Would you change your religious views

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I would believe in God if somebody showed me unmistakable, undoubtedly true proof.

God either exists, or doesn't, and no amount of belief will change that. If God were proven to exist, you wouldn't "believe in God", you would just accept the fact of God's existence and there would be no point in "belief" or faith.

Christianity (and most other religions) require faith because they're essentially based on nothing other than made-up ideas.

Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? How do you know its there? CT scan or MRI? Those dont count, thats just a picture, doesnt prove you have a brain. Heck, it may not be real, or may be someone else's brain. So you live by faith that you have a brain.

Do I believe in God? Yes. Have I ever seen him? No. But how can I know he is there? Ive seen miricles and been touched by his Holy Spirit. So I live by faith that there is a God.

Having faith in god is like having faith that I have a brain. That's a new one.

I think you are missing the point. Probably intentionally. lol

Ask yourself: What would be evidence that a spirit exists and is at work in and through people?

By its influence on people perhaps? Does it change lives? Affect societies composed of those that follow it?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I would believe in God if somebody showed me unmistakable, undoubtedly true proof.

God either exists, or doesn't, and no amount of belief will change that. If God were proven to exist, you wouldn't "believe in God", you would just accept the fact of God's existence and there would be no point in "belief" or faith.

Christianity (and most other religions) require faith because they're essentially based on nothing other than made-up ideas.

Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? How do you know its there? CT scan or MRI? Those dont count, thats just a picture, doesnt prove you have a brain. Heck, it may not be real, or may be someone else's brain. So you live by faith that you have a brain.

Do I believe in God? Yes. Have I ever seen him? No. But how can I know he is there? Ive seen miricles and been touched by his Holy Spirit. So I live by faith that there is a God.

Having faith in god is like having faith that I have a brain. That's a new one.

I think you are missing the point. Probably intentionally. lol

Ask yourself: What would be evidence that a spirit exists and is at work in and through people?

By its influence on people perhaps? Does it change lives? Affect societies composed of those that follow it?

Take away that supposed spirit and how do things change?

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I would believe in God if somebody showed me unmistakable, undoubtedly true proof.

God either exists, or doesn't, and no amount of belief will change that. If God were proven to exist, you wouldn't "believe in God", you would just accept the fact of God's existence and there would be no point in "belief" or faith.

Christianity (and most other religions) require faith because they're essentially based on nothing other than made-up ideas.

Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? How do you know its there? CT scan or MRI? Those dont count, thats just a picture, doesnt prove you have a brain. Heck, it may not be real, or may be someone else's brain. So you live by faith that you have a brain.

Do I believe in God? Yes. Have I ever seen him? No. But how can I know he is there? Ive seen miricles and been touched by his Holy Spirit. So I live by faith that there is a God.

Having faith in god is like having faith that I have a brain. That's a new one.

I think you are missing the point. Probably intentionally. lol

Ask yourself: What would be evidence that a spirit exists and is at work in and through people?

By its influence on people perhaps? Does it change lives? Affect societies composed of those that follow it?

What would be evidence that a spirit does NOT work in and through people?

 

[uli2000]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

On the same train of thought, if you say he doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove he Doesn't exist. Thats why these threads will never go anywhere (except bashing others beliefs). You won't accept any evidence I could provide because it wouldnt be physical, tangible evidence, and as far as disproving him, you could provide no evidence to disprove him.

 

[slightlyhuman]

Originally posted by: Alone
Since I have no religious beliefs, someone would have to come and prove there was a God. I would welcome that.

same.

 

[aesthetics]

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

On the same train of thought, if you say he doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove he Doesn't exist. Thats why these threads will never go anywhere (except bashing others beliefs). You won't accept any evidence I could provide because it wouldnt be physical, tangible evidence, and as far as disproving him, you could provide no evidence to disprove him.

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the posters here are completely missing the point of my question... I mean, it has just turned into a gigantic argument as to whether or not God exists.

It should be about human principle. I want to just throw true religion out of my question entirely. Say, we all believe that an oak tree is a sacred God and anyone who cuts down an oak tree will be hit by lightning. So, we all fear being struck, and don't cut down the oak trees.

Then, here comes this new type of people who worship blackberry bushes instead. They say that the great oak will not kill us, so they hack one down. There is no lightning.

These people have just completely disproved your belief in oak trees. So, do you take this new knowledge and convert to blackberry bushes? Do you continue to worship your oak trees, thinking that maybe by some miracle they were not struck by lightning because they are powerful? Do you hack at their blackberry bushes to disprove their religion?

It should be about how far you're willing to go to seek truth. Would you risk your life to find the truth?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

On the same train of thought, if you say he doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove he Doesn't exist. Thats why these threads will never go anywhere (except bashing others beliefs). You won't accept any evidence I could provide because it wouldnt be physical, tangible evidence, and as far as disproving him, you could provide no evidence to disprove him.

You're getting this wrong. There is an order in which these assertions must be made in order to make any sense. You see, in order for thecrecarc to say "I assert that there is no god" there must have been an assertion that preceded him and prompted him to make that statement. That would be the theist who must have first stated "I assert that there is a God". The assertion I'm speaking of is the one that must be dealt with first, because without that statement there would be no need for the second. Also, because these ideas are diametrically opposed to one and other the the proving or disproving of the first will result in the proving or disproving of the second.

Nevermind the fact that they can't be proven or disproven. It is your assertion that precedes and prompts him to make his therefore the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Alone
Since I have no religious beliefs, someone would have to come and prove there was a God. I would welcome that.

This.


And by prove there was a god I mean raise Naploeon from the dead and have him walk on water while battling a T-rex and having sex with Sarah Jessica Parker without barfing..

fixed

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: aesthetics

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the posters here are completely missing the point of my question... I mean, it has just turned into a gigantic argument as to whether or not God exists.

It should be about human principle. I want to just throw true religion out of my question entirely. Say, we all believe that an oak tree is a sacred God and anyone who cuts down an oak tree will be hit by lightning. So, we all fear being struck, and don't cut down the oak trees.

Then, here comes this new type of people who worship blackberry bushes instead. They say that the great oak will not kill us, so they hack one down. There is no lightning.

These people have just completely disproved your belief in oak trees. So, do you take this new knowledge and convert to blackberry bushes? Do you continue to worship your oak trees, thinking that maybe by some miracle they were not struck by lightning because they are powerful? Do you hack at their blackberry bushes to disprove their religion?

It should be about how far you're willing to go to seek truth. Would you risk your life to find the truth?

This is the exact question I did address. Throughout history, when presented with this scenario, most folks in most societies killed the newcomers and continued on with what they were doing. This is why the successful proselytizing religions sent folks with swords and fire.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I have no religious views.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

On the same train of thought, if you say he doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove he Doesn't exist. Thats why these threads will never go anywhere (except bashing others beliefs). You won't accept any evidence I could provide because it wouldnt be physical, tangible evidence, and as far as disproving him, you could provide no evidence to disprove him.

Incorrect. Nothing or null is the base state of mind. You do not start off believing in Unicorns. You do not start off Believing a^2+B^2=C^2. You start off with nothing, and you work your way up by proposing a hypothesis and proving it. Thus, the burden of proof lies not on atheists.

 

[aesthetics]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: aesthetics

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the posters here are completely missing the point of my question... I mean, it has just turned into a gigantic argument as to whether or not God exists.

It should be about human principle. I want to just throw true religion out of my question entirely. Say, we all believe that an oak tree is a sacred God and anyone who cuts down an oak tree will be hit by lightning. So, we all fear being struck, and don't cut down the oak trees.

Then, here comes this new type of people who worship blackberry bushes instead. They say that the great oak will not kill us, so they hack one down. There is no lightning.

These people have just completely disproved your belief in oak trees. So, do you take this new knowledge and convert to blackberry bushes? Do you continue to worship your oak trees, thinking that maybe by some miracle they were not struck by lightning because they are powerful? Do you hack at their blackberry bushes to disprove their religion?

It should be about how far you're willing to go to seek truth. Would you risk your life to find the truth?

This is the exact question I did address. Throughout history, when presented with this scenario, most folks in most societies killed the newcomers and continued on with what they were doing. This is why the successful proselytizing religions sent folks with swords and fire.

You may have, but a large quantity of the people posting here didn't.

 

[Jeff7]

Many religions have faith as some kind of virtue, and hold it up as a major foundational feature. Proof kills faith.
By proving the existence of a deity, at least in some religions, you'd kill a major portion of the religion.

1) God is proven to exist.
2) Half of the Bible gets thrown out (By God? Who does the editing?) because it deals with faith.
3) ...
4) Confusion!

I don't think it's ever going to be a problem though.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely benevolent deity. Yeah, um, that's going to require some infinitely-ordinary evidence.

 

[thecrecarc]

Back on topic to the question at hand, Yes I would change my views. But only if it was reproducible, independently confirmable, and that no other theory/hypothesis can explain it.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I would believe in God if somebody showed me unmistakable, undoubtedly true proof.

God either exists, or doesn't, and no amount of belief will change that. If God were proven to exist, you wouldn't "believe in God", you would just accept the fact of God's existence and there would be no point in "belief" or faith.

Christianity (and most other religions) require faith because they're essentially based on nothing other than made-up ideas.

Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? How do you know its there? CT scan or MRI? Those dont count, thats just a picture, doesnt prove you have a brain. Heck, it may not be real, or may be someone else's brain. So you live by faith that you have a brain.

Do I believe in God? Yes. Have I ever seen him? No. But how can I know he is there? Ive seen miricles and been touched by his Holy Spirit. So I live by faith that there is a God.

Having faith in god is like having faith that I have a brain. That's a new one.

I think you are missing the point. Probably intentionally. lol

Ask yourself: What would be evidence that a spirit exists and is at work in and through people?

By its influence on people perhaps? Does it change lives? Affect societies composed of those that follow it?

What would be evidence that a spirit does NOT work in and through people?

I'm not trying to prove no spirit exists so that is not my burden of proof. That would be all you, based on your previous comments.

Here's what people not inhabited by the Holy Spirit typically act like. You may have noticed:
Do whatever is right in their own eyes. Only desire is to please themselves. Don't have any absolutes to live by. Moral relativist. Little value of human life outside what society tells them. Unable to grasp spiritual truths. Love pleasure rather than good.

Not saying the HolySpirit seizes control and turns one into a puppet, incapable of wrong doing. It only takes what authority you give it. You can overrule it, unwise as it may be.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: aesthetics

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the posters here are completely missing the point of my question... I mean, it has just turned into a gigantic argument as to whether or not God exists.

It should be about human principle. I want to just throw true religion out of my question entirely. Say, we all believe that an oak tree is a sacred God and anyone who cuts down an oak tree will be hit by lightning. So, we all fear being struck, and don't cut down the oak trees.

Then, here comes this new type of people who worship blackberry bushes instead. They say that the great oak will not kill us, so they hack one down. There is no lightning.

These people have just completely disproved your belief in oak trees. So, do you take this new knowledge and convert to blackberry bushes? Do you continue to worship your oak trees, thinking that maybe by some miracle they were not struck by lightning because they are powerful? Do you hack at their blackberry bushes to disprove their religion?

It should be about how far you're willing to go to seek truth. Would you risk your life to find the truth?

I think what would realistically happen is someone would come up with the idea that the oak tree god is the brother of the blackberry bush god, which is why he allows the people of the blackberry bush to chop down oak trees without punishment. Then we would collaboratively come up with speculative stories that would explain how it came to be this way. Over the generations these stories would be retold until they are no longer considered to be speculation, but actual fact. I would want to keep my religion if I could, and if I had to I would add a few bits or cut a few bits away to make it jive with observed reality as much as possible.

I really consider this to be the most likely situation because you can see it going on today. As human knowledge make inroads into what was once purely theologians' territory religious folk of all types distance themselves from the literal word of their holy books because it no longer seems to jive with observed reality. If they ignore some pieces and reduce others to "metaphor" then at least they can keep the basic idea of the religion.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: aesthetics

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: aesthetics

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that most of the posters here are completely missing the point of my question... I mean, it has just turned into a gigantic argument as to whether or not God exists.

It should be about human principle. I want to just throw true religion out of my question entirely. Say, we all believe that an oak tree is a sacred God and anyone who cuts down an oak tree will be hit by lightning. So, we all fear being struck, and don't cut down the oak trees.

Then, here comes this new type of people who worship blackberry bushes instead. They say that the great oak will not kill us, so they hack one down. There is no lightning.

These people have just completely disproved your belief in oak trees. So, do you take this new knowledge and convert to blackberry bushes? Do you continue to worship your oak trees, thinking that maybe by some miracle they were not struck by lightning because they are powerful? Do you hack at their blackberry bushes to disprove their religion?

It should be about how far you're willing to go to seek truth. Would you risk your life to find the truth?

This is the exact question I did address. Throughout history, when presented with this scenario, most folks in most societies killed the newcomers and continued on with what they were doing. This is why the successful proselytizing religions sent folks with swords and fire.

You may have, but a large quantity of the people posting here didn't.

Sorry for helping derail the thread. I did answer your question originally about if I'd be willing to change my beliefs.
How far would I go to seek the truth? Not sure at the moment ... gotta go to bed.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I would believe in God if somebody showed me unmistakable, undoubtedly true proof.

God either exists, or doesn't, and no amount of belief will change that. If God were proven to exist, you wouldn't "believe in God", you would just accept the fact of God's existence and there would be no point in "belief" or faith.

Christianity (and most other religions) require faith because they're essentially based on nothing other than made-up ideas.

Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? How do you know its there? CT scan or MRI? Those dont count, thats just a picture, doesnt prove you have a brain. Heck, it may not be real, or may be someone else's brain. So you live by faith that you have a brain.

Do I believe in God? Yes. Have I ever seen him? No. But how can I know he is there? Ive seen miricles and been touched by his Holy Spirit. So I live by faith that there is a God.

Having faith in god is like having faith that I have a brain. That's a new one.

I think you are missing the point. Probably intentionally. lol

Ask yourself: What would be evidence that a spirit exists and is at work in and through people?

By its influence on people perhaps? Does it change lives? Affect societies composed of those that follow it?

What would be evidence that a spirit does NOT work in and through people?

I'm not trying to prove no spirit exists so that is not my burden of proof. That would be all you, based on your previous comments.

Here's what people not inhabited by the Holy Spirit typically act like. You may have noticed:
Do whatever is right in their own eyes. Only desire is to please themselves. Don't have any absolutes to live by. Moral relativist. Little value of human life outside what society tells them. Unable to grasp spiritual truths. Love pleasure rather than good.

Not saying the HolySpirit seizes control and turns one into a puppet, incapable of wrong doing. It only takes what authority you give it. You can overrule it, unwise as it may be.

Or maybe some people are simply nice and others are simply assholes, regardless of any magic spirit. Saying the holy spirit lives through people is similar in saying aliens use magic rays to influence people to do good things and people who are not getting the rays act like the assholes you described. Both hypothesis are equally unprovable and completely senseless.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

That is the prevailing thought today . I won't argue that.

Were discussing Faith change in religion. I was just trying to point out . That one should really. Stay were there at, And DO that Christ tells us to do. In respect to our relatship one to the other. AS being the proper path for both believers and non believers. I don't care if you pass the test. Its me and mine Iam concerned with. I just saying both sides should read what Jesus said and forget the interpetaion of holy men . It be a better world guys. Jesus was a pertty open minded .

 

[Pacfanweb]

I'd settle for someone proving definitively there is a God of some sort.

And I don't think it's too much to ask for some no-doubt-about-it, definitely can't be mistaken, proof.

Like sending a 500-foot tsunami towards New York, and then just stopping it in place right before it hits. Then do a world tour with that act, proving it to everyone. For countries that aren't near water, He could do something else....I don't know....like making white guys dance well....giving Asian guys big dicks.....causing the French to enjoy bathing....making African soil really fertile and not the people, you know, stuff like that.

But seriously.....I believe there is more than we know, but I have a really hard time believing that all the cool stuff that's in the bible only took place on Earth 2000 years ago, and nothing since. So I'm ready and willing and would even LIKE it if some sort of God could be proven. But pretty skeptical about the biblical version.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
What religious people do not understand is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to pass an idea or hypothesis. If I claim "Unicorns exist" it is not correct for me to ask "Prove it doesn't". The burden of proof is on ME to prove it DOES. If a prosecution claims someone did a crime, it is not up to the accused to prove he DIDN'T do the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he DID.

If you claim X is god, it is not our responsibility to prove he doesn't exist. It is YOUR responsibility to prove he DOES exist.

Otherwise, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Jesus all exist.

On the same train of thought, if you say he doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove he Doesn't exist. Thats why these threads will never go anywhere (except bashing others beliefs). You won't accept any evidence I could provide because it wouldnt be physical, tangible evidence, and as far as disproving him, you could provide no evidence to disprove him.

Incorrect. Nothing or null is the base state of mind. You do not start off believing in Unicorns. You do not start off Believing a^2+B^2=C^2. You start off with nothing, and you work your way up by proposing a hypothesis and proving it. Thus, the burden of proof lies not on atheists.

That would be the prevailing thought. Hard to argue against . I can infact present an arguement against it. From life experiance. But it would be pointless. To try to convince . A non believer at this point in time. SAd that it is. Best thing you can do is go about yourlife. Try to be good to others.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
It would be hard to prove that the Christian God, an entity who exists by faith alone, doesn't exist.

Nobody needs to, they haven't provided a case in favor of his existence. There is no case to argue against...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I'd settle for someone proving definitively there is a God of some sort.

And I don't think it's too much to ask for some no-doubt-about-it, definitely can't be mistaken, proof.

Like sending a 500-foot tsunami towards New York, and then just stopping it in place right before it hits. Then do a world tour with that act, proving it to everyone. For countries that aren't near water, He could do something else....I don't know....like making white guys dance well....giving Asian guys big dicks.....causing the French to enjoy bathing....making African soil really fertile and not the people, you know, stuff like that.

But seriously.....I believe there is more than we know, but I have a really hard time believing that all the cool stuff that's in the bible only took place on Earth 2000 years ago, and nothing since. So I'm ready and willing and would even LIKE it if some sort of God could be proven. But pretty skeptical about the biblical version.

Look at the Universe . Must be million + Planets with smart monkeys on them. You hold yourself up so high. That you want God to prove what to who. Me I wish I called Have been with Christ . But not for proof. You read those Gosphels . You think thats All Christ Said and did. IF you read the Mary Mag. Gosphel Thats some strange stuff. I would very much like to heard everthing. You say you can't except Christ In your Life. I man of reason would choose this path . Why wouldn't He. Look what religion has done.

You see the evil of religion has blinded you to the fact that there may be more than you. and now. So you reject Christ. without ever undestanding what the Master was saying.
Man you blew it.

IF Christ was The Living WORD

 

[The Boston Dangler]

if by proving me wrong, you mean proving there's a god or flying spaghetti monster or magic crystals or whatever the fuck, then sure.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
if by proving me wrong, you mean proving there's a god or flying spaghetti monster or magic crystals or whatever the fuck, then sure.

I can prove the magic crystals part, but ya have to buy them, and they ain't cheap.