[fiasco360]

Assyrian Aramaic chant from Georgia. Sadly I wasn't able to meet Father Seraphim since I found out about him after traveling there.

It's a little difficult for me to understand since the chanting veils some of the pronunciation but it's hauntingly beautiful.

[Dr. Howard]

(05-22-2019 10:43 PM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

The scientific method is a good choice. Empirical evidence. Testability.

While not perfect it works well.

I'll take a different approach to Sooth.

Consider the Scientific method when you don't have the means to conduct a test. If something is not currently testable, does that mean it isn't true?

For example, lets go back to before you could see a bacteria via a microscope. How would you use the Scientific Method to test germ theory? You couldn't. The theory that tiny organisms not visible to the human eye caused food poisoning or infections could not be tested because there was not a means to see them.

So, does that mean that bacteria did not exist prior to the invention of the microscope as they were not testable? Did gravity not exist prior to Issac newton, ,radiation before Curie or DNA before Watson and Crick?

If man does not currently have the technology to test for the existence of God, does that mean he does not exist?

[alchemical]

BURDEN OF PROOF

Shall the burden of proof lie on the believer... or non-believer?

Is the onus really on the believer to prove that God exist?
Or is it for the non-believers to prove otherwise?

I think this needs to be settled first.

Discuss.




Btw, isn't this a bit of an unfair argument: Prove to me that God exists; if you can't, then He doesn't. I rest my case.

[Sherman]

Most people who say they "believe" in God are pretenders. They don't really know. And all philosophical proofs of God have turned out to be silly. If you are trying to reason about God, you are already a fake. You are just manipulating symbols in your head and you know it. You have no direct experience and are just hoping it's true. That is why faux believers must intimidate and threaten others to believe. They are really trying to convince themselves. You don't have to intimidate someone into believing the grass is green, because he has direct experience. The real atheists are those who argue that there is a God.

[alchemical]

DELETE

[Aurini]

(05-22-2019 06:17 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Regarding the veracity of Christ. Even to the extent of whether a certain carpenter existed in Nazareth.

Amuses me the lengths some folk will go to in denying Christ.
Yet when it comes to Pontius Pilate or King Herod of the day, despite how little there is in the historical record of those two, especially Pilate.
Folk have no qualms...
Even though ironically, the vast majority of folk would only know of Pontius Pilate because of the Bible & would struggle to name any other Roman governors...

Opportunity cost of the belief, and improbability of the belief.

"I have a friend named Jake."

"I have a friend named Jake who drives a Ferrari."

"I have a friend named Jake who knows all the secrets of diet advice, let me tell you how to eat."

I do not weight all those statements equally.

[DeadlyReed]

God exists. The more important concern are the actions of believers from which the fruits of said existence can be discerned.

[debeguiled]

Some good videos.

First is by Jay Dyer, a defense of the veracity (not whether or not god is God). He is countering the new critics who try to say the NT is a conspiracy or a myth written later. A lot of good info, comparing the evidence of the NT against evidence for, say, the Greek classics which we take for granted as being genuine.

Quote:

Several emails with good questions arrived this week, so I wanted to take the opportunity to answer with my perspective. First, I deal with why the New Testament is reliable in terms of basic textual issues. Second, I deal with the theology of the NT and the Book of Isaiah as it relates to the many powerful predictions of the coming of the Messiah.

Surprising there haven't been more testimony/conversion stories on this thread. These can be powerful. This is a good, clear, honest, reasonable testimony from a Jewish New Ager who went in a different direction. I find many testimonies of Jews who converted to Christianity to be insufferable and condescending, so this one is striking for its humility and honesty.

[Dr. Howard]

(Yesterday 09:25 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Most people who say they "believe" in God are pretenders. They don't really know. And all philosophical proofs of God have turned out to be silly. If you are trying to reason about God, you are already a fake. You are just manipulating symbols in your head and you know it. You have no direct experience and are just hoping it's true. That is why faux believers must intimidate and threaten others to believe. They are really trying to convince themselves. You don't have to intimidate someone into believing the grass is green, because he has direct experience. The real atheists are those who argue that there is a God.

I think I follow what you are saying, a pastor I like says it like "You may have prayed prayer, parked in a pew, walked the walk and even gone for a dunk in the bapistry but you might not be saved. You know if you are saved or not. You know that you know"

I don't have a need to argue that there is a God, I want to tell people about how to find God and what salvation offers.

If I was a woman and there was a 50% off sale at the Wine Barn I would want to tell my friends so they could go there and get some cheap wine before it closed. If some friend wanted to take up all of my time arguing about if there is a sale or not, forget them, get out of my way so I can tell my friend that can really use some cheap wine about the sale.

Arguing about the existence of God is pointless, helping those that are looking for God to find him is the goal. They have 'eyes to see and ears to hear'

Not finding God, or denying Him is the easy part. The same with any null hypothesis,

[debeguiled]

Most people who say they "know" God doesn't exist are pretenders. They don't really know. And all philosophical proofs against God have turned out to be silly. If you are trying to reason about God, you are already a fake. You are just manipulating symbols in your head and you know it. You have no direct way to proof nonexistence and are just hoping it isn't true. That is why faux skeptics must intimidate and threaten others not to believe. They are really trying to convince themselves. You don't have to intimidate someone into disbelieving the grass is green, because he has direct experience. The real religious fanatics are those who argue that there is no God.

[Dr. Howard]

(Yesterday 11:45 AM)DeadlyReed Wrote:  

God exists. The more important concern are the actions of believers from which the fruits of said existence can be discerned.

[Dr. Howard]

(05-22-2019 12:01 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Some good videos.

First is by Jay Dyer, a defense of the veracity (not whether or not god is God). He is countering the new critics who try to say the NT is a conspiracy or a myth written later. A lot of good info, comparing the evidence of the NT against evidence for, say, the Greek classics which we take for granted as being genuine.

Quote:

Several emails with good questions arrived this week, so I wanted to take the opportunity to answer with my perspective. First, I deal with why the New Testament is reliable in terms of basic textual issues. Second, I deal with the theology of the NT and the Book of Isaiah as it relates to the many powerful predictions of the coming of the Messiah.

There is a book called "the case for Christ" which does a good job at laying out these kinds of arguments. I don't care for its writing style but the material is good.

[Aurini]

(05-22-2019 02:53 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

There is a book called "the case for Christ" which does a good job at laying out these kinds of arguments. I don't care for its writing style but the material is good.

That book got its metaphor completely backwards. I read it when I was 20, and it helped drive me away from religion and into the arms of atheism, because of how atrocious its logic was.

They treated Christ like the defendant, when He should have been the prosecution. The Null Hypothesis is always the defendant in matters of reason: which is to say, you start from a position of "I don't know; convince me beyond a reasonable doubt!"

Fact of the matter is, the historical evidence is only so-so. There's enough for it to be not against reason to believe in Him, if you have faith; but insufficient to convince those without Faith. Christianity is making an incredible claim about reality, and how we ought to live; to pretend that Christianity is the default assumption, and that atheists and agnostics need to disprove it, is the height of hubris.

[Sosa]

(05-21-2019 11:18 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Spiritually I'm progressing quite rapidly. My sense of right from wrong is becoming very sharp, particularly in regard to my own behavior. I thought that I could let things proceed when it comes to my online activities (e.g. selling pornographic books), but I will have to make some changes. I will make announcements as those changes happen.

Romans 6:20 - 22

20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the obligation to do right. 21 And what was the result? You are now ashamed of the things you used to do, things that end in eternal doom. 22 But now you are free from the power of sin and have become slaves of God. Now you do those things that lead to holiness and result in eternal life.

[Dr. Howard]

(05-22-2019 02:58 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:53 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

There is a book called "the case for Christ" which does a good job at laying out these kinds of arguments. I don't care for its writing style but the material is good.

That book got its metaphor completely backwards. I read it when I was 20, and it helped drive me away from religion and into the arms of atheism, because of how atrocious its logic was.

They treated Christ like the defendant, when He should have been the prosecution. The Null Hypothesis is always the defendant in matters of reason: which is to say, you start from a position of "I don't know; convince me beyond a reasonable doubt!"

Fact of the matter is, the historical evidence is only so-so. There's enough for it to be not against reason to believe in Him, if you have faith; but insufficient to convince those without Faith. Christianity is making an incredible claim about reality, and how we ought to live; to pretend that Christianity is the default assumption, and that atheists and agnostics need to disprove it, is the height of hubris.

I agree, its written in such a way that if you did not have faith to begin with, or were questioning then it would probably actually turn you away. The author comes off as a naggy atheist rather than a protagonist that you would follow on their journey to truth.

I read it after my salvation and like I said I didn't care for the author's story or side of things but got a lot of leads for further reading from the people he interviews in the book. They were discussing things I'd never heard of before historically.

[CynicalContrarian]

Regarding the veracity of Christ. Even to the extent of whether a certain carpenter existed in Nazareth.

Amuses me the lengths some folk will go to in denying Christ.
Yet when it comes to Pontius Pilate or King Herod of the day, despite how little there is in the historical record of those two, especially Pilate.
Folk have no qualms...
Even though ironically, the vast majority of folk would only know of Pontius Pilate because of the Bible & would struggle to name any other Roman governors...

[BelyyTigr]

I am Christian. I also like game. Not so much as when I was younger, but I'll never give it up and marry a fat girl who gets old and gross and sings hymns or whatever. Sorry Thora Hird doesn't do it for me!

Here's a couple of things I think about:-

1)All the openly "devoutly" religious women I've dated have turned out to be duplicitious and vile. Sometimes I was taken in by them, even over years. Had I "nailed my colours to the mast" I have no doubt many years of my life would have been wasted and I'd have been well and truly divorce raped - as I'd have believed their "non-materialist" pleas.

2)Early Christianity actually had sexually based cults. Think Kama Sutra and Devasi etc. But these are well and truly gone. Much like Kama Sutra philosophy and most Hindus. So are sexual activities outside of deliberate married procreation and Christianity competing practices? Can someone explain?

3)No sex before marriage worked fine hundreds of years ago. People married very young, died very young, died in childbirth and never left their village. Geographic mobility on happened in famines and wars. Again, how do people reconcile that with modern life. Some people here won't marry before 35 or 40! And their first marriage will be a disaster. Infact the most devout Christian male I know is 45 and still not married.

So what are the views of Christians and non Christians?

[Sooth]

(05-21-2019 09:59 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

How do you all logically deduce the existence of God?

How do you logically deduce anything without the existence of God?

[infowarrior1]

[infowarrior1]

(Yesterday 06:19 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  

1)All the openly "devoutly" religious women I've dated have turned out to be duplicitious and vile. Sometimes I was taken in by them, even over years. Had I "nailed my colours to the mast" I have no doubt many years of my life would have been wasted and I'd have been well and truly divorce raped - as I'd have believed their "non-materialist" pleas.

2)Early Christianity actually had sexually based cults. Think Kama Sutra and Devasi etc. But these are well and truly gone. Much like Kama Sutra philosophy and most Hindus. So are sexual activities outside of deliberate married procreation and Christianity competing practices? Can someone explain?

1) Pharisees were also "devoutly" religious so "holy" that they were "holier than Jesus". Yet they were the ones most severely criticised by Jesus. Its a case of a whitewashed tombs. To know the salvation of a person you can only look at his fruits. The same. Neglecting the weightier matters of the law whilst straining a gnat on the details.


2)A lot of those sex based cults were definitely heresies that ensures that sexually is outside the sanctified marriage bonds.

At the same time there were cults that forbid sex even within marriage at the time. Or hated the material world so much that they considered marriage evil and the bearing of children sinful as it entails trapping the spirit in filthy matter.

[ball dont lie]

The scientific method is a good choice. Empirical evidence. Testability.

While not perfect it works well.

[Sooth]

(05-22-2019 10:43 PM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

The scientific method is a good choice. Empirical evidence. Testability.

While not perfect it works well.

So you use your reasoning to test the evidence.

How do you know your reasoning is valid?

[infowarrior1]

Scientific recreation of the Hagia Sophia Chant: