Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Guardsmen Bob wrote:
I choose to believe what feels right to me. Nothin' set in stone, and my beliefs are constantly evolving the more I experience. So long as I don't do something that is harmful to others, and try to be a good person, maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

So, I choose Other.

become a Konite.
it's the religion that wants you to feel good about yourself

The old new covenant debate is an interesting one and highlights changing fashions in the modern church. Traditional Christianity believed that Jesus came and fulfilled the old covenant. He didn't replace it as it had been promised forever, he widened the covenant through his death to allow everyone to avail of the promises. The slavish devotion to the letter of the law disappeared as no one was capable of living to it, but that didn't stop it from being good in Gods eyes. Sacrifice was no longer required to atone for breaking covenant on the believers part because that had been taken care of. Punishment became Gods domain. Humans couldn't punish as they were too biased and hypocritical. (something this blog proves beyond doubt!!)

Sadly many modern Christians trying to align themselves with today's lovely happy world were anything goes...and have become ashamed of their God. Yes traditional Christianity says God will punish sins of blasphemy and many others it's just not up to us anymore to do it....Modern western chuch has a different position today, but the church embracing wrong teaching is as old as the bible and God forgives alot of crap. Hey it's not up go me to judge but it dosnt stop it happening! Repent!!

Sadly many modern Christians trying to align themselves with today's lovely happy world were anything goes...and have become ashamed of their God.

If I were a believer, I'd definitely be ashamed of my god if he hated gay people and promoted slavery.

Hey it's not up go me to judge

You do appear to be judging, though, heh.

Anyways, your Bible doesn't say "judge not lest ye be judged", it says "judge not lest ye be prepared to be judged by the same measure you apply to other people".

Your god is totally cool with you judging people, just as long as you remember to judge yourself by the same measure.

Repent!!

Not to Yahweh; He kills babies.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I am willing to bet a life one cannot prove exists to me. You can try and scare me with all that heaven and hell mumbo jumbo, but I didn't buy it as a child and I am not buying it now.
Suck for you if I'm right (well not really, according to the Book of Kona, when you die, you just die, until Kona's awakening-then perfection awakens)
One should want to be a part of a faith because they believe what it teaches, not because they are trying to scare you into it.. That's just brainwashing control/
If I genuinely wanted to be Christian I'd pick a church from one of the hundreds that exist and go there. But I don't believe what they teach and fear of suffering when I die scares me and more then death itself does.
I refuse to live a life of fear of something no one can prove exists, besides what a book says.

Ok, please tell me that you were just kidding me back, and totally noticed how I was poking fun at this “Pascal's wager” argument. Else, maybe you need to notice I wasn't asking you to become Christian, I was asking you to worship the great Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl and none other !

 Guardsmen Bob wrote:
maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

That's obviously a result of being from a “Christian” culture, with a few Jewish and Muslim influence, but no other religions, which makes most of us never even consider polytheism. Which imho would make much more sense given the state of the world .
(Not directed toward you specifically, I'm pretty sure it concerns at least 90% of people in this thread, including me to some measure)

oh see that's worse, far worse! Them's fightin' words!

(repent? lol no- the three (the lord and lady of death, life and balance-they don't really have genders) could care less about my insignificant problems, they care little for anyone's problems- and the world is a mess because of it. Sometimes they lay favour for unknown reasons on people, boredom I guess. They're kind of a holes)

A vote for non-religious.

Atheist here.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
oh see that's worse, far worse! Them's fightin' words!

If that's directed toward me, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Hey it's not up go me to judge
You do appear to be judging, though, heh.

Anyways, your Bible doesn't say "judge not lest ye be judged", it says "judge not lest ye be prepared to be judged by the same measure you apply to other people".

Your god is totally cool with you judging people, just as long as you remember to judge yourself by the same measure.

Yip I'm guilty of judging, lying, slander and just about a million other things..... But I'm still forgiven and being made new which is something special.

Long may the acuser roar of the deeds that I have done, I know them all and thousands more....but Jehovah knoweth none!

I voted other, because there is only one God. And his name is Death. Valar Morghulis.

Some traditional Christians say I am not a Christian because I do not believe in the Blob from the Councils at Nicaea among other beliefs forced upon, no, bullied upon the good Christians of this world.
Really, if you read the whole Creed, it describes a Super Blob.
And if you do not believe the "Church", whatever that really means since the Second Century AD to the Nineteenth and beyond, has bullied folks into their particular set of doctrines, then you are totally historically ignorant.
Take a serious look at Church History and look at all of the Bullying and Counter-Bullying that Church leaders have done doctrinally.

Personally, I follow the Christ that speaks in the New Testament, the one that taught the Israelites, as Jehovah, in the Old Testament, and who continues to teach us through His apostles after His Ascension.

Anyone who says that you can't prove god doesn't exist so you can't rule him out... Russell's teapot. Look it up.

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Anyone who says that you can't prove god doesn't exist so you can't rule him out... Russell's teapot. Look it up.

The onus is on them to prove he does exist.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Guardsmen Bob wrote:
I choose to believe what feels right to me. Nothin' set in stone, and my beliefs are constantly evolving the more I experience. So long as I don't do something that is harmful to others, and try to be a good person, maybe that'll be enough for the big guy in the sky.

So, I choose Other.

become a Konite.
it's the religion that wants you to feel good about yourself

So there is a religious basis for the joke of an educational system that's been foisted on my province? Well I'll be damned. Literally.

Atheist here. Love to have discussions about it, but it unfortunately degenerates all too often. Though to be honest, I have to admit that agnosticism is a much safer position because it is truly the null hypothesis. Some old lady was trying to convince me that I should get my mother out of the hospital this week (she went in to have abdominal tumours removed) and pray, rather than let scientists and doctors touch her. My fiancee was cringing and anticipating a fight, but it was just not in me. I'd have accomplished nothing at all.

Agnosticism is not the null hypothesis.

 Happyjew wrote:
The onus is on them to prove he does exist.

Really?
Can any mortal prove that Elohim/God exists?
I can tell you I know I have felt His influence, His direction, His presence, but I and any other true practitioner of the Faith cannot prove that He is.
It is a matter of faith.
Therefore the onus, the burden, the work is placed on every human individually to prove He does, in fact, NOT exist, which is impossible because all of creation, including each and every human, proves that He does exist and that He has a plan for us all.

Asking for, no requiring proof of, is evidence of a lost soul that wants to never be accused of doing anything "wrong".
It is the excuse for the selfish to continue on in their ridiculous immoral paths.
If Deity does not exist, then this person can do anything that society allows and anything they can hide from society as well.

On the other hand, asking for the influence of God in your life is the sign of the penitent soul; the soul that understands there is a great deal more in life than what the person can "see" through their seven senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch, balance, kinethesis).
This understanding allows the individual to exercise faith which must be exercised just like a muscle to make it stronger, to make it possible to endure through the vagaries that life will undoubtedly place in the individual's path, to look and find the greater part of life..

Another matter involved here is the reality of Evil.
Some people want Evil to not exist, because if it does, then too Good must exist.
And if Evil really exists, then there must be a personification of it (the Devil, Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc.) out there and then there too must be the personification of Good, God, as well.
And then the basic, the simple evidence of the senses is shown to be insufficient and they actually have to develop faith, which many do not want to do so.

So, instead of asking for others to prove God exists, one should be asking others to help with their unbelief and how to exercise that most important of "muscles", faith.

 DouglasJB wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The onus is on them to prove he does exist.

Really?

Yep. If you make a claim, I'm afraid you actually have to back it up with some facts.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
So there is a religious basis for the joke of an educational system that's been foisted on my province? Well I'll be damned. Literally.

Atheist here. Love to have discussions about it, but it unfortunately degenerates all too often. Though to be honest, I have to admit that agnosticism is a much safer position because it is truly the null hypothesis. Some old lady was trying to convince me that I should get my mother out of the hospital this week (she went in to have abdominal tumours removed) and pray, rather than let scientists and doctors touch her. My fiancee was cringing and anticipating a fight, but it was just not in me. I'd have accomplished nothing at all.

I do not understand people like this "old lady".
Do they even bother to read Scripture?
James in Holy Writ is very clear that this "faith only" delusion this woman was trying to foist upon you is not part of the Way.
As God indicated in Genesis, the world is here for our use and benefit.

And Mathieu, is agnosticism actually any safer than atheism?
It is just an excuse that people have created to "keep a hand in".
What did the God say about those sort of folk?
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
You have to make an actual choice Mathieu.
Are you going to follow Evil or are you going to follow Good?
Agnosticism is not doing either.
There is no middle ground!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 DouglasJB wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The onus is on them to prove he does exist.

Really?

Yep. If you make a claim, I'm afraid you actually have to back it up with some facts.

I am making a claim?
No SilverMK2, the folks who say that Deity does NOT exist are the ones who are making any sort of claim.
Those of us that say He does exist are merely stating the obvious.

 DouglasJB wrote:

I am making a claim?
No SilverMK2, the folks who say that Deity does NOT exist are the ones who are making any sort of claim.
Those of us that say He does exist are merely stating the obvious.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. You claim a god exists therefore it is up to you to prove one does and perhaps more importantly for you, that the god which exists is the one you claim exists, rather than, say, one or more of thr literally thousands of gods which people have claimed to exist over thr course of history.

The point being that the assumption can only be that there is nothing until there is proof to suggest otherwise. Hence the discussion above about the null hypothesis - the statement that the base assumptiin is that there is nothing.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 DouglasJB wrote:

I am making a claim?
No SilverMK2, the folks who say that Deity does NOT exist are the ones who are making any sort of claim.
Those of us that say He does exist are merely stating the obvious.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. You claim a god exists therefore it is up to you to prove one does and perhaps more importantly for you, that the god which exists is the one you claim exists, rather than, say, one or more of thr literally thousands of gods which people have claimed to exist over thr course of history.

The point being that the assumption can only be that there is nothing until there is proof to suggest otherwise. {EMPHASIS ADDED BY DOUGLASJB} Hence the discussion above about the null hypothesis - the statement that the base assumptiin is that there is nothing.

The Modern Man Assumption.(bolded above)
Oh the pride, no the hubris - the overweening pride of modern man.
How much smarter he is than all of prior human history.
How much smarter he claims to be than some being he has to exercise faith to believe in.

Modern man and his fallacious stance that unless something can be quantified in front of them, it cannot exist.
Science is a wonderful thing, but it cannot overrule faith simply to suit the pride of man.
The Null Hypothesis is also a fallacious idea.
Anything one deludes oneself to excuse the immoral behavior you desire to perform is in no way proof of the absence of Good.

SilverMK2, your belief is indeed your belief and I will leave you to it.
But SilverMK2, this belief is, in truth, simply an anti-faith about God.
It is in no way more correct than anyone's faith in deity/God.

And the base assumption of the Faithful is that there is obviously a great deal of something that exists in the universe SilverMK2.
This human idea that or the base assumption of the Null Hypothesis that there is nothing at the base of everything is a very lost and extremely self-destructive idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
...

And I really am genuinely curious why someone would believe in the Mormon religion, as yes it was started by a convicted con-man, a fact which everybody in Mormonism seems to know but not care about.

E&C, I tried to prove once the contention that Joseph Smith, Jr. was what you stated, "a convicted con-man".
After a study of the legal records of the States of New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois, I could find that he was accused of many things, including treason by the State of Illinois which had no right to make such a Federal accusation, but I cannot find a single conviction on any charges.
In fact, I found over and over where judge after judge threw out charges on the most often basis of either completely fallacious or no evidence in the case of.
Please direct me to legal public records that prove otherwise.
Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
...

So you believe in a religion started by a convicted confidence trickster / conman, whose "book of Abraham" has been exposed as undeniable fraud?

...

Where did you get your evidence of this as well E&C?

Tried to prove what you said here.
Ran into trouble time after time.
Back in the '70s, I found outside proofs of Anthropologists of the era several times that indicated the these scrolls in their educated opinion were real and indeed had the writings of someone who could be easily claimed as Abraham on them.
Since then, I have heard claims like yours but no real (Anthropological) proof to back them up.
So E&C, please give me the references.

And E&C, no hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo religious pamphlets please.
I have already been down that path of stupidity.
It was really embarrassing to be proven to be holding an argument based only on jealousy, envy and outright idiocy from religious opponents of the Mormons.

The null hupothesis does not inspire any particular kindof behaviour. It is nothing more than a method of testing reality against. You seem to want to twist it into being part of some kind of anti-faith belief system complete with corresponding morals and 'true outlook' on the world.

The lack of faith does not enforce a specific set of beliefs or behavious, nor does lack of faith constitute a faith in itself.

Nor does your attempt to invalidate a scientific view of the world by equating it to a religious view of the world bring us any closer to us hearing any actul proof for the existance of any god, spirit, nymph, sprite or magical being.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The null hupothesis does not inspire any particular kindof behaviour. It is nothing more than a method of testing reality against. You seem to want to twist it into being part of some kind of anti-faith belief system complete with corresponding morals and 'true outlook' on the world.

The lack of faith does not enforce a specific set of beliefs or behavious, nor does lack of faith constitute a faith in itself.

Nor does your attempt to invalidate a scientific view of the world by equating it to a religious view of the world bring us any closer to us hearing any actul proof for the existance of any god, spirit, nymph, sprite or magical being.

Delude yourself if you want, but indeed any contention, scientific or otherwise, that there is no deity holding a person accountable for their actions has indeed caused the modern cesspool we have to live in.
Compare our modern time and any other period in our species history where faith is denigrated or ignored like today and then compare to other periods of human history where belief in god is held important & your actions held accountable to it.
You can easily see in the former societies, like ours, the severe societal and civic problems that do not exist in the latter ones.

Silver, yes indeed, espousing a lack of faith is indeed a faith in and of itself.
Have you no anthropological training whatsoever?!?
Do you not understand what an organized religion or a personal belief system really is?

And Silver, in many cases, modern science beliefs are, in fact, another unsubstantiated faith system like any other religion/belief system.
Otherwise, please prove Evolution, not as Mechanism, but as Creator.
And I am talking proving it scientifically, as in mathematics, cause & effect and so forth.
And Silver, correlation is no proof whatsoever; on the basis of correlation, I can prove all sorts of fallacious notions and "facts".
Face it Silver, science is indeed only someone's best guess.
Why else is it always evolving in and of itself?
Silver, I have no problem with Evolution as Mechanism, but I cannot prove scientifically Evolution as Creator.

Furthermore, why do people like you try to have either Science or Religion overpower the other.
Pure Science and Pure Religion are not opposites; in fact, more often than not, they are simply twins with the same intent and purpose.

I'm on my phone (thanks science!) so it is hard to reply to everything. So just a couple of points.

Lack of faith is by definition not a faith. I 'do not have faith' in plenty of things, as do you i am sure. That does not mean i have faith they do not exist.

You also seem to have an incredibly skewed view of how humanity has lived if you think that it was all hymns and gifts from the gods when most people lived with some form of religion in their day to day life.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life - a common mistake to assume it does. However there are a number of theories (note used in scientific context, not layman) that deal with this.

You are entirely correct that correlation does not imply causation - if you believe yoy xan scientifically 'prove' something silly, go ahead. The scientific community would only too happily take a look at your evidence, hypothesis and reasoning and let you know if it is reasonable or not. However, simply throwing some stuff together to 'prove' a point won't get you very far fortunately - one of the great checks on science is that anyone should be able to repeat your work and anyone should be able to loom at your data and reasoning and see if it is valid in support of your conclusions. Science continually evolves because of this - because people continually add to the body of knowledge and understanding. It is the chief strength of science.

I dont think there are many who want to have science without religion. And most religious groups who want to do away with evil science want to keep things like electricity and medicine - no matter how anti science they claim to be... perhaps because science works.
.

Goodness Gracious, do you re-read what you type at all?

Skewed view?
As in I have actually studies our species?
Yes.
One baccalaureate level degree in history and one advanced in military history along with three other degrees - one of which in psych and another in neuro-psych.
So yes, I have carefully examined this species and its cycles.

Your "hymn and gifts" comment makes no sense; did you fail to include some words while thumbing away on your mobile?
Personally, I have no use for one.
A land-line at home with voice mail does me just fine.
Any way, by most standards and measures of happiness and contentment I am familiar with, societies with actual functioning good moral standards held to by a majority of its citizenry are happier ones.
By those same measures, our modern society is one of the unhappiest in human history despite all our "toys".

A belief in no god is scientifically listed as an anti-faith.
Do not believe me?
Look it up in Anthropology!

Evolution is taught at many institutions of learning as Creator or origin at very least or at almost all said institutions as proof that there is/are no other creator(s).
Saying otherwise is scientifically ignorant Silver.
Your countryman Dawkins is an expounder of this principle as evidence by his writings, some of which I have read in fact.
Not the most boring scientific philosophy I have read, but certainly the most self-delusional of any I have encountered this side of the 16th Century Europe or 20th Century Communist China.
Humanism has deviated far from its reasonable roots; almost seems like the modern humanist, who is lacking a deity, must replace that lack with themselves; persons who are, by their knowledge and sophistication, gods unto themselves are the biggest hoax man has perpetuated upon itself.

Ah, replication of studies.
Now, that is something I hold whole-heartedly to in science, at least in its pure late 19th Century to mid 20th Century definition.
Shame as it is now out of vogue or has its own questionable definition in Modern Science.
Too often it is found that a study alleging that it is a replication of another, is simply a write up based on the craftiness man more often than actual science.
Seriously Silver, have you examined the "advances" just in astronomy in the twenty years, let alone any of the other sciences?
One would think Astronomy, a hard science sub-section of Physics, a hard science itself, would have no controversy or even hoaxes in this modern age, yes?
But the arguments and outright lies about NEOs, that status of the planetoid/planet Pluto, whether or not comets are indeed what has been claimed for decades they are and so forth is all coming to a head.
In fact, the push for complete public educations involving science and math is getting hurt in many countries dues to the unsubstantiated claims on these or many other matters just in astronomy let alone any of the other hard sciences and not even touching with any length of pole the soft sciences.
The anti-immunization "studies" are another example of sheer dishonesty perpetuated on a semi-educated public by those in science looking not for reality or truth, but the almighty dollar and/or instant fame & power instead.

Ah the fallacy as Science as Progressive.
You must not have a scientific degree.
Human science ebbs and flows; indeed through the history of it, I have seen far more ebbs than flows.
You espouse it in your last posting as building upon itself.
Have you not seen how often it tears itself down?
If you destroy and haul off the building on a piece of ground and then build another in its stead, that is not building upon that which came before.
Science does this "destroy, haul off and build" model throughout its history.
Science is not truly Progressive like so many fallaciously believe.

Trans fats is the perfect example of how this is not true.
They are extremely destructive to the human organism, but when they were first introduced into our food chain, by man - not nature, they were lauded as a great breakthrough in food technology.
Now, decades later, their true nature is being proven beyond question and the fact that they were known to be hazardous years ago is also coming to light.
Do I need to go on about the many other alleged advances in modern science that have either been outright hoaxes or been perpetuated simply for the money-grubbing benefit of the very few?
Silver, this is the problem of science unfettered from the moral controls of a working faith/belief system.

Lastly, by not including them when you mention religions and "evil science", you are claiming that there are no science group that want to do away with that human evil "religion"?
Are you truly that ignorant?

Need to go.
Well, it has been "interesting" at very least.
Sad at most accurate.
All too prevalent from my experience so I do not know why it bothers me still so much.
I guess because I have faith that man can be so much more than the sum of his parts, but I understand that he cannot be so without getting rid of hubris from his make-up.

Atheism suits my view of reality just fine. The overwhelming absence of evidence of any supernatural phenomenon passes the "everyday test" for me. One has to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though, and that is why I said agnosticism might be a better, more tenable position, from my point of view. I'm perfectly happy withholding judgement on the final state of things as I do not have all the evidence to pass definitive and final judgement. Carl Sagan expressed doubts equally about the existence of a god or extra-terrestrials (the stay-at-home and visiting kinds) and I think it is very reasonable to remain sceptical of both.

I personally just don't see what is so convincing about scriptures that make them intrinsic evidence of divine powers. I'm curious but never actually asked the question to anyone. Aside from feelings or that it is self-evident.

What about the position of Lawrence Kraus, that the Universe is, but not because it was created, and that it had no beginning?

I'm mostly atheist but believe that all faiths or theories or some combination of both have the possibility to be correct.

I will reply to you when i am on a computer douglas - might be a couple of days until i can dedicate enough time to comment on what you have said - currently studying for my third masters of science as part if my clinical scientist training so am kept quite busy - hence the phone with internet - so i can science on the move

Though that comment was more to point out that science has done a lot for mankind no matter if you care to dismiss its results as toys...

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

I personally just don't see what is so convincing about scriptures that make them intrinsic evidence of divine powers. I'm curious but never actually asked the question to anyone. Aside from feelings or that it is self-evident.

*tongue in cheek*
in case yo udidn't know, I'll make it plain to you: the arbitrary mis-interpretation of documents that have already been misinterpreted and mis-translated, with ancient social contexts and outdated social values that were written into this body of text, along with a heck of a lot of inter-generational infighting over the correct interpretation of what's written in those texts coupled with the factional infighting between different sects, and the general lack of consensus between not just different closely related sects--never mind widely-related sects that fall under a single broad over-arching term--but also among parishioners of the same church..... It's my own pursuit of christianty that ran me down the rabbithole to inevitable atheism. I struggle to understand how any person engaging in an in-depth study of the record can continue to have faith (shy of being guilty of systematic selective reading, but, then it seems to me that's what the church already engages in at every mass anyway), because there's just no single thread that leads anywhere: it frays into a million pieces at both ends and roots itself in different places, and then people selectively ignore or willingly misinterpret or lie about the roots. If it wasn't for the accident of a certain roman individual by the name of "Paul" we would most probably be worshiping Juno, or maybe Odin.

Douglas;

You, and no-one else can give any proof of a god in any shape or form that can be tested and proven via the scientific means.

END OF STORY

This is the world we live in. Get used to it. Without proof you have nothing

When I was younger (about 10) I would have tried more to try and convince you due to the fact that you are holding yourself back, using tools that are incorrect to try and answer the wonders of the universe around us, but I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless as you are so stubborn and narcissistic that you cannot see past your own delusions. I find the condescending tone that you use towards others on the forum appalling. You are so close minded and have no intention of letting anyone else show you that you are wrong that to even try and better your life by showing you the path to working out the scientific wonders of the universe is a waste of time.

Russell's teapot theory says that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet, however it cannot be detected in any way shape or form.
Are you going to live your life as though it does exist? No. Do you assume that anything else you cannot prove exists? No. Can you prove god exists? No.

So until you can give scientific ANY flawless evidence that God exists then continuing an discussion on the matter is pointless.

In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Douglas;

You, and no-one else can give any proof of a god in any shape or form that can be tested and proven via the scientific means.

END OF STORY

This is the world we live in. Get used to it. Without proof you have nothing
... .

The problem for you "ttg" is that you have not experienced deity or have refused to do so because of the changes you would have to put into effect if you did.

After re-reading your posting again, I would almost say with the tone you set here "ttg", that you had actually experienced God a time or two as a young child, but then, you did not get what you wanted from God; therefore you turned your back on him.
Since He had not provided what you required, you then decided you could try to hurt Him back by not acknowledging him ever again.
Well "ttg", He is still there and is awaiting your return.

Describe "red" to a man that has been blind since birth "ttg".
That is the problem we, who have experienced God in our lives, have when trying to deal with the spiritually blind, those who never ever wanted to see spiritually and most especially, those who have torn out their own spiritual eyes.
It has absolutely nothing with any of the outright, unequivocal and completely intentional rude things you posted quoted here:

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
...
When I was younger (about 10) I would have tried more to try and convince you due to the fact that you are holding yourself back, using tools that are incorrect to try and answer the wonders of the universe around us, but I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless as you are so stubborn and narcissistic that you cannot see past your own delusions. I find the condescending tone that you use towards others on the forum appalling. You are so close minded and have no intention of letting anyone else show you that you are wrong that to even try and better your life by showing you the path to working out the scientific wonders of the universe is a waste of time.

...

You have discussed nothing and have brought nothing to the table whatsoever with this mean-hearted posting.
In fact and in detail "ttg", you have proven beyond any doubt, that you are everything you falsely accused me of being.
That is a really sad situation "ttg"

Furthermore, I would add that you are the one who is missing out on many of the wonders of this universe we are living in by refusing to see it through more than just physical eyes and the remaining six other physical senses.
My acceptance and then use of my spiritual senses far betters my life beyond your limited physical perceptions can understand "ttg"
And since you cannot understand it, you choose to denigrate it instead.
A very sad choice "ttg".

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
... .
Russell's teapot theory says that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet, however it cannot be detected in any way shape or form.
Are you going to live your life as though it does exist? No. Do you assume that anything else you cannot prove exists? No. Can you prove god exists? No.

So until you can give scientific ANY flawless evidence that God exists then continuing an discussion on the matter is pointless.

If you refuse to open yourself to the proof of anything, whether physical or spiritual "ttg", no one can prove anything to you.
That is a basic fact of life.

"ttg", if you refuse to accept even the possibility of God, then even His appearance to you personally in all his glory could be explained away by yourself in just a matter of hours.
Holy Writ is filled with people who had experienced God up to this point that denied Him in the end.
Cain comes to mind quickly as first among many.

************************************************************************************************************************************************************
At this point DakkaDakka folk, I am done with this thread.
"ttg" has finished it for me except this farewell.
He came out intending to be mean, hurtful and insulting with no aim to discuss our differences or to explain ourselves to each other.
If I was to agree with some of the things he and others have placed against what I was saying, God would know I am lying to you all and that would carry consequences I am not willing to make myself suffer.
I have agency to choose my course in life and will not be rudely taken to task over those choices as exemplified by "ttg"'s harangue.
Even if he apologized this instant, I know what lurks in his heart waiting to spring forth once more so I must bid you adieu in this thread.

SilverMK2, if you really want to, we can continue via PM.
Having worked on multiple advanced degrees myself Silver, I do perfectly understand if you would like to either take a lengthy hiatus from this discussion or even leave it be.
One's own schooling has a great priority in one's own life as long as one does not develop greater man's pride while also growing in earthly knowledge.

E&C, I am really interested in the proofs of your statements about the Mormons and Joseph Smith, Jr.
It would be interesting to have concrete facts to back the claims.

Mathieu, I understand your position; I met many who have the same.
Best wishes on a brighter future.

To the others, well, ta-ta until we meet again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
In regards to atheism being compared to faith: if not believing in a god is a faith, then being bald is a hair colour.

I felt I had to reply to Troike.
Troike's posting came up while I was dealing with "ttg"'s.
I hope y'all will pardon my indulgence this once.

Troike, your syllogism would be accurate if you changed it to a hair "situation".
The colour of our hair is part of our hair situation; so is being without any.
Change the one word and in fact, you then have an accurate comparison.

I will use the amended version in the future.
Thank you Troike.