (senses, reason), then you cannot know for anything for certain.
Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, you have no certainty about anything, even the color of the sky. Where there is uncertainty, there is doubt.
In other words, you live according to blind faith assumptions. To say, "That's the way it works" when you can't even prove the verity of the faculties you employ to see "the way it works" is flatout blind faith.
How do you know? Have you thrown an apple in the air a million times? Would that be enough to be absolutely certain? Maybe the millionth-and-third toss will get a different result? You can't be certain, can you?
Sure there is. Without the certainty that would come from validating your senses and reason, you're left with uncertainty, and that's called doubt.
Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, anything you say about "work ethic" is suspect. You don't even know if your brain works correctly and you want us to believe you have anything certain to say about "work ethic" is? How ridiculous!
Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, the means by which you make predication about the sky, the sun, and dogs, then you don't have any certainty about what you "just look at." You continue with that ad populum fallacy and you should be embarrassed.
Hilston wrote: Everything you described assumes the verity of your senses, the laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature. If you blindly assume you can trust your senses, if you blindly trust logic as "common sense", and what you perceive as uniformity relies upon the preceding blind assumption and dubious appeal to "common sense", then why do you demand proof from others, when you yourself are no less blind and no less "religious" in your assumptions?
Maybe you can go ask a grown-up to help you?
By what means do you observe the results of tests? Answer: Your senses and your reason, which you admit that you cannot validate. You operate on blind faith, Prodigal, and so does everyone who thinks like you.
Nothing speaks for itself, Prodigal. I'm embarrassed for you. If this were a formal debate, you'd be losing badly.
You couldn't be more wrong, Prodigal. If you're going come here make challenges about God and the Bible and origins and belief systems, all matters of an ultimate nature, then you'd better be prepared to answer questions where your own view of ultimate reality is concerned. How you know what you know is fair game. If you don't like these kinds of questions, you need to go somewhere else and play. If you want to run with the big dogs, then you need to get up off the porch and be willing to face the tough philosophical questions such as I have put to you. It is just silly for you to blithely dismiss these questions and to make all these fatuous claims about "no proof being necessary" and "you just look at it" when you yourself so boldly assert your denial of claims "that have no proof to verify their validity." You're irrational, Prodigal. You can't validate your answers for the most fundamental questions put to you. Why should anyone think anything else you say is valid? Yet you turn around a make these empty challenges. Your view loses badly, Prodigal. It's like you haven't even shown up to the debate.
Since you admit that you cannot answer questions concerning the validity of your senses and your reason, you have no grounds to demand proof for anything. Even if I offered it to you, what will you use to evaluate my proof? Your senses, which you admit cannot be validated? Your reasoning, which you admit cannot be validated? And then you'll turn around and deny my claims because they "have no proof to verify their validity"? It's ridiculous!
You really need to catch up, Prodigal. How do you know the sky isn't red?
Buddhists are religious, Prodigal. So are Wiccans. Could you offer a more careful definition? Maybe you could go ask an adult.
Last edited:
Lighthouse,
(All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for)
Than what good is god anyway? If all he's going to do is give me answers that I either can't see or have no use for, what good is he?
(I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.)
They wouldn't be wise to believe you. Belief in a thing without proof of the things existence is a dangerous game.
(You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite.)
I never set out to prove that god doesn't exist. I set out to show that there's no proof that he does, and therefore there's no way you can pass off your beliefs as true for anyone but yourself. That goes for you, all of christianity and every other form of god worship out there.
(It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?)
It is an avoidance, LH. What proof is there? What am I missing? The existence of the creation does not explain who or what created it. It only proves that it was, at one point, created. I've accepted your challenge, and for the past twenty years I did test god. I've never refused anything because nothing has ever been offered. You say the proof is there, but it isn't. Telling me that I'm either blind or that I refuse to see it doesn't prove that proof exists, it proves that you haven't an answer to give.
(I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.)
I'm as arrogant as you are weak-minded LH.
(See? I was right. You denied it.)
You're right, I did deny it. I deny anything that is espoused as truth with no proof to validate it. Existence is not a sign of a personal creator, it is a sign that we have been created. Nothing more, nothing less. The difference between you and I is this: You have an ancient book that explains the origin of the universe.
I just don't care.
What do I care about:
People passing off the unprovable as indisputable.
I don't have anything to prove. I believe in hard work, sleep and eating. I don't have to prove that eating will sustain me, because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that sleeping will rest my body because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that hard work will get me paid because it requires no proof. It's just true: work and get paid, eat and be fed, sleep and be rested. That's what I believe in. Long and short, I believe in myself, my family and friends.
(My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?)
Sorry, LH, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, maybe you can explain that last part a little bit better? I believe in myself, so I guess the answer to your question would be no.... but like I said I don't really understand the question.
(All I'm suggesting is that you might have gotten answers, but you didn't see them, because they weren't what you were looking for)
Than what good is god anyway? If all he's going to do is give me answers that I either can't see or have no use for, what good is he?
(I didn't say it won't work for anyone else. But since others were not there, then how can it work as proof for them? All they can do is believe me, but they wouldn't have any proof.)
They wouldn't be wise to believe you. Belief in a thing without proof of the things existence is a dangerous game.
(You can't prove there is no God. You're a hypocrite.)
I never set out to prove that god doesn't exist. I set out to show that there's no proof that he does, and therefore there's no way you can pass off your beliefs as true for anyone but yourself. That goes for you, all of christianity and every other form of god worship out there.
(It's not an avoidance. The proof is there. You're the one who said you don't see it. All I said is that you refuse to see it. How is that avoiding?)
It is an avoidance, LH. What proof is there? What am I missing? The existence of the creation does not explain who or what created it. It only proves that it was, at one point, created. I've accepted your challenge, and for the past twenty years I did test god. I've never refused anything because nothing has ever been offered. You say the proof is there, but it isn't. Telling me that I'm either blind or that I refuse to see it doesn't prove that proof exists, it proves that you haven't an answer to give.
(I don't read minds. And I didn't read yours. You just come across as someone arrogant enough to be like that.)
I'm as arrogant as you are weak-minded LH.
(See? I was right. You denied it.)
You're right, I did deny it. I deny anything that is espoused as truth with no proof to validate it. Existence is not a sign of a personal creator, it is a sign that we have been created. Nothing more, nothing less. The difference between you and I is this: You have an ancient book that explains the origin of the universe.
I just don't care.
What do I care about:
People passing off the unprovable as indisputable.
I don't have anything to prove. I believe in hard work, sleep and eating. I don't have to prove that eating will sustain me, because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that sleeping will rest my body because it requires no proof. I don't have to prove that hard work will get me paid because it requires no proof. It's just true: work and get paid, eat and be fed, sleep and be rested. That's what I believe in. Long and short, I believe in myself, my family and friends.
(My faith [trust] is real. Faith is not belief, prodigal. And the validity of what I beleive in no way effects people's beliefs. I haven't always believed what I believe. And I definitely don't believe what you believe. So, based on your own logic, what you beleive isn't true, either. Which is it?)
Sorry, LH, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, maybe you can explain that last part a little bit better? I believe in myself, so I guess the answer to your question would be no.... but like I said I don't really understand the question.
Hilston,
If I want to validate the correctness of my brain, or the validity of my senses, I can just go to a doctor. I'm not entirely sure if there's any way for anyone to validate their senses. I can go to college and learn that the sky is in fact blue and I can be shown color samples of blue and red and see the difference between the two. Other than learning and doctor's visits, I don't really know what you want from me. What criteria is there for validating my senses? If there's none than everyone is in doubt and uncertainty and in which case no one should believe anything. Hilston, if I'm reading you correctly, there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there. What's the criteria for knowing that what you see is indeed not what you're seeing? You can use big words, philosophical arguments and you can talk down to me, but you have no solutions to any of the problems you point out so far, so my only assumption can be that you're just trying to confuse me.
Hilston, you're a lot smarter than I, but you haven't convinced me of anything. I don't have to validate my senses, like I said, I'm a healthy person, but saying the sky is red when in fact it is for everyone to see, blue doesn't make sense to me. In a world where blue can be red and six can be nine, wouldn't you agree that it's not safe to believe anything?
Oh, and how do I go about validating my senses? You seem to know all about it, can you refer me to a local sense validator, or whatever they call them? If it's so darn important to you, I'd like to get it done, if it is at all possible, and if it's not than your questions to me are pointless, hostile and worth nothing more than my middle finger. If there is a way for me to validate my senses than I can move up the ladder and be closer to you and I won't frustrate you so much?
Broken down:
Hilston, how do I validate my senses?
If it is impossible to do, than I'm going to consider your questions as nothing more than a pompous attempt to confound me.
If it is possible to do, I'll be in your debt.
If it is possible and you don't know, than screw you.
If it is possible and you won't tell me, than see above.
If it is impossible than you're just as dumb as I am and all of your intellectual blathering is good for nothing.
If you don't know, than see above.
Yours truly,
Prodigal
If I want to validate the correctness of my brain, or the validity of my senses, I can just go to a doctor. I'm not entirely sure if there's any way for anyone to validate their senses. I can go to college and learn that the sky is in fact blue and I can be shown color samples of blue and red and see the difference between the two. Other than learning and doctor's visits, I don't really know what you want from me. What criteria is there for validating my senses? If there's none than everyone is in doubt and uncertainty and in which case no one should believe anything. Hilston, if I'm reading you correctly, there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there. What's the criteria for knowing that what you see is indeed not what you're seeing? You can use big words, philosophical arguments and you can talk down to me, but you have no solutions to any of the problems you point out so far, so my only assumption can be that you're just trying to confuse me.
Hilston, you're a lot smarter than I, but you haven't convinced me of anything. I don't have to validate my senses, like I said, I'm a healthy person, but saying the sky is red when in fact it is for everyone to see, blue doesn't make sense to me. In a world where blue can be red and six can be nine, wouldn't you agree that it's not safe to believe anything?
Oh, and how do I go about validating my senses? You seem to know all about it, can you refer me to a local sense validator, or whatever they call them? If it's so darn important to you, I'd like to get it done, if it is at all possible, and if it's not than your questions to me are pointless, hostile and worth nothing more than my middle finger. If there is a way for me to validate my senses than I can move up the ladder and be closer to you and I won't frustrate you so much?
Broken down:
Hilston, how do I validate my senses?
If it is impossible to do, than I'm going to consider your questions as nothing more than a pompous attempt to confound me.
If it is possible to do, I'll be in your debt.
If it is possible and you don't know, than screw you.
If it is possible and you won't tell me, than see above.
If it is impossible than you're just as dumb as I am and all of your intellectual blathering is good for nothing.
If you don't know, than see above.
Yours truly,
Prodigal
dotcom
New member
Originally posted by prodigal
Dotcom,
All you are trying to say here is that you are an atheist. Some people are atheists others Christians etc. Being an atheist may explain your own nonbiblical worldview, but that position cannot be used to discredit the Christian view. It is irrational to claim the atheist view is better than the other side without enough information.
Dotcom,
All you are trying to say here is that you are an atheist. Some people are atheists others Christians etc. Being an atheist may explain your own nonbiblical worldview, but that position cannot be used to discredit the Christian view. It is irrational to claim the atheist view is better than the other side without enough information.
And how will you then process the information he gives you? By the senses and reasoning faculties that you cannot validate? The doctor may be giving you an accurate assessment of your senses and reason, but without validating them, you don't know if what you're hearing from him is being accurately perceived by your ears and correcty processed by your brain.
So then you need to shuttup about denying "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Until you can validate that very statement, which you admittedly cannot, you have no grounds to deny anyone's belief about anything.
Not if your senses are invalid, Prodigal!!!
An admission that you have an irrational blind faith assumption, the very thing you criticize of others.
Yes, you get it now. Excellent.
Bingo!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I apologize for talking down to you, Prodigal. I was about ready to give up on you because you weren't getting this. But with your most recent post it seems you now get it. No, I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm actually trying to bring clarity to this question, to get you and others to face the problem we all have with our most basic assumptions about life, existence, experience, etc.
I would hope that I've convinced you that you can't go around demanding proof and validation when you yourself cannot prove or validate the means by which you presume to assess someone else's proof or validation.
What if you see blue as red, Prodigal? How would you ever know? Color blind people sometimes go a very long time thinking dark grey is "red" and light grey is "green." Sometimes they're lucky enough to find out that the concensus differs from their perception, but that in itself doesn't make the consensus correct. Maybe the so-called "color blind" people are correct, and the rest of us are seeing something that isn't really there?
Based only on what you've offered thus far, I would agree. Your world is a dangerous, uncertain, and dubious place.
See below.
We all presume to be rational people. But if we want to be authentically rational, we need to find a way to validate our presumed rationality, as well as our sense functions. Your way obviously doesn't work. This was the sin of the Garden. Adam tried to validate his own reasoning by declaring, by his actions, that he would go it alone. He would make judgments and assessments based on his own autonomy, his own senses, his own reasoning. Determining good and evil is the essence of deity. By presuming to discern good and evil apart from God, Adam unlawfully usurped God's authority and sought to become his own lawmaker, knowing good and evil. Eating the fruit was almost incidental. That action manifested what was already in Adam's heart. And with that act, all of Adam's certainty went out the window, and he found himself in the same shoes that you are in right now. And if you do not repent of being your own lawmaker and throw yourself upon the mercy of The Court, you will burn in hell with Adam.
Only trust in Christ as revealed in the Scripture can validate your reasoning and sense faculties. With trust in Christ comes the gift of certainty, by which you can be certain about the verity of the Scriptures. By acknowledging Christ as the Source of all truth, and the Scriptures as His inerrant and infallible Word, you won't have to toss an apple in the air a million times to know that induction works. You will see it attested in the Scriptures, and since you will have certainty regarding the Scriptures, you can then be equally certain about what they infer, including the verity of the senses and the validity of logic and reason.
One Eyed Jack
New member
No problem.
Then He looked at them and said, [jesus]"What then is this that is written:
- 'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone'?
I take it you already know where in the Bible Jesus says you are condemned already, wickwoman?
