When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.

[judahxulu]

nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a god or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped

were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic god-man;made into the image of God). whatever works i guess...lol

 

[VIBE]

The website and thread itself is fully of stupidity. I swear their logic is fucked, god sure made some dumbasses.

 

[alissowack]

@alissowack.. wtf.. either it's too early for me in the morning right now or you're just not making any sense at all in what you're saying. Science is strictly emperical observation. You can prove a deity doesn't exist by testing claims of the believers in the deity we're referring to. Depending on a believer's description of a particular entity, we can use those descriptions to either prove or disprove its existence. Like for instance, if I were to tell you I believed in a talking plastic water bottle (I don't know... random), you could disprove that because a talking water bottle is illogical and doesn't make any sense by what we know of what goes on around us. If I believed that the water bottle I have sitting right next to me was able to talk to me, I would be wrong. The descriptions of God given by Christianity, Judaism and Islam for example allow his existence to be disproved because it's logically impossible. however, that doesn't rule out the existence of some other type of god or godhead. it just rules out the existence of the god as those religions describe

...but, you are assuming that God is "testable" like that water bottle; that God can be reduced to a science project. If God is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that God exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say God exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of God is much bigger than that.

 

[Bodhi]

...but, you are assuming that God is "testable" like that water bottle; that God can be reduced to a science project. If God is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that God exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say God exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of God is much bigger than that.

If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe God physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.

Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on god, complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a god in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.

 

[Bodhi]

nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a god or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped

were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic god-man;made into the image of God). whatever works i guess...lol

What is your definition of god?

 

[alissowack]

...but, you are assuming that God is "testable" like that water bottle; that God can be reduced to a science project. If God is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that God exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say God exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of God is much bigger than that.

If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe God physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.

Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on god, complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a god in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.

Observing God is one thing. Trusting God is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, God has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that God doesn't exist isn't because God can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that God supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.

Now if God exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence.

 

[judahxulu]

nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a god or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped

were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic god-man;made into the image of God). whatever works i guess...lol

What is your definition of god?

Anything men serve and obey. Cars are gods, egos are gods, entertainers are gods etc. God, to me is a generic term. Though they manifest in physical form, they begin as an archetype in the ether. The Elohim, translated as God in the bible (not LORD..2 diferent things) is the collection of these archetypes or the sum total of all potential consciousness. Adam in the esoteric hebrew understanding is the embodimient of infinite creative potential and originally those archetypes were to work in a cooperative fashion with him. when I say him, i mean Adam as the sum total of human consciousness on the macrocosm and humanity on a microcosm. In the bible you see the word combo LORD God. This is YHWH Elohim. The elohim ar subservient are rather appengages of YHWH (literally "is/ was/ will/ causes to be") functioning as a membrane between the seen and unseen world. YHWH by itself is unknowable. Man ineracts with YHWH Elohim or solitary or combined aspects of Elohim on a basis of consciousness.

 

[Bodhi]

So the universe is a manifestation of an eternal substance?

 

[Bodhi]

...but, you are assuming that God is "testable" like that water bottle; that God can be reduced to a science project. If God is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that God exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say God exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of God is much bigger than that.

If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe God physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.

Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on god, complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a god in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.

Observing God is one thing. Trusting God is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, God has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that God doesn't exist isn't because God can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that God supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.

Now if God exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence.

How can we trust something/someone we can't observe?

I've never heard God say anything on the topic of morality (or any topic whatsoever). If God is saying things to us, he must be observable in some way. If God is not observable, as you agree with me that he is not, then how do we know he has given any advice on morality or made any promises that would give us the idea that we should trust him?

 

[judahxulu]

So the universe is a manifestation of an eternal substance?

basically. it just expands and contracts but yeah its made up of eternal substance. believe the people in khemet used to call it the "primordial waters". thats interesting to me because heaven (not afterlife but more like he universe above is hashemayim. water is the word mayim. break down hashemayim and you get ha-shem-mayim= "the names (epithet for YHWH) waters". moses name moshe means "drawn out of waters". just a tangent...forgive me.

 

[Bodhi]

thats what I believe. Like for instance, when you think, your thoughts are in 2D while you exist in 3D. The same can be applied to the eternal substance which exists in a higher dimension but the universe, a manifestation of this eternal substance, exists in the lower dimension. Like the example of an eternal sea producing temporary or finite waves and foam. The water is in the wave, but the wave itself is not the sea. Likewise, the eternal substance exists in you and I but you and I are not "God". At the same time, "God" is not the god as theism describes

 

[judahxulu]

thats what I believe. Like for instance, when you think, your thoughts are in 2D while you exist in 3D. The same can be applied to the eternal substance which exists in a higher dimension but the universe, a manifestation of this eternal substance, exists in the lower dimension. Like the example of an eternal sea producing temporary or finite waves and foam. The water is in the wave, but the wave itself is not the sea. Likewise, the eternal substance exists in you and I but you and I are not "God". At the same time, "God" is not the god as theism describes

lol...you know more about what the bible say in the hebrew thought than more than a few hebrews i know and you an atheist or agnostic or something (i forgot which one). top reason why niggas and crackas dont like this is because this conceptualization does not abdicate personal responsibility and accountability to all the dimensions you exist in like a white,bearded lightning bolt good or a magnetic personality who is sposed to be an intercessor or some other kind of lame human sacrifice deal.

 

[alissowack]

...but, you are assuming that God is "testable" like that water bottle; that God can be reduced to a science project. If God is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that God exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say God exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of God is much bigger than that.

If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe God physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.

Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on god, complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a god in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.

Observing God is one thing. Trusting God is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, God has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that God doesn't exist isn't because God can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that God supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.

Now if God exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence.

How can we trust something/someone we can't observe?

I've never heard God say anything on the topic of morality (or any topic whatsoever). If God is saying things to us, he must be observable in some way. If God is not observable, as you agree with me that he is not, then how do we know he has given any advice on morality or made any promises that would give us the idea that we should trust him?

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

Maybe you are not familiar with the Bible, but there are things that suggest that there is a certain way in which to live. And there are things that suggest that people will be "blessed" if they live in that certain way and cursed if they don't.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that God exists.

 

[silverfoxx]

Real shit

2012= Atheism is cool

Its absolutely mind boggling how much atheists shits is going on now. I never judge any type of belief, but the label of me being stupid or dumb and childish because i believe in God contradicts to what man tells atheists about science.

Bottom line is, yes some Christians do give believers of God a bad name, but regardless of how much shit atheists narcissists think they are above with knowledge told by a man, its a waste of time because the shit will never change my view. So yall can proceed with the jokes, but i will never joke about atheism or Scientology because i have a general respect for people beliefs and i know some shit u just dont joke about. Until then, u can find me in lala land

 

[Bodhi]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that God exists.

what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?

You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.

Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.

Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR

 

[Bodhi]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

 

[alissowack]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that God exists.

what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?

You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.

Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.

Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR

In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" God.

 

[alissowack]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that God exists.

what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?

You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.

Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.

Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR

In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" God.

God didn't write the Bible. Even Christians will tell you the Bible was written by man

 

[Bodhi]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity