Prove me wrong.

Once upon a time, laws were thought to be the dictates of higher powers, because back in the day, at least over here in Britain, the bible was law, and real laws as we know them now were few and far between.

Then the whole science boom thing went and happened, cue industrial revolution etc etc, and suddenly people aren't buying the rules of the church anymore, not in the same way, and to hold society together in the now huge cities, laws became creatures of thought and reason, backed up by new political ideals and philosophy, which had always existed but not so freely and certainly not so hand in hand without religion and the ways of the land.

So to me, the laws we have now are not based on acceptance of a higher power that is divine, we moved past that a long time ago when we ruled that kings were not divinely connected to God, and so their word was not law. Now the only higher power we pay homage to in matters of legality is the system which enforces them. The courts, the Judges and the police and Armies. Those are your higher powers.

When new laws are passed now, it is not in reference or in deference of God, but of people, the world and controlling those things.

“Then the whole science boom thing went and happened, cue industrial revolution etc etc, and suddenly people aren't buying the rules of the church anymore”

It seems that we are generalizing people and the rules of the church in this statement. Are you actually acknowledging the divine connection between God, and His people by using the word church as it was intended to be used, or is this just another rant to discredit the orthodox English language?
If I were accused of being a Christian I would hope that there would be enough evidence to convict me. It is impossible to prove anything scientifically without empirical evidence. Subjective evidence is allowed in a courtroom. .Faith, hope and, charity have a stigma placed on them by man, and not God. Are you not by your own argument stating that rules of logic are manmade, and subject to stigma?

Em Micheal, are you saying that there wasn't a movement away from Religion as the source of all answers in life, to Science? Because, history would disagree with you if you were saying that and that is all I was getting at.

As I see it, God used to be the divine ruler, through his church, of how most people acted and thought of the world. Then science took over with it's evidence and testing based system to show us that God did not control the things we previously thought he did, and so faith moved to science.

Now, again as I see it, things are balancing out with the modern spiritualist movement, which at it's best fuses things like Quantum physics with mysticism to gather a more complete, holistic picture of the world. At it's worst it creates more unhealthy thinking, with things like mediums and crystal healing etc, but then Christianity has a best and worst too.

In any case Micheal, what we have here is a very simple problem. I think to make claims to Gods reality and his effect upon our world and everyone in it, someone, be that you or anyone else, will have to come up with some pretty amazing evidence for such a huge claim.

Because when you think from the perspective of a non believer, everything you say God is and does, sounds amazing, mysterious and frightening. Do you expect people to just accept such a massive idea without anything to back it up except totally subjective ideas and feelings?

It wouldn't stand up in court, it wouldn't stand up in a pub discussion and it woudln't even stand up in a primary school talk.

But, bless us we keep trying.

“Em Micheal, are you saying that there wasn't a movement away from Religion as the source of all answers in life, to Science? Because, history would disagree with you if you were saying that and that is all I was getting at”

It seems a paradox that church and science have been at odds throughout the Christian era. Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Nicolaus Copernicus is to me an enigma
Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist, physician, classical scholar, Catholic cleric, governor, administrator, diplomat, economist and soldier. Amid these extensive responsibilities, astronomy served as no more than an avocation. Nonetheless, his conception of the sun (rather than the Earth) at the center of the solar system is considered among the most important landmarks in the history of science.

”As I see it, God used to be the divine ruler, through his church, of how most people acted and thought of the world. Then science took over with it's evidence and testing based system to show us that God did not control the things we previously thought he did, and so faith moved to science.”

Galileo Galilei’s condemnation was recently overturned.
I believe faith and science should move to the truth

Science is the observation of natural events. I view the human error of the dark ages inquisition, crusades, etc as evidence of the worse impurities in religion. Is there a standard rule of logic?
To prevent discord and enable trade, many towns decided on a standard length and displayed this publicly. In order to enable simultaneous use of the different units of length based on different parts of the human body and other "natural" units of length, the different units were redefined as multiples of each other, whereby their lengths no longer corresponded to the original "natural" standards. This process of national standardisation began in Scotland in 1150 and in England in 1303, but many different regional standards had existed in both these countries long before.
Some believe that the original measurement of the English foot was from King Henry I, who had a foot 12 inches
A ruler of limited length does not necessarily prove divine rule
When I buy wood measured in feet I don’t have to acknowledge the rule of a king
We don’t have to count on our fingers anymore, but you don’t have to be a space cadet to know you don’t work on an original 55 chevy using metric tools

No man can dictate moral standard, but bless us we still try

You are full of it mate. You never answer from your own understanding, and that annoys me greatly, you pile quote and reference upon quote and reference and say nothing of your own thoughts and feelings.

I ask something, directly and simply, and you give me line after line of history that as always, is barely relevant to what I am saying.

Now before everyone jumps in and accuses me of not listening to Micheal, and only wanting him to agree with me, I am telling you that I am not doing that. I am trying to discuss religion, science and faith with a person who to me, has a limited understanding of all these things outside of cut and paste historical facts and nausea inducing proverbs.

And to be blunt, I am sick of being polite about it. I am a smart guy Micheal, arrogant at times, but I'm telling you, try as I might, I don't know why you respond to people the way you do. It's like you are 95% deaf or blind, and you only see and hear a fraction of what they say, and so when you respond, you say whatever you want as long as it's vaguely connected to what you think you saw and heard...but I'm telling you, it isn't.

When Cory posted after me in this thread, he spoke sense and I saw that right away and said I was sorry. I didn't agree with some of his points but I understood him, and everyone else in this thread.

It's just you man.

“You are full of it mate”

I will not dispute that fact. My human nature seems to dictate a hope that what I am full of is not worthless.

“You never answer from your own understanding, and that annoys me greatly, you pile quote and reference upon quote and reference and say nothing of your own thoughts and feelings”

My thoughts and feelings are subjective. I am however flattered that you believe I can prove anything with my feelings
“2. It is therefor the duty and responsibility of anyone who says something does exist to prove it, to show some evidence that is not subjective”.

"I ask something, directly and simply, and you give me line after line of history that as always, is barely relevant to what I am saying."
I am building a foundation that a shallow mind may have an issue with

”Now before everyone jumps in and accuses me of not listening to Micheal, and only wanting him to agree with me, I am telling you that I am not doing that. I am trying to discuss religion, science and faith with a person who to me, has a limited understanding of all these things outside of cut and paste historical facts and nausea inducing proverbs.”

Do I detect your emotive force or subjective reasoning in your strategy to attack the messenger rather than the message?

"And to be blunt, I am sick of being polite about it. I am a smart guy Micheal, arrogant at times, but I'm telling you, try as I might, I don't know why you respond to people the way you do. It's like you are 95% deaf or blind, and you only see and hear a fraction of what they say, and so when you respond, you say whatever you want as long as it's vaguely connected to what you think you saw and heard...but I'm telling you, it isn't."

My perception of the topic post may differ from others, yet my human nature enjoys the response I get

If we were to take all the words out of the dictionary that pertain to God, miracle would be one. If you want subjective proof of the existence of God based on my personal expirience here is an example

New Years day, on the morning of January 1/ 2003
I received a very disturbing phone call from my niece. She told me my sister Debbie was in Centennial hospital, and that the doctors believed she had a ruptured brain aneurysm. Her heart had stopped beating in the emergency room of a local hospital, where she was resuscitated, and placed on a life support system. She was then transported in an ambulance to Centennial hospital.
The doctors there said that she was having seizures, and if they could not stabilize her within twenty- four hours there would be no use in keeping her on the life support. I had followed the progress of at least a dozen attempts to save a victim of a ruptured brain aneurysm, and they had all failed. A few years before I had lost my niece, after they had her on the life support following a ruptured brain aneurysm. The situation looked so hopeless that all I could do was to begin the normal grieving process. I can remember wondering how her daughter had composed herself so well, while she did what I was going to have to do, that is to inform the rest of the family. As I repeated what my niece had told me. I could hardly believe the words, which I could barely speak. I went to church that morning with my sister Pat, who is one of my six sisters. I saw a member of the prayer group of which I was a member, and told her about it. She had taken on the task of a prayer line, years before. She assured me she would put Debbie on the prayer line. But I was still preparing myself for the loss. I knew God could bring her back. But if it was God’s will that she go on to her eternal birth, I was going to miss her. We went to the hospital that night, thinking we could console the even closer family members. We got a little spark of hope when Debbie’s husband updated us, on what the doctors where saying. The doctors no longer believed that she had an aneurysm. Our hope was then quickly dampened by his next words,’ ‘The doctors are not offering much hope’. In fact four doctors agreed it would take a miracle for her to survive. As best I could understand, the seizures were prolonged, and so severe, even under maximum sedation, they feared that her brain was badly damaged. I went into the intensive care unit to see her. I could see no movement except what the respirator was providing. None, of the nurses, were noticing any significant response. We were not seeing any response for the rest of the day. On the second day of the crisis, her daughters tell the nurses they think she squeezed their hands as each of them had held one of her hands. The nurses tell them it is probably just a reflex action, as if to say, don’t get your hopes up.
On the third day, they are still noticing an increase in response, but the official statement from the caregivers is no change. The fourth day the doctors say they think she is trying to focus, and are offering the first signs of hope. They said they are going to back off the sedatives at the risk of the seizures recurring, to see if she could breathe a little on her own. On the fifth day, she is trying to talk, and manages to form the words, ‘What happened’. She appears to be trying to tell a story. She seems frustrated because she can’t talk with the breathing tube in her mouth. On the sixth day my sister Debbie is off of the respirator and talking. She is beginning to remember the events in the emergency room. She said she remembers them saying that her heart had stopped, and she said to herself, Oh Shit! She had imagined that she left the hospital twice. After hearing of this miraculous change from where she was at just days earlier, I had to witness this miracle myself. I drove to Nashville alone because every one else was either tied up, or sick. When I went into the intensive care unit, I stood in awe, and wonder, as I watched my sister trying to solve the first problem at hand. Just days before this, the doctors were running test to see if there was activity in her brain, and were not happy with the results. The problem she was trying to solve was a drainage tube in her throat, which she found to be a little uncomfortable. She apparently had thought out a plan to remove it, even though her arms were restrained. She was maneuvering the tube with her tongue and teeth. She quickly noticed me and laughed. She said ‘I’m trying to get this tube out’. Then she laughed again after thinking a moment, and said, ‘I guess I’m not supposed to’. I was overwhelmed with joy. The smile, that I thought, I would miss forever, was returned to earth. She asked me how I was doing. ‘Then she said; you ain’t going to believe what I’m going to tell you’! Perhaps she had forgotten that I am a poet full of imagination.

I do not have a shallow mind Micheal, you aren't making sense and you do not have the faculties to see so, but even when I call you on this, you still can't focus enough to actually answer anything I have said, except in precisely the way i said was no good to someone who doesn't believe the things you do.

Take your story for example. Now it was lovely and I'm pleased your relative survived against the odds. Her recovery is not a miracle however. In fact, the very understanding of how rare such recoveries are makes this clear. Many more people die from her level of symptoms than live, let us say for debates sake it's 1/100 against odds of survival. Does that mean that one in a hundred people are the miracle recievers, beloved of God, and the rest just aren't that blessed? Or do you really think your relative is special over and above the hundreds of thousands of people who die every day despite being prayed for by relatives, prayer groups, whole congregations of worshipers! You never hear of them do you? No you only hear about the success stories, spread by people like yourself who speak of them as miracles, gifts from God! But you never look at the facts, the statistics and the REALITY of these situations because that would ultimately lead you to examine the forces and reason behind such things, namely God has nothing to do with it and people who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

Which is most likely why you never answer any of my questions directly, because you can't.

Which is most likely why you never answer any of my questions directly, because you can't.

By George I think you have got it. Kevin

As far as I can tell from this discussion thread the only question you have asked is Em Micheal, are you saying that there wasn't a movement away from Religion as the source of all answers in life, to Science?

If I could answer your question accurately I would have to assume that we have the same definition, or understanding of religion, and science

If we cannot establish a difference between religion and God by following your rules, then religion cannot exist

If you had asked, are you saying that there wasn't a movement away from God as the source of all answers in life, to Science? I would have had to honestly respond that most people in the world, from what history reflects have placed a distance of their own choosing between themselves and divinity. [Myself included]

“I do not have a shallow mind Micheal, you aren't making sense and you do not have the faculties to see so, but even when I call you on this, you still can't focus enough to actually answer anything I have said, except in precisely the way i said was no good to someone who doesn't believe the things you do”.

Medical science has been employed to prolong physical health, yet in my experience most people die under at least some medical care. It would not make sense to me to avoid physicians even if it were proven that most eventually die under their care

It would be arrogant of you to assume that I did not believe as my brother in law believed that when the doctors said it would take a miracle for my sister to survive that it was another way of saying there is no hope. My bother in law has since passed on to whatever, believing that miracles have nothing to do with non-existence, or extraordinary events

Kevin, I was trying to prove to you God's direct effect upon people. I first went about doing that by showing how people live in observance to their being some higher order or being, then wanted to show that if everybody in law abiding societies lived according to this, one could see how the effect is innumerous. The only thing is that the effect has become so great that we don't see it because it has become conceptually internalized. Our governments and those higher powers you listed are still based upon the idea that there is a God. Even though outwardly we look to science, our unconscious day to day living portrays that we still live in accordance to a god. Mind you, I am not talking about belief. I believe one could believe there is no god yet still act as though there is. Just as I believe the opposite could happen. So how much of a direct effect would you like? A hand coming out of the sky. Because what I just gave you is possibly the best eveidence anybody ever could, outside of people going to bed cancer ridden and waking up fully healed, but then again some even doubt that.

Also from one of your posts Kevin it sounds like you might really like eastern ways of life, in which differents aspects of living are not compartmentalized. Each one viewed and carried out as a whole, interconnected with everything else and judged upon that too, instead of our compartmentalized, broken-up-sectioned lives.

I can see that what was a good start to a conversation of opinions became nothing more than an ooze of childish banter and fighting to see who is more intelligent, but you know what that seems to vague, we’ll go with smart.

Now let me ask you Kevin and Michael, have you both proven your point?

From what I've seen, I would say that you haven't. Now before you blow my head off. Think about it!

Michael: Kevin was right, from what I have seen, you have taken a fragmented part of what a person said, and spoke endlessly to counter it by using phrases that are not your own. This is an opinion based discussion thread Michael. So you should use your own words, rather than referencing others. And please read the whole thread this time. 

Kevin: You seem to dislike the fact someone has a different opinion to yours, from your last post thread that you made “I’m a mental fascist” and I am of course paraphrasing. I would think that you like to be seen as smart, and to be reminded of it. Hence, you used the word “smart” when you spoke with Michael. If you want to say your peace against a post made by Michael make it, and leave it at that, rather than waste your time on something you know wouldn’t change.

By the way, if you want to have a go at me for stating my own fact, from the results of my observation. Then by all means do.

“Michael: Kevin was right, from what I have seen, you have taken a fragmented part of what a person said, and spoke endlessly to counter it by using phrases that are not your own. This is an opinion based discussion thread Michael. So you should use your own words, rather than referencing others. And please read the whole thread this time.”

Opinions in my opinion have nothing to do with proof. I cannot resist borrowing a joke from Rodney Dangerfield. The doctor gave me a year to live. I told him I could not pay him in a year, so he gave me two years. Justice is supposed to be based on truth, but the truth is for sale
Words are not the property of anyone but obviously the order of words are, but if you want pretend you really give a SHIT the origin of a feces was mostly in my own words. I posted historical fact under the illusion that anyone that read them would have the intelligence to assume I was not there. The origin of a feces thesis was based on the assumption that anyone not created in the image and likeness of God must be full of it

Now let me ask you Kevin and Michael, have you both proven your point?

My dogs are intelligent enough to understand the concept of a master
There is no point to trying to change an opinion with an opinion
Evidence of a Creator can be found in the creation, but where in creation could we find that?

Kevin's points summed up;

’1. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist
2. It is therefor the duty and responsibility of anyone who says something does exist to prove it, to show some evidence that is not subjective.
3. It is not the duty of the non believer to find something that does not exist until it has been proven or some evidence shown.”
Noir if we are foolish enough to accept the opinion of a man we must accept the consequences

Cory, I still don't get your idea that people acknowledge God everyday because our lives show his existence through awareness of powers above our own.

The only reason non believers obey rules is because of the punishments linked up to them, not because they fear the retribution of God. You seem to have mistaken the respect we have for social standards and the law, with a respect for some divine higher power. I do not see that link. And I see it even less with the statistically unlikely healings of people, for the reasons I explained above.

What I understand now, is that for everyone in this discussion, we are not just talking about some Tv show, or some issue, however important that is not a major part of our personalities and the way we see the world. For many of you, particularly Micheal, entertaining the possibility that when someone recovers from Cancer after being prayed for, this might have nothing to do with any God, is not just an idea, it's a direct challenge to the solid ground beneath your feet. If you believe that God is the divine creator and controller of everything, then of course you are not going to listen to someone like me try and point out the facts showing other possibilities, of course you aren't! You have it all set in your minds and it's now so deeply ingrained in your heads nothing I can say here is going to change that.

Thing is, for me, my belief that God does not control these things, or even influence them is not as rigid. I am open to the possibility, really I am, that is why I ask for evidence and get involved in these discussions. Not because I love ripping into Micheal [well, sort of] but because I actually would quite like to believe in God as I once did as a child...it's just all the evidence to the contrary that stops me, and of course complete lack of evidence in support.

The healing aspect of this discussion is interesting. As most of you believers use it as some kind of proof of God. Yet when I posted information about the stats behind such instances, no one mentioned them.

So I ask again. For every rare case of someone recovering from a serious illness or injury, and this being attributed to Gods power, what of the others, the statistically larger group who don't recover, despite having faith and being prayed for..what about all the hundreds of thousands of people who don't live on.

How can you tally that up and say there is anything divine about the survival of a handful of people through Gods love, against the death of thousands who also loved God and prayed?

You can't use healings as support of God, and not look at other causes, it's just not good thinking.

No, I am not mistaking the theory with respect or fear. To understand what I was trying to show is that people don't consciencely make the effort Kevin. It isn't the actual fear of the law that proves my point. It is the idea behind the law that helps prove my point. We have the law because, as you said, we believe there are higher standards than others.

Belief and recognition has nothing to do with what I am saying. Whether a person likes to believe it or not, God, whether you think one exists or not, has directly affected the world today more than anything else. Our, mine and yours, are founded upon an idea of God, and so are numerous countries around the world. The individual is the one who questions, not the country.

There is the effect. Suicide bombers, there is an effect from God. You want more effect, Israeli missiles blowing shit up in Palestine. Want some more effect, the twin towers. Here is another direct effect of God Kevin, Europeans and Americans being decapitated on video tape. Your subway system, our U.S.S. Cole. Some more direct effect of God, go listen to your Classical Christmas music. Hendel's Messiah. Listen to most of you classical composers. Go to the Sistine Chapel and look at the Ceiling. There is a direct effect of God, and The Last Supper. Dude, the bottom line is God has had more effect on this earth than anything whatsoever. It all depends on whether you choose to think of this as his effect or the people acting out of a false ideaology. But whichever one you pick to believe it doesn't make the other wrong. It is the outcome, what actions come from that belief that are wrong.

Cory. I believe I did say that once upon a time, we lived a certain way in accordance with the will of the God, through the church, because at the time, that was the system that worked, and lets be honest, people didn't know any better. They didn't understand why their crops failed or a terrible storm killed their family, because science and agriculture were in their infancy, along with levels of education and the working classes understanding of the world around them.

When this changed and people realized that there were testable data based logical reasons for such things as lightening and dead plants [which had previously been attributed to God in much the same way as miracle healings are today] they embraced science, which gave them reality based answers religion could not.

What this changed however was the general populations willingness to go along with the laws of God, as their faith began to seek other avenues of expression. So, to put it simply, the laws that had once been put forward and believed in as divine became political and legal to suit and match the sociological times in the same way that when people had believed in God it had all been packaged up as gods law.

It's all about keeping people controlled my friend, and there is nothing whatsoever divine about it. A college student of politics and philosophy understands this timeline, yet many Christians do not.

Ps, all those violent effects you mentioned as being proof of God, are all really bad examples, as they are nothing more than the choices of men, inspired by the choices of other men. As for classical music being proof of God, or some divinity in man, well, maybe one day people will start taking credit for how cool we are on our own, that will be a good day.

I wish you could see this.

I never called it proof that God existed, I called these actions a direct effect of God. If I listed all the things that are direct effects of God (that are along the same lines as the ones I already mentioned) then the list would go on forever. If something has this much of an effect, can you possibly say it doesn't exist. That's like asking millions of children if Santa doesn't exist. The physical person might not, but the idea does, and the idea is enough to change nations. When something holds that much of an effect, how can one deny it.

To prove Charles Manson's influence I would point to the murders, and the actions of three women. Does that point to an influence truthfully, no. People make the connections on their own because influence is an intangible object. Does it make it any less real. No.

P.S. I never said they were good. They don't have to be morally honorable deeds to prove a point. Many religions believe that gods played tricks on men, or were mean to them.

Several weeks ago someone emailed me and invited me to comment on a topic he posted entitled” Suicide Justified?,”

This was my response
I don't think suicide is ever justifiable, even though I am among the people that has considered it. I remember at a very early age, when I was stressed, I would hold my breath in the hope that I would die. I prefer to put my hope in living now. I believe that hope is one of the three highest theological virtues. We can always find an excuse to reject faith hope and, love, but when we do our life has no meaning, I believe that when our spirits reject light it produces the dark emotional pain of depression. Suicide is an attempt to avoid pain by interrupting the rhythm of the heart. There seems to be an alarming amount of young people that find relief in converting emotional pain to physical pain. Even though I do not condone the practice of cutting or any other self-harm I believe that society in general is not doing enough to show they care, or to encourage them to seek healing hope. No one should feel unloved

This seemed to annoy one of the site mangers which posted this
"Okay, after skimming:

First of all: for people who have mentioned god, etc. I will say this: We respect all faiths here, please extend that same courtesy to the rest of our members. That means refraining from preaching to those who are comfortable in their faith. Unless you want to hear it about one of several religions yourself, don't do it to others.

Also- Therapists should never be chosen solely based on a religious reason. Therapy is an effective tool only if you go about finding a therapist the same way you would find a medication- with careful consideration, research, and recommendations from a doctor. Faith can be a tool to help, but can often be turned around.

Last note in this little clarification: There is no God or Sin requirements in a diagnosis of Depression, nor in treatement of depression- in fact faith can be a great hinderance, because of the stigma attatched. Depression can be chemical or situational- both can be treated effectively by nonreligious methods which are highly effective. You do not have to turn to someone's god for help- what you need is help, and that can come in many forms."

This was posted by the same poster; RAZOR BLADE

"Drytear.net welcomes and respects people of any faith, belief, or anyone who has a lack thereof. In the rules, we ask you to treat people how you would wish to be treated, and respect their choices. "

"So, unless you'd be willing to sit calmly through a lecture about how Cthulhu is the one true way to go, don't preach to our board members please. People come on here for entertainment, not to have your god thrown in their face. Clear?"

Kevin I believe I enjoy being cut by her as much as I enjoy being ripped by you. I suppose I have a martyr complex. She has inspired two religious poems that I posted here tonight.

She did not complain that suicide was thrown in her face
The fact that she had to have read my origin of a feces without complaining that shit was thrown in her face
She read a quote from Anton Levy and did not complain that Satan was thrown in her face

But when I posted about faith, hope, and, love she threw a hissing fit

I wanted to use this to lead into your statistics

The short answer has mostly to do with acceptance of unnatural, natural, and supernatural forces

Since I view God as the ultimate creator, all healing comes directly or indirectly from positive energy or matter in the form of medication, or therapy

Every thing in the universe is connected as every part of the body works diversely in unity

If you are annoyed by what I am writing now it could cause your brain to release chemicals that could change the way you feel, as when I misspelled your name, you said your blood was boiling.

Thus meditation is great medication, and balances the heart, soul and, mind

Now I am not preaching when I explain my personal view on prayer

Every one must live and die in accordance with God’s will, which is very hard to understand. Prayer is an attempt to communicate with God it does not control Him

That is all I have time to write tonight thank you for the invite Kevin I want to write a poem on this topic

Edit

I just finished a rant inspired by the constructive criticism I received in this discussion
If the truth were known I am an outlaw because in my haste to make my point I used words that were not mine without a reference. I don’t think the statistics reflect that everyone is turning to good science to counteract the effects of bad religion. I think it was Saint Paul that became famous by writing annoying letters to The Romans, Corinthians and Romans, and such. I was educated in a school, and a church named after him. You could say that saint never existed but someone wrote those annoying letters. He seemed to have got stuck with the duty and responsibility of annoying a lot of people who believed it is the duty and responsibility of anyone who says something does exist to prove it, to show some evidence that is not subjective. Armed with a quill and scroll. The thing I can’t understand if the industrial revolution ended once upon a time how come the bible made it to the most printed book?

I went to the county jail today to see a junkie. She seemed happier than I have ever seen one on the street. She said she got saved There may be more prisons in the world than there are convents. but where do you think the statistics say the healthiest people are? Just in case you are missing my point the women in jail are usually there because of an addition to some unhealthy behavior. The nun is in a convent because of a different conviction. I believe God loves the junkie as much as he does the nun. But even nature issues reward and punishment. Even the nun falls victim to the impurities in our environment. If I could put the purest divine healing in a needle I would do it

You may say I am not making sense, but those are my thoughts and feelings

Cory, you don't have to prove anything about Charles Mansons existence by his influence and actions, we have concrete proof he existed in the form of video footage, pictures and audio. To say as you did in this thread that you can link Gods existence by his supposed influence in the same way as you can prove Mansons existence by his influence is not a very mentally sound idea, and really doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I won't discuss it any further ok.

Micheal, you know what, inbetween your stories about other people and other places and quotes from other people, you seemed to speak about your personal thoughts for a second, and i almost got you man...almost. Not that you should only feel velidated in this debate by my understanding of you, but well seeing as there are really only 3 of us involved now, it would be good if we could comprehend each other.

I loved the way you closed your post, saying that I may say you are not making sense, but that is how you think and feel.

Isn't that amazing? That on some level you perhaps understand that you are not making much sense to other people! BY GOD IT'S A START MICHEAL!!..Light is on the way my friend!!

Ho ho, only jesting. But seriously, the amount of Christians who, after a little debate about their faith and how illogical I find it, get frustrated and just say its what they feel and so they believe it. That is fine, feel whatever you want to, but unless you can explain it and show evidence that makes sense to other people who do not believe, you shouldn't speak about it as solid truth, because it's not, it's a feeling you get based on a theory.

There is a massive difference. For instance I have a feeling that perhaps some of the young people I work with are effected, bahaviour wise by the lunar cycles, but I have no proof or evidence and so i don't speak to other about it as it's it's medical fact, though i may mention it as a possibility.

Kevin, I never said anything about Manson's existence. I only spoke about his influence. The point was that one could find evidence of his influence over people despite their being no physical connection. I used his influence because influence is abstract, not tangible. I am not using his influence to prove Manson's existence. I am saying other people use tangibles to prove his influence, despite there being no physical substance in which a person can point to and say aha, that is influence.

Then the question is this? If something has that much proof over something else, can it possibly not exist?

Also Kevin, man cannot think up something new. (New as in outside the boundaries of the senses). Man can only create things by combining different components of real world objects in his imagination. Don't think so. Try to think of a new color. 1...2...3...ok no more counting. You can't. You can only think up of different combinations of colors that already exist. Think of imaginary creatures like the unicorn or the mermaid, they are only combinations of real word things. Therefore, God, and the idea of God, comes from somewhere in the real world. Something people have sensed before and then past down to others.

Debating this topic is like debating evolution. There is no physical evidence of evolution, no video tape of something evolving, just two things on opposite ends of a spectrum, and the human mind left to fill in the gaps.

Is it more important that God exists, or what is done because people think God exists. I find humans' actions due to a belief in God more important than this debate.

Also Kevin, there are plenty of things in todays world that are proved true by theories and not physical evidence. Why do you deny something that hasn't been made sensual to you? Evolution hasn't been made sensual. Neither has most of mathematics, or the theory of relativity. Why does logic not hold ground to you?

I think it has been proven that even common faith is powerful. But this does not validate your argument that theological faith does not exist

" Subject: FW: Miss Beatrice
Miss Beatrice, the church organist, was in her eighties and had never been married.
She was admired for her sweetness and kindness to all.
One afternoon the pastor came to call on her and she showed him into her quaint sitting room.
She invited him to have a seat while she prepared tea.
As he sat facing her old Hammond organ, the young minister noticed a cut-glass bowl sitting on top of it.
The bowl was filled with water, and in the water floated, of all things, a condom!
When she returned with tea and scones, they began to chat.
The pastor tried to stifle his curiosity about the bowl of water
and its strange floater, but soon it got the better of him and He could no longer resist.
"Miss Beatrice", he said, "I wonder if you would tell me about this?" pointing to the bowl.
"Oh, yes," she replied, "Isn't it wonderful? I was walking through the Park a few months ago and I found this little package on the ground. The directions said to place it on the organ, keep it wet and that it would prevent the spread of disease. Do you know I haven't had the flu all winter."

^ What the hell does that prove?

Cory, i really feel you are going way out on a limb with your points, with isn't very good in terms of debating. You are starting to circle the issues with barely relevant philisophical puzzles in what appears to me to be, a not so subtle attempt to dilute the fact you don't really know how to answer me.

Man can't think up anything new? That is very easy for you to say now in our modern age, full as it is of historical knowledge of the past and how it has influenced the present. The colour example was just silly, really that was idiotic and to be honest if you are going to keep coming back at me with those kinds of justifications for God as the source of all things, then you might as well not comment to me, because I can't debate with that nonsense.

"Think of a new colour, 1..2..3...you can't"

Wow, how scientific! I'm amazed to went to so much trouble.

Micheal, I'm losing you again.

This is getting silly now. I am really trying to get to what I think is the heart of the issue, and you guys, at least to me and playing word games and dancing around with weak riddles and other notions.

If you can't keep it focused and real, then why bother?

Man, people will argue about anything these days...won't they?

Why post here if you're not actually going to comment on the original statement in any manner other than one that bashes it.

It'd be interesting if someone who disagreed with the original post would actually try and make us believe that he/she DOES believe in it.

Do something interesting, guys. This basically just turned out to be the same old massive arguement bashing the views of the original poster followed by retorts from the poster, which further made everyone even more irritated by the original statement.

Go figure.

p.s. I'm waiting for someone to attack what I said now. What a hostile environment....sheesh.

Jordan not once did I bash the op's original opinion. And I refuse to.

Secondly Kevin. You keep refusing to look at anything but physical evidence. If one only goes through life looking at physical evidence to prove things then why do people have human emotions?

You wrote off both of my claims, which by the way make perfect sense. They make just as logical sense as your original claim of proving something doesn't exist, actually probably more because I go through the steps why while you just say state the result. You call the color claim silly; however you are wrong. You absolutely missed the point; you also missed the point on my other claims. You kept focusing in on ideas and words that I specefically stayed away from because they had no place in this debate.

You say you're debating existence, but when I tried to show existence you brought it back to belief and religion. You can't seem to separate the two. Proving god exists or not has nothing to do with belief or religion. You summed your points up without philosphical evidence that went through logical steps. I showed you my logical steps, and they aren't just mine; they belong to anybody who has a reasonable mind to look at such from an unbiased opinion. So I will sum up my points.

1) By agreeing to live in a law based society, people live in accordance to teh idea that there is a God. This has nothing to do with BELIEF.

2) Because man does not have the power to come up with anything outside of the sensual realm, and man never did, the idea of God comes from something that, at one time, people could percieve with their senses, making atleast something about God true and exist.

Now how about instead of calling these claims silly and irrelevant--because that is childish and a way to brush claims under the rug--you continue the debate and counter what I said, whether you think them solid or not. I didn't think all of your claims solid, and neither did several others, but I still countered instead of trying to discredit them by name calling.

Ok. I'll keep it really simple for you Cory, point by point.

[1]There are many people who live according to the law who do not believe in God, people who have know idea of the history of the bible and it's relation to modern law. I know dozens of people like this. Therefor, God has nothing to do with these people following the laws of the land, they follow them because they either make sense, or they are scared of the consequences of breaking them. Plus there are laws that are direct challenges to Gods laws. So to me your point isn't solid. Simple.

[2]Man has the capacity to imagine all kinds of things to suit his purpose. If you don't believe this is true, then explain to me how so many cults exist? All with their own Gods, Spirits and rules? If man cannot create these things all by himself, then explain that from the perspective of a person whose God cannot tolerate false idols?

There you go.

Maybe instead of a God, there is a great deciever. Hahaha, we should call in Descartes for this one.

"1) By agreeing to live in a law based society, people live in accordance to teh idea that there is a God. This has nothing to do with BELIEF."

^
Honestly, I don't think that people follow laws because of God. I think it's because they are afraid of having charges pressed against them or going to jail. Plus, if these people live in accordance to the idea that there is a God, then how can they not believe? Or are you just saying that instead of the people believing in God they just know he exists?

I don't know about this one....

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this thread was originally made to directly disprove christianity. Next time why don't you just say so. Kevin, you aren't caring about God, you're limiting things to christianity. If you had made this very clear from the beginning of the thread things would have been so much different. I don't like Christianity. I down right disagree with the majority of it. Christianity is a man made thing. But God is not limited to christianity.

As for point one, you speak of. You limit it to christianity. God is not a direct connection to religious beliefs. And belief has nothing to do with it. Have you ever read Plato's essay about Socrates' decision to allow the state to kill him. My point runs along this line, but adds some evolution and other stuff.

The perfectness of the planet points to a higher power, these aren't my words. They come from Albert Eintstein and Stephen Hawkins.

“And Michael, shouting quotes from religious texts will not help you get closer, as repeating the word ~sugar~ will not sweeten your lips”

That is very poetic my dear poet. In my journey I have found that it is easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk. I am humbly open to constructive criticism I again will point out that we are getting into semantics. I am very confused about which definition of subjective we are using. I am overjoyed that Kevin seems to be more interested in my sense of spirituality than my sense of humor. Can any of you computer masters tell me how many authors have attempted to publish a book on the subject of “Chemical Balance through Spirituality”

"In my journey I have found that it is easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk."
How so?
God has become a multimillion dollar industry. Anyone that denies that the majority of so Christians are more interested in what God can do for them, than what they can do for God is in denial. God has been perceived many different ways through history. I have a great respect for all spirituality, but admit I am more familiar with the Christian perception of God.
One of the freedoms my country was founded on was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

In general I would have to agree with Kevin That the power of religious leaders is in decline, but Kevin exaggerated this by comparing God to the yeti

He seems to be the one going out on the limb by imagining that even the concept of God has all but disappeared in this world

The money I carry still has “In God We Trust” printed on it
Trillions will observe Christmas in our lifetime
Our Calender is still based on an event in history marked by the beginning of an era
Even if you are married by a justice of the peace you will likely hear about God in the ceremony
People who testify in the courts are still required to swear
Christian churches are still being built and maintained
I won’t mention the mosques and temples because I agree with Cory that the OP has trouble seeing a difference in religion and God
And the list goes on and on

I view religion as the path and not the destination
Many people see mercy and kindness as a weakness and use it against true believers
Discernment can be difficult.

"But this path should lead to God wouldn’t you say so?"

yes

For those who believe there is no proof necessary
For those who do not believe there is no proof possible

Ok, Good to see some more people in on this, the endless debate of the ages.

I don't think I'm like a fish there Illuminati, asking where the water is. I'm like a fish swimming happily in the water, knowing mostly it's course and many currents, getting annoyed when other fish tell me a huge whale controls the ebb and flow, and if I don't believe that then I'm lacking in smarts.

But, this is not a searching thread for me as someone suggested, I am not looking for faith or God, my faith is placed entirely in my fellow humans and their Godlike potential to be divine, though I can see the attraction of having complete surrender to a higher power, I'd rather hand on to myself until the higher power in question can be believed in.

I have tried very hard to get people to discuss these things on a practical reality based level, and to be fair, nothing has really come of it in my opinion. It's been mostly subjective responses and vague sideways theories.

No problem, the brotherhood strives on.

Kevin, I think that people confuse handing themselves over to God and doing what they should be doing. I think too many people think they aren't handing themselves over to God if they work alot, or try hard to keep on top of their bills and schedule. I think alot of people think a person only truly does gods will if they don't worry about anything, live like a missionary or pastor and are supported by some church.

I think that is crap. But that's the difference I have been trying to point out. I think for teen parents in America who are being responsible, taking care of their children, working and so forth. I think they are doing God's will. You know what I mean, even if they don't recognize it as so. That's why I said the idea of God as being instrinsic without public or even conscience awareness of it. I think the whole doing God's will thing happens all time too, just people are doing it intrinsically, subconsciencely, and not aware that they are. It doesn't have to be a public sacrifice to be doing God's will or giving yourself over to god. It doesn't even have to be religious.

“I am not looking for faith or God, my faith is placed entirely in my fellow humans and their Godlike potential to be divine, though I can see the attraction of having complete surrender to a higher power, I'd rather hand on to myself until the higher power in question can be believed in”

There is something that attracts me to the phrase “Godlike potential to be divine”
My feelings on the revelation that the earliest known meaning of the word GOD was” to sacrifice to”. And the Christian GOD sacrifices Himself to those who accept while asking forgiveness for those that reject divine potential. We become what we believe. The only true peace comes from a surrender.

“Peace is the merging of 5 paths:
Knowledge, understanding, respect, fairness and love”

My wife is in the county jail because with full knowledge and understanding of the law she seemed to have no respect for it. Now that she is not under the influence of the chemical imbalance that got her into trouble with the county she sees the fairness and love that saved herself and others from her own error. She is charged with operating a motor under the influence or DUI, which means she was assumed to be driving under the influence of a chemical substance. The state has ruled that the consent is implied when you display the behavior of being under the influence of a substance. While she was under the influence she did not allow a sample of her blood to be taken, which would prove the chemical imbalance they say existed. Although the burden of proof is on the state, they may use subjective evidence.

Spirituality differs from the mental process known as the mind controlled by the organ we call the brain. Behavioral science has proven the effect of reward and punishment thus she will be punished. I believe she must rely on spirituality over the mental thought process that has made her chemically dependant. It is her choice, may God bless her with Knowledge, understanding, respect, fairness and love

Because surrender is easy, and taking responsibility for everything in our lives out of the hands of Gods and other ideas such as that, is difficult. You actually have to live differently right now, there is no life after to look forward to if your life is crap, you must change things now or understand it's your own choice and not the will of anything.

You see it all the time with the new age community. People put themselves in negative situations and then justify it with theories of Karma, destiny, Magick etc....it's all grand, packaged ad sealed escapism.

Just like going to confession, you trade in your sins for some prayers and are absolved! Nice play.

Kevin you have so much love in you. If you had the illusion that you could bear the weight of the world on your shoulders I wouldn’t have the heart to take it away from you. In the topic “Prove me wrong” I assumed you were asking for a piece of our minds. There seems to be two kinds of right and wrong in the human nature. One is what we think and feel is right and wrong, the other is the orthodox right and wrong. In our evolution we can respect individuality while facing the fact that we do not create ourselves,

“Just like going to confession, you trade in your sins for some prayers and are absolved! Nice play.”

Many behavioral scientist, or psychologist recognize the therapeutic value of forgiveness

In this world of live and let live we sometimes trespass on others feelings of right and wrong. If the human gods destroyed all trespassers, we would become as extinct as the Neanderthals that were physically stronger that the modern humans which devoted a large part of their energy to so called useless ritual.

The same principle of contrition can work in the secular world

Example; if I trespass on your feeling of right and wrong or, moral standard
You may require contrition from me in exchange for your forgiveness

How do you think the principles of contrition have changed?

Nice post Micheal. I am asking for a piece of your minds, i wouldn't want it any other way, as long as it is your minds I'm getting.

As for contrition changing. I personally see the shift away from confession in the church to confession in the therapy chair, spiritual healing group etc. And though I don't think any of them are without drawback, I'd rather have someone visit a therapist [humanistic of course] to deal with their moral compass, than a priest or Crystal Reiki healer, who lets face it, are both in the highly competitive business of faith.

As for forgiveness, I'd like to see people be able to recognize that for most mistakes, there is no need for forgiveness, certainly not from any external source, unless you harm another person, but certainly not from any God.

Think about the most evolved wise person you know. Someone who is really calm and considerate and never seems fazed by anything. Haven't you made a mistake with that person and said sorry a hundred times because you love them so much, and they just smile and tell you not to apologize because they understand, and it's ok, you are just learning? Have you ever known anyone like this? A person who just was so worldly and evolved mentally that they needed nothing from anyone, least of all a sorry.

God, to me, or the idea of God to me would be like this. He would never require or even care about a confession, or sins, because he would know the reasons behind, the influencing factors, the pressure and the history...and he just wouldn't need it.

This is why as a child of 12 I stopped going to confession, because I met a woman who was more like the God of my mind than anyone in church I used to go to.

^ Shit, I love that idea.

Frank McCourt wrote in his Pulitzer Prize winning novel ‘Angela’s Ashes” about growing up in a catholic family mostly in Limerick Ireland. He said 'Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood'

A critic had this to say about the book. If young Frank is the hero of the story then it is difficult to regard his father as an anti-hero. His drunkenness and eventual abandonment of his family are upsetting and yet we still cannot quite condemn him

What my personal feelings about the book is, it is full of abuses. Frank Mcourt was abused by his government, the authorities in his school and church, not to mention his peers, but what seemed to hurt him the most is when the father, that he at times found lovable, abandoned him.

Frank admits that he did not think his father could possibly sink lower than the time he took the money that was meant for his baby, and took it to a pub to drink with his friends
I am in no position to judge Frank’s father who had already lost two of his children due to the miserable poverty that was obviously widespread in Limerick when he lost two children to sickness and piously ask God why.

Frank felt the need to go to confession after he took a chip from a man passed out in the pub when his mother sent him to see what she was supposed to do about her starving child.

I don’t believe that an act of contrition and a firm revolve to amend his ways was needed as badly by Frank as his abusers to escape his misery. But hell, who needs to be forgiven ?