GIVE ME PROOF OF YOUR SO CALLED "GOD"

is there a god for you

yes	59.4%	[ 676 ]
no	40.6%	[ 462 ]
Total Votes:			[ 1138 ]

[Zeptan]

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

Furymoon

Like I said befor it goes both ways.

*sigh* But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining, which is why I focused my attention on them.

Where are you getting your evidence that it is more severe with Atheists complaining? I've seen quite a few "GOD IS TEH REALZ! LOL! DEAL!" in this thread. Sounds like a fairly vocal complaint against Atheists, even if it doesn't directly state that.

I don't have evidence, and it's not so big a deal that I must go fetch evidence. I know it's true, I'm not randomly making it up just to make you guys look bad. Is that what you think?

No, I think you're jumping to conclusions based off of incomplete evidence. You're making a fairly big generalization that has little connection to teh real world. You also assumed that I'm an Atherist. Sorry, I'm Agnostic. I accept the possibility of a higher being, but I'm not convinced. And Like Beyond Oblivion said, theres a difference between "I know" and "I beleive".

game100guy

I want to say this once and for all before I have to leave. All of you guys know, and for a fact you know, that Atheists make more of these types of threads. I'm not some basher who is just making this up to insult you all. But you know it, and there's no reason to argue with me about that.

Sorry for being so cynical, but you're psychic? I'm impressed that you know what I know. And I believe you orginal words were "But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining". I'll tie this in with your last paragraph.

game100guy

[

Quote:

You're making a fairly big generalization that has little connection to teh real world.

I was talking about gaia anyway. duh.

Fine, I'll revise: You're making a pretty big generalization with little evidence connecting it to the statistics of theological complaints on Gaia.

game100guy

Quote:

No, I think you're jumping to conclusions based off of incomplete evidence.

I didn't generalize. You know what? From now on, I will count the number of these types of threads and post them on my siggy, just to prove it. Although there should be no need. I'm getting off so later.

Go ahead. Of course, you should also keep track of posts as well. Otherwise, you'll ahve corrupt statsitics when a single Atheist thread has two Atheists a bitchin, and 999909909 believers whining.

Quote:

Sorry for being so cynical, but you're psychic? I'm impressed that you know what I know. And I believe you orginal words were "But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining". I'll tie this in with your last paragraph.

Thanks man, I try.

Quote:

Fine, I'll revise: You're making a pretty big generalization with little evidence connecting it to the statistics of theological complaints on Gaia.

O.o so you think I've only seen one or two threads? Nope, I've been on gaia for quite some time, and I've probably seen dozens.

Quote:

Go ahead. Of course, you should also keep track of posts as well. Otherwise, you'll ahve corrupt statsitics when a single Atheist thread has two Atheists a bitchin, and 999909909 believers whining.

Bitching and whining are pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, this is the ED. If someone makes a biased thread. There will be dozens of people posting in it that disagree.
So if a religious person creates a topic saying that there isn't evidence to support the claim that there isn't a god, there will be many Atheists who b***h.


Also, I'm saying that most of us stick to ourselves until someone makes a topic claiming we have no evidence that there is a god. Of course we're going to b***h about it, because it's not our point of view, which you can pretty much say about anyone else.

I know I'm not doing a good job putting what I mean into words, but I think you might know what I mean......

I do. And my point about the bitchin and teh whinin was this: If you based your poll SOLEY off of threads/first posts, then the thousands of believers who act as childish as those atheists that you despise would go unoticed and corrupt your data by making the beleivers look better.

Good point. cool Hmmm....I'm gonna find a topic that says evolution is true and b***h on it. Lol just kidding.....well I felt that you're one of the cooler people to have an argument with. Thanks dude. Well I'll be off now people, peace.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

EsgarBlackpoxs

game100guy

Furymoon

Like I said befor it goes both ways.

*sigh* But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining, which is why I focused my attention on them.

Where are you getting your evidence that it is more severe with Atheists complaining? I've seen quite a few "GOD IS TEH REALZ! LOL! DEAL!" in this thread. Sounds like a fairly vocal complaint against Atheists, even if it doesn't directly state that.

I don't have evidence, and it's not so big a deal that I must go fetch evidence. I know it's true, I'm not randomly making it up just to make you guys look bad. Is that what you think?

No, I think you're jumping to conclusions based off of incomplete evidence. You're making a fairly big generalization that has little connection to teh real world. You also assumed that I'm an Atherist. Sorry, I'm Agnostic. I accept the possibility of a higher being, but I'm not convinced. And Like Beyond Oblivion said, theres a difference between "I know" and "I beleive".

game100guy

I want to say this once and for all before I have to leave. All of you guys know, and for a fact you know, that Atheists make more of these types of threads. I'm not some basher who is just making this up to insult you all. But you know it, and there's no reason to argue with me about that.

Sorry for being so cynical, but you're psychic? I'm impressed that you know what I know. And I believe you orginal words were "But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining". I'll tie this in with your last paragraph.

game100guy

[

Quote:

You're making a fairly big generalization that has little connection to teh real world.

I was talking about gaia anyway. duh.

Fine, I'll revise: You're making a pretty big generalization with little evidence connecting it to the statistics of theological complaints on Gaia.

game100guy

Quote:

No, I think you're jumping to conclusions based off of incomplete evidence.

I didn't generalize. You know what? From now on, I will count the number of these types of threads and post them on my siggy, just to prove it. Although there should be no need. I'm getting off so later.

Go ahead. Of course, you should also keep track of posts as well. Otherwise, you'll ahve corrupt statsitics when a single Atheist thread has two Atheists a bitchin, and 999909909 believers whining.

Quote:

Sorry for being so cynical, but you're psychic? I'm impressed that you know what I know. And I believe you orginal words were "But you know as well as I do that it is more severe with Atheists complaining". I'll tie this in with your last paragraph.

Thanks man, I try.

Quote:

Fine, I'll revise: You're making a pretty big generalization with little evidence connecting it to the statistics of theological complaints on Gaia.

O.o so you think I've only seen one or two threads? Nope, I've been on gaia for quite some time, and I've probably seen dozens.

Quote:

Go ahead. Of course, you should also keep track of posts as well. Otherwise, you'll ahve corrupt statsitics when a single Atheist thread has two Atheists a bitchin, and 999909909 believers whining.

Bitching and whining are pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, this is the ED. If someone makes a biased thread. There will be dozens of people posting in it that disagree.
So if a religious person creates a topic saying that there isn't evidence to support the claim that there isn't a god, there will be many Atheists who b***h.


Also, I'm saying that most of us stick to ourselves until someone makes a topic claiming we have no evidence that there is a god. Of course we're going to b***h about it, because it's not our point of view, which you can pretty much say about anyone else.

I know I'm not doing a good job putting what I mean into words, but I think you might know what I mean......

I do. And my point about the bitchin and teh whinin was this: If you based your poll SOLEY off of threads/first posts, then the thousands of believers who act as childish as those atheists that you despise would go unoticed and corrupt your data by making the beleivers look better.

Good point. cool Hmmm....I'm gonna find a topic that says evolution is true and b***h on it. Lol just kidding.....well I felt that you're one of the cooler people to have an argument with. Thanks dude. Well I'll be off now people, peace.

Woot, I'm cool! Perhaps we will duel agian, in another thread, another time....

[flyingemu27]

Beyond_Oblivion

flyingemu27

cookie~in~a~cake~factory

Ok so most people believe in some kind of god. Me and my friend are just saying prove that any god exsists. How do you know and what makes you believe. I am atheist so I have no god but my friend does have a god.

Josh McDowell, on page 2 of the introduction to his book [i]Evidence for Christianity,

Christianity appeals to history. It appeals to facts of history that are clearly recognizable and accessible by everyone.

Clark Pinnock defines these types of facts: "The facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind of religious fact. They are the cognitive, informational facts upon which all historical, legal, and ordinary decisions are based" (Pinnock, SFYC, 6, 7)

I do not know all of those facts. But I do intend on learning them. You see, there is evidence out there. The decision you have to make is: will you search for that evidence?

If you don't believe there are such facts, just think about all the athiests who tried to disprove God, and in the process came upon all these facts that point towards God. So many of them came to believe simply from trying to disprove it. Have you heard of C.S. Lewis? He was one of the biggest Christian apologetics, and he came to know Christ after trying to disprove Him. Josh McDowell, whose book I quoted above, and Lee Strobel, who is known for his book The Case for Christ, both also came to believe in the same way.

If you really want to see if God is real, and Jesus is who He said He was, then just do some research. And when I say "research," I don't mean google "Jesus Christ." I mean read books. Like Josh McDowell's Evidence for Christianity or Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. If you really want to know if God exists, search for Him. If you seek Him, you will find Him.

Besides, how many of us gaians really have the extensive knowledge that those authors have to lay down all the facts that point to Christ? Most of us haven't even been to college yet, let alone a bible college.

Just something to seriously consider.

The issue is that every religion claims such historical background. Furthermore, some of them have a better support than Christianity. There are no texts written during Jesus's lifetime that we know of, but there are plenty of texts speaking of Siddhārtha Gautama that were written during his lifetime.

As for research, I really do not see why a religion need have a historical backing. It does not strike me as an important part of it. It matters to me that I think it is right (and none I have found do I believe this to be so) and it complies with what we observe in reality (or, better yet, makes no claims about physical reality at all).

Josh McDowell, on page 6 of the introduction to his book, [i]Evidence for Christianity,

Critics sometimes charge, "Events such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus' turning water into wine and walking on water didn't really happen. They were inserted to elevate Jesus to the status of a divine figure, though, if he lived at all, he was no more than a mere mortal."

A professor of a world literature class to which i spoke asked the question, 'what do you think of Greek mythology?"

I answered with another question. "Do you mean, were the events of the life of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, etc., just myth?"

He answered, "Yes."

I replied that there is an obvious difference between the events recorded about Christ in the Bible and the stories conveyed in Greek mythology that bear a vague similarity. The similar stories, such as resurrections, and others, of Greek mythology were not applied to real flesh-and-blood individuals but instead to nonhistorical, fictional, mythological characters. however, when it comes to Christianity, these events were attached to the historic Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New testament writers knew personally.

The professor replied, "You're right. i never realized that before."

(

(I know you weren't referring to Greek mythology...and this wasn't a direct response...but...it's still good stuff. )

Also...about the importance of history...

Josh McDowell, on page 170 of his book [i]Evidence for Christianity,

The historicity of Jesus isn't just a matter of curious interest for the Christian. The Christian faith is grounded in history. New Testament scholar Donald Hagner notes:

Donald Hagner

True Christianity, the Christianity of the New Testament documents, is absolutely dependent on history. At the heart of New Testament faith is the assertion that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 cor. 5:19 NASB). The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a real event in time and space, i.e., as historical realities, are the indispensable foundations of Christian faith. To my mind, then, Christianity is best defined as the recitation of, the celebration of, and the participation in God's acts in history, which as the New Testament writings emphasize have found their culmination in Jesus Christ." (Hagner, NTCI, 73,74)

[Beyond_Oblivion]

flyingemu27

Josh McDowell, on page 6 of the introduction to his book, [i]Evidence for Christianity,

Critics sometimes charge, "Events such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus' turning water into wine and walking on water didn't really happen. They were inserted to elevate Jesus to the status of a divine figure, though, if he lived at all, he was no more than a mere mortal."

A professor of a world literature class to which i spoke asked the question, 'what do you think of Greek mythology?"

I answered with another question. "Do you mean, were the events of the life of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, etc., just myth?"

He answered, "Yes."

I replied that there is an obvious difference between the events recorded about Christ in the Bible and the stories conveyed in Greek mythology that bear a vague similarity. The similar stories, such as resurrections, and others, of Greek mythology were not applied to real flesh-and-blood individuals but instead to nonhistorical, fictional, mythological characters. however, when it comes to Christianity, these events were attached to the historic Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New testament writers knew personally.

The professor replied, "You're right. i never realized that before."

(I know you weren't referring to Greek mythology...and this wasn't a direct response...but...it's still good stuff. )

I have never seen sufficient evidence to state that Jesus existed as a historical figure. There is nothing that I have seen written about him during his life. Thus, how can you confirm that he exists?

Furthermore, how can you confirm that those stories did not include actual people? You can claim that they do not, but I have never seen evidence that states they are not. I know that this may sound contradictory to my point above, but it isn't. The point I am making is that these figures are no more confirmed to exist than Jesus.

Quote:

Also...about the importance of history...

Josh McDowell, on page 170 of his book [i]Evidence for Christianity,

The historicity of Jesus isn't just a matter of curious interest for the Christian. The Christian faith is grounded in history. New Testament scholar Donald Hagner notes:

Donald Hagner

True Christianity, the Christianity of the New Testament documents, is absolutely dependent on history. At the heart of New Testament faith is the assertion that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 cor. 5:19 NASB). The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a real event in time and space, i.e., as historical realities, are the indispensable foundations of Christian faith. To my mind, then, Christianity is best defined as the recitation of, the celebration of, and the participation in God's acts in history, which as the New Testament writings emphasize have found their culmination in Jesus Christ." (Hagner, NTCI, 73,74)

This explains why it is important to Christianity, not religion. From this passage, however, it seems that Christianity hinges upon historical accuracy. So, how do they confirm that it is historical accuracy? I have seen claims made to Josephus, but those don't really pan out since:
1.) Josephus did not write about Jesus while Jesus was supposedly alive.
2.) There is evidence of tampering with the texts of Josephus.
There have been similar claims made to Pliny the Younger, but his accounts of things are demonstrably incorrect.

[Shanghai Doll]

The whole concept of faith is that a person doesn't need proof. It's just something that you know inside of you. You understand that you are not the be all, end all culmination of the universe and that there is a power higher than the self. I am always amazed by people who think that as precise and complex as all life is on this planet, that it could really just be a big ole cosmic accident.

[Beyond_Oblivion]

Parity

You understand that you are not the be all, end all culmination of the universe and that there is a power higher than the self.

I don't see the connection between believing that humans are not the pinnacle of the universe and that there is a deity. As a matter of fact, the opposite relationship tends to be true: believing in a deity leads to the impression that the universe was meant to produce humans. I am not saying this is a universal case, just what I have observed from most theists.

But anyways, is it not possible to accept that humans are the greatest thing ever and not accept a deity? Well, I tend to think so since I do such.

Quote:

I am always amazed by people who think that as precise and complex as all life is on this planet, that it could really just be a big ole cosmic accident.

Well, how is everything precise? And what do you mean by accident?

[flyingemu27]

Beyond_Oblivion

flyingemu27

Josh McDowell, on page 6 of the introduction to his book, [i]Evidence for Christianity,

Critics sometimes charge, "Events such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus' turning water into wine and walking on water didn't really happen. They were inserted to elevate Jesus to the status of a divine figure, though, if he lived at all, he was no more than a mere mortal."

A professor of a world literature class to which i spoke asked the question, 'what do you think of Greek mythology?"

I answered with another question. "Do you mean, were the events of the life of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, etc., just myth?"

He answered, "Yes."

I replied that there is an obvious difference between the events recorded about Christ in the Bible and the stories conveyed in Greek mythology that bear a vague similarity. The similar stories, such as resurrections, and others, of Greek mythology were not applied to real flesh-and-blood individuals but instead to nonhistorical, fictional, mythological characters. however, when it comes to Christianity, these events were attached to the historic Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New testament writers knew personally.

The professor replied, "You're right. i never realized that before."

(I know you weren't referring to Greek mythology...and this wasn't a direct response...but...it's still good stuff. )

I have never seen sufficient evidence to state that Jesus existed as a historical figure. There is nothing that I have seen written about him during his life. Thus, how can you confirm that he exists?

Furthermore, how can you confirm that those stories did not include actual people? You can claim that they do not, but I have never seen evidence that states they are not. I know that this may sound contradictory to my point above, but it isn't. The point I am making is that these figures are no more confirmed to exist than Jesus.

Quote:

Also...about the importance of history...

Josh McDowell, on page 170 of his book [i]Evidence for Christianity,

The historicity of Jesus isn't just a matter of curious interest for the Christian. The Christian faith is grounded in history. New Testament scholar Donald Hagner notes:

Donald Hagner

True Christianity, the Christianity of the New Testament documents, is absolutely dependent on history. At the heart of New Testament faith is the assertion that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 cor. 5:19 NASB). The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a real event in time and space, i.e., as historical realities, are the indispensable foundations of Christian faith. To my mind, then, Christianity is best defined as the recitation of, the celebration of, and the participation in God's acts in history, which as the New Testament writings emphasize have found their culmination in Jesus Christ." (Hagner, NTCI, 73,74)

This explains why it is important to Christianity, not religion. From this passage, however, it seems that Christianity hinges upon historical accuracy. So, how do they confirm that it is historical accuracy? I have seen claims made to Josephus, but those don't really pan out since:
1.) Josephus did not write about Jesus while Jesus was supposedly alive.
2.) There is evidence of tampering with the texts of Josephus.
There have been similar claims made to Pliny the Younger, but his accounts of things are demonstrably incorrect.

Historical accounts of Jesus:

Josh McDowell, in Chapter 5, Jesus: A Man of History, of his book [i]Evidence for Christianity,

1B. Cornelius Tacitus

According to Professor Gary Habermas, "Cornelius Tacitus (C. A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the 'greatest historian' of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral 'integrity and essential goodness;" (Habermas, VHCELJ, 87).

Tacitus's most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. "The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to that of Domitian in A.D. 96" (Habermas, VHCELJ, 87).

Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. Says Tacitus:

Cornelius Tacitus

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. (Annals xv, 44)

. . .

Cambridge lecturer Markus Bockmuehl notes that Tacitus's comments provide us with testimony by the leading Roman historian of his day, "independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judea in the reign of Tiberius and during Pontius Pilate's office as procurator (technically still a prefect, A.D. 26-36). That may not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are still sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty" (Bockmuehl, TJMLM, 10, 11).

Later in the same chapter:

Josh McDowell

In the Babylonian Talmud we read: "It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). another version of this text says, "Yeshu the Nazarene."

"Yeshu" translates through Greek to English as "Jesus," and the reference to him being a Nazarene makes the link to Jesus Christ even stronger.

Morever, the word "hanged" is another way of referring to crucifixion (see Luke 23:39; Gal. 3:13). "The Talmud," writes the Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, "speaks of hanging in place of crucifixion, since this horrible Roman form of death was only known to Jewish scholars from Roman trials, and not from the Jewish legal system. Even Paul the Apostle (Gal. iii. 13) expounds the passage 'for a curse of God is that which is hanged' (Deut. xxi. 23) as applicable to Jesus" (Klausner, JN, 28 ).

Also, the reference that this crucifixion occurred "on the eve of Passover" agrees with John 19:14 (phrase also found in b. Sanh. 67a; y. Sanh 7:16).

Therefore, this text clearly affirms the historicity of Jesus and His death. It also affirms that the Jewish authorities were involved in the sentencing, but tries to justify their actions. In a backhanded way it even attests to Jesus' miracles (see also b. Sanh. 107b; t. Sabb. 11:15; b. Sabb. 104b.; b. Sota 47a), but it attempts to explain them away as the work of a sorcerer or magician, a response mentioned by the Gospel writers (Mark 3:22; Matt. 9:34; 12:24)(Klausner, JN, 23).

Following this Jewish text appears a comment by the late third-century Ammora, 'Ulla, which states: "Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: 'You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him.' It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship." This phrase--"near to the kingship"--may refer to Jesus' genealogical descent from Israel's King David, or it may denote Pilate's washing his hands before turning Jesus over to scourging and crucifixion.

[master_of_games413]

me telling you that god exist = forcing my beliefs onto you
you telling me he does = oh the irony

[flyingemu27]

Alright, well I'm going to bed. Hopefully this discussion can continue. mrgreen

[TheSc0tsman]

.........You know, i always find it funny when man tries to be smarter than God. Become God. You want scientific proof of god? Look around you. A planet, just the right distance from the sun. That blade of grass, and all the complicated microscopic things that go on in it. Us, humans, with our unique bodies, every little detail important. And the Human mind, the most complex thing ever. You see all that, and you believe that it was just some explosions of gas? Some random chemicals forming? ............Thats harder to believe than a God.

[Miss Demon Taka]

UsSailor07--
Now while I am Zen Buddhist, they have come up with scientific reasoning for why we're here on this planet.
Our exact postioning didn't happend at the same moment Earth was form. It slowly moved it's way to it's postion.
Every thing in space has began to loss it's gravitation pull. Meaning that during the 1700s the moon use to be alot closer than it is right now.
And for the reason why there is life on this planet is because of the postion it is at. While Earth use to be a Hot gas planet, the microscopic organisms started to develop from the carbon monoxide, nitrogen, and etc. Then eventually oxygen was being produced. But those microscopic organisms, were the first sings of life on Earth.

Now while this is all from scientific reasoning. I don't care what religon you are as long as you don't go around "Brain Washing" people. I think you should just tell them about your religon and why you believe in it, and leave it at that.

[Steampunk Patashu]

UsSailor07

Us, humans, with our unique bodies, every little detail important.

Stop.

What's the importance of the appendix, the vestigal tailbone, the optical nerve's position in front of the retina and junk dna/pseudogenes?

[Zamurai Cris]

the appendix was used long ago but now it is omg why am i forgetting the words, umm i tink its vestigial or ah,...
well anyway it apparently has no further purpose to take up space you know..
ehe,
this topic is cetanly making lots of interesting side discussions as well

[Warrior of Paper]

here is your god.

[Zamurai Cris]

in my pants or up on the kitteh. but seriously, many ppl will flame you for that maybe.. youve been warned. or many will laugh.