Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since we are "created in God's image", does God have nipples?

Theology 101 for the professor ... Being created in God's image does not refer to a physical body, but that men have a spirit unlike lower creations. God is spirit and not flesh and bone.

Not according to the Vatican.

You are simply distorting the meaning of words, again.

No, you are. A painting in the Vatican does not equal theology.

I am not a catholic, so as to be sure of their theology I went to one of their websites. This is what they said in regard to God is like a man. Pretty well worded I think.

Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature -- more especially a magnified man -- and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Of course its not a scientific equation, lets describe it as it is. Its a specualtion with no evidence to suport it. If you agree that god cant be demonstrated scintifically then you are admitting there is no evidence for god. No evidence should equal no belief , as I say particualrly for a subect so important and life changing as the existence of god.

Bilvon
whats the difference in principle between these two statements:

"That doesn't mean we need to 'prove' the existence of God - rather, it indicates the folly of trying to mash science and religion together. "

That doesn't mean we need to 'prove' the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy - rather, it indicates the folly of trying to mash science and conspiracy thoeries together.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Of course its not a scientific equation, lets describe it as it is. Its a specualtion with no evidence to suport it. If you agree that god cant be demonstrated scintifically then you are admitting there is no evidence for god. .

No, what I'm saying is God and spirituality are not scientific hypothosis. Your point is moot.

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>That doesn't mean we need to 'prove' the existence of a 9/11
>conspiracy - rather, it indicates the folly of trying to mash science and
>conspiracy thoeries together.

The events of 9/11 were concrete events that had real world results. Spirituality is not like that.

Do you love anyone? Can you quantify it? Weigh it? Can you conduct a double blind experiment to prove the existence of it? And if not - does that mean it doesn't exist?

[bigtexan 0]

Quote

Do u beleave in God

If 'a god'/'any god' were real, this question would not have been asked and this whole conversation would not have happened.

Why does this sentence not make sense..
"he fell off the bed and hit the ceiling"

why?

well because gravity is real, superstitions are not.

loves

[ExAFO 0]

Cat Butt.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Royd 0]

And why do humans have an appendix and a tailbone? EVOLUTION has the answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the human, who is the slowest and weakest of the major predators, and late on the scene, by evolutionist's numbers, survive long enough for evolution to develop the brain to the point of superiority?
We should have just been a late night snack for the big cats and wolves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your question is based on mistaken assumptions and therefore cannot be answered as it is posed.

Quote

Humans did not evolve from creatures that had our precise physical makeup but very small brains. Humans with our physical makeup did not just "appear".

So the whole" humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years" thing is a lie? Did we walk with dinosaurs? Did we come out of the same primordial soup at the same time i.e. created?

Were we stronger, faster , and just a lot dumber, back in the day. That would be the only way that we could have survived the wrath of nature? Unless, of course, we've had the ability for reason and logic all along.

[billvon 2,991]

>How did the human, who is the slowest and weakest of the major
> predators, and late on the scene, by evolutionist's numbers, survive long
>enough for evolution to develop the brain to the point of superiority?

You're confusing cause and effect. Before we had these big brains we were more similar to chimpanzees, one of the strongest primates out there. We could brachiate (i.e. almost fly through the trees, as some apes do) and thus escape ground-based predators.

Once we started developing brains we could make spears and thus defend ourselves from predators WITHOUT having natural defenses. Thus we started to lose those big muscles, thicker skin, dense fur etc.

>So the whole" humans have only been around for a couple hundred
>thousand years" thing is a lie?

?? There is no such thing as a "whole" human. There is no dividing line between cro-magnon man, homo habilis, homo erectus etc. It's been a gradual process; the further back you go the more change you see. Labels like "homo habilis" are created by people because people like to label things.

>Did we walk with dinosaurs?

Back when there were dinosaurs (i.e. 70 million years ago) we looked like rodents.

>Were we stronger, faster , and just a lot dumber, back in the day.

Basically, yes.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

So the whole" humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years" thing is a lie? Did we walk with dinosaurs? Did we come out of the same primordial soup at the same time i.e. created?

Don't be silly. Your misconception is that humans "appeared". Evolution is a process of gradual change, not the ridiculous creationist charicature of "A monkey gave birth to a human".

*** Were we stronger, faster, and just a lot dumber, back in the day. That would be the only way that we could have survived the wrath of nature?

Quote

Yes. We evolved from a creature that was a common ancestor of both us and chimps. That ancestor would be a lot better than us (if we were stripped of all our tech) at living in its natural habitat.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

• Quote

[Mockingbird 0]

No, jakee; in my experience, it's usually the other way around. A Christian merely says he believes in God (a profession, not a claim). The atheist/whatever says, Your God is a myth (the claim). You know that's how it goes around here... or at least how it starts out.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If God appeared before me and raised me off the earth and took me up to 12,000 ft and dropped me and I landed on my head(since I would falling head down of course) and I lived then I would believe in your God.

So for you to believe God must take you personally for a skydive w/o a parachute and survive. Would God have to do that every day or is once enough? Would your experience be enough for your family or would they all need to take a ride?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

No, jakee; in my experience, it's usually the other way around. A Christian merely says he believes in God (a profession, not a claim). The atheist/whatever says, Your God is a myth (the claim). You know that's how it goes around here... or at least how it starts out.

Until proof is presented, it is just a myth.

There is not one shred of objective proof of your beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. That's why it's called faith. If it were provable, faith would not be needed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

No, jakee; in my experience, it's usually the other way around. A Christian merely says he believes in God (a profession, not a claim).

So you're saying that you can profess believe in god without thinking god exists? Very strange.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

No, jakee; in my experience, it's usually the other way around. A Christian merely says he believes in God (a profession, not a claim). The atheist/whatever says, Your God is a myth (the claim). You know that's how it goes around here... or at least how it starts out.

Until proof is presented, it is just a myth.

There is not one shred of objective proof of your beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. That's why it's called faith. If it were provable, faith would not be needed.

Yes, but at times God does give proof. Of course, those apart from it can explain it away by saying you made that up to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Example: Proof was given to Thomas and 500 hundred other witnesses, but it fails your standard for proof. God could appear directly to you, and unless CNN was there peple would not believe. Thus the effort spent trying to "prove" God is wasted. I believe there is enough proof already.

steveOrino

[bigtexan 0]

releigious people should not be allowed to use the word proof.. period.

they have no idea what proof is. if there was one shred of proof for any given releigion then there would be only one releigion because 'proof' is undeniable and certifiable by any and all reguardless of time or place..

cha!

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, jakee; in my experience, it's usually the other way around. A Christian merely says he believes in God (a profession, not a claim). The atheist/whatever says, Your God is a myth (the claim). You know that's how it goes around here... or at least how it starts out.

Until proof is presented, it is just a myth.

There is not one shred of objective proof of your beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. That's why it's called faith. If it were provable, faith would not be needed.

Yes, but at times God does give proof. Of course, those apart from it can explain it away by saying you made that up to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Example: Proof was given to Thomas and 500 hundred other witnesses, but it fails your standard for proof. God could appear directly to you, and unless CNN was there peple would not believe. Thus the effort spent trying to "prove" God is wasted. I believe there is enough proof already.

Your only evidence that that occurred is one book. You can't even conclusively prove that that even happened.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Your only evidence that that occurred is one book. You can't even conclusively prove that that even happened.

That is the problem you have with proof. You said it would be proof enough if God would allow you to skydive sans a parachute and live. That might convince you, but who else? Your desire is to treat God like a scientific experiment. IF there wasa God ... any God ... that could create the universe, why would he have to cowtail to your burden of proof?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

releigious people should not be allowed to use the word proof.. period.

they have no idea what proof is. if there was one shred of proof for any given releigion then there would be only one releigion because 'proof' is undeniable and certifiable by any and all reguardless of time or place..

cha!

I think Thomas who saw the risen Christ and put his fingers in his nail prints would say he had proof. The fact that it does not satisfy you or others does not make it any less a proof.

Think about it. Who would write about those experiences besides thos who saw them? Why would Josephus write about what he heard happened in a room to a bunch of people he would conceive as being heretics?

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

releigious people should not be allowed to use the word proof.. period.

agreed, faith is faith - it's defined to 'require' an ABSENSE of proof. Or else it would be chemistry or physics - not faith

(however, anti-religious people should learn enough about what they are vigorously protesting to realize they should never be allowed to use the word "proof" either)

I really wish religious types would just deflate the opponents by saying - "yes, I have no proof, that is the basis of faith and it works fine for me. Deal with it." They spend too much time trying to 'rationalize' proof from nothing instead of explaining how faith really works and the personal benefits they get from it.


I also see crotchety old scientists claim proof all the time when they've convinced themselves of pet theories. Same thing, they can't live with an uncertainty.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[steveorino 7]

Quote

releigious people should not be allowed to use the word proof.. period.

they have no idea what proof is. if there was one shred of proof for any given releigion then there would be only one releigion because 'proof' is undeniable and certifiable by any and all reguardless of time or place..

cha!

Because faith is required in religion. Religion is not a science. To treat it as such is an attempt to create a straw man for your own beliefs.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

IF there wasa God ... any God ... that could create the universe, why would he have to cowtail to your burden of proof?

Why would he care what we think or do at all? Yet you think he does...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I really wish religious types would just deflate the opponents by saying - "yes, I have no proof, that is the basis of faith and it works fine for me. Deal with it."
.

That is what I attempt to do, but I don't seem to stop those who would like to insinuate I'm illogical.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

IF there wasa God ... any God ... that could create the universe, why would he have to cowtail to your burden of proof?

Why would he care what we think or do at all? Yet you think he does...

Why indeed. What possible reasons could there be?

steveOrino

[peregrinerose 0]

Actually you cited Thomas as proof rather than saying that you have no proof.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[JackC 0]

Quote

Religion is not a science. To treat it as such is an attempt to create a straw man for your own beliefs.

I don't see what the big problem is with using the scientific method to try and figure out if something exists or not. I'm just not convinced about the existence of things that are indistinguishable from non-existant things. If science can help me decide if something exists, what's wrong with using it?