Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences

[Vigile]

I take this comment to mean that since you have NO evidence to prove God's non-existance, then God does in fact exist.

 

Give me some evidence.

 

Like for example prove to me that the universe is eternal?

 

If its not eternal then where did it come from?

 

What you should take away from my question is the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. You don't believe Zeus exists, right? Why not?

 

I don't claim that the universe is eternal. While I have some theories, I'm agnostic about the origins of the universe.

[Antlerman]

What evidence do you have to prove that God does not exist?

 

How many ways must this be explained to you before you get it?

 

We'll just turn the question around and see if this registers with you:

 

What evidence do you have for the non existence of Zues? Your question makes about as much sense.

I'd like to try to help Japeth overcome his lack of exposure to the greater world of critical analysis. Japeth, this is a well known logic fallacy you are making. Remember how I said that any and all arguemtents for the existence of God are nothing more than logic arguments, and that they are generally always guilty of a fallacy? This is one example of that. Here, let's look at what this particular logic fallacy is known as:

Shifting the Burden of Proof

 

DEFINITION: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

 

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

 

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

 

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

 

EXAMPLE: "Kirk is a womanizer. Prove me wrong." (

You don't have to prove them wrong. THEY made the assertion, therefore THEY have to prove he IS a womanizer.)

If I make the claim there is an invisible snork on your shoulder, is it your job to disprove my unprovable claim? Ditto.

 

Next lesson. Double negative. What is a double negative, since you apparently missed that in your grammar classes, or it was simply not offered in the classes you attended?

In today's standard English, double negatives are not used

; for example the standard English equivalent of "I don't want nothing!" is "I don't want anything". It should, however, be noted that in standard English one cannot say "I don't want nothing!" to express the meaning "I want something!" unless there is very heavy stress on the "don't" or a specific plaintive stress on the "nothing".

 

Although they are not used in standard English, double negatives are used in various American English dialects, including African American Vernacular English, and the East London Cockney and East Anglian dialects and less frequently, but still commonly, in colloquial English. In the film Mary Poppins, Dick Van Dyke uses a double negative when he says

 

If you don't want to go nowhere.

Double negative is also famously used in the first two lines of the song "Another Brick in the Wall (part II)" included in the album The Wall by Pink Floyd, sung by schoolchildren

 

We don't need no education

.

We don't need no thought control.

 

Other examples of double negatives include:

 

I ain't got nobody.

or

 

Don't nobody go to the store.

or

 

I can't hardly wait.

or the Faithless song "Insomnia"

 

I can't get no sleep.

or the "stinking badges" from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

 

Badges? [pause] We ain't got no badges.[2]

Double negative also refers to even more than two negatives, like:

 

And don't nobody buy nothing.

It is common amongst children whenever mischief has occurred for them to say,

 

I didn't do nothing[citation needed]

 

Today, the double negative is often considered the mark of an uneducated speaker

, but it used to be quite common in English, even in literature. Chaucer made extensive use of double negatives in his poetry, sometimes even using triple negatives. For example, he described the Friar in the Canterbury Tales: "Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous" (i.e. "there wasn't no man nowhere so virtuous"), and he even used a fourfold negative when describing the Knight: "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight." Chaucer used these multiple negatives for emphasis and for metrical purposes.

Hope this helps.

[neverclear5]

When you say evolution are you talking macro or micro?

 

 

just to clarify, they are both the same. Differences in species occurs after a short while. The same thing causes the larger differences that result in formation of seperate species after a long time. After a really really long time you have the very diverse world we have today. If you beleive what you would call "micro evolution" means that different types of dolphin all came from the first "created" dolphin then you are putting the seperation of dolphin types in as a process taking less than 6000 years! Thats faster than the most optimistic evolutionary theory. They're amazed that polar bears got fatter and whitter over 50,000 years!

[Japeth]

I take this comment to mean that since you have NO evidence to prove God's non-existance, then God does in fact exist.

 

Give me some evidence.

 

Like for example prove to me that the universe is eternal?

 

If its not eternal then where did it come from?

 

What you should take away from my question is the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. You don't believe Zeus exists, right? Why not?

 

I don't claim that the universe is eternal. While I have some theories, I'm agnostic about the origins of the universe.

 

Then would you say that you are a strong athiest or a weak athiest?

[Japeth]

I'd like to try to help Japeth overcome his lack of exposure to the greater world of critical analysis. Japeth, this is a well known logic fallacy you are making. Remember how I said that any and all arguemtents for the existence of God are nothing more than logic arguments, and that they are generally always guilty of a fallacy? This is one example of that. Here, let's look at what this particular logic fallacy is known as:

 

 

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

[neverclear5]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

 

I smell a quote from an apologetics website. Once again. That would mean that you cannot disprove the existance of anything. Yes, that would include your god, and everyone elses. It would also include the perfect china teapot and milkjug set orbiting the sun.

[white_raven23]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

 

But here is the problem.

 

To say that there is a god, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is a god means the person [making the claim] would have to know all things to know there is a god.

 

As for the rest of your logic hash....I'm not repeating it back to you because the rest of those assertions are assumptions based on your addled brain.

 

Since you cannot know all things - not being in a position to know all things, and not having evidence to know all things are not the same thing as having an inability to know all things.

 

If he did he would be god - is that your resume' requirement for a supreme being? Enjoy your tiny god, I require MORE from a being worthy of the title.

 

And even if there were a god (one we just have not found specific evidence for), I feel pretty secure asserting that such a being is nothing like the being represented in that badly written book that is the basis for the christian god.

[Vigile]

Then would you say that you are a strong athiest or a weak athiest?

 

Weak. I don't make the claim that there are no gods, I just don't currently accept the claim that there is one based on a lack of current evidence. If evidence arises, I will evaluate it and adjust my position accordingly.

 

Thanks for making the distiction by the way. So many make assumptions on this matter. I appreciate that you didn't.

[Antlerman]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

This is true, and I have never said "I know there is no God". I don't reject "God", because he would need to exist in order to do that, and there is no evidence that he does. I do however reject the claims that God exists. There is a difference. Its about evaluating the evidence that is offered in support for a faith-only based assumption. It's those claims that are found wanting, and extreemly faulted, as in the "Watchmaker argument", or the "Shifting the Burden of Proof" fallacy you are commiting.

 

But to apply your assertion to you also, likewise you, since you cannot know all things, cannot say with absolute certainty that there is a God. In all cases, with anything in the universe as percieved by us, it's a sliding scale of "degrees of certainty." But again, since by default "God" is not self-evident, just as my invisible snork example, or Vigile's Zeus example, and it is you are making the positive assertion that "God exists", the burden of proof is on you. We do not need to disprove your assertion. You need to prove it. However, we can and will examine your evidence and discuss it's merits or lack of merits.

 

This is the real question. It's not "does God exist"? It's "does the evidence you think supports your beliefs stand up to examination?" We're not examining "God". We're examining your claims.

[Jubilant]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

 

 

Let me requote you by changing just one word, that of the pronoun "god". Because if not for that one word being introduced by the ancients of long ago (long before Judaism and Christianity) you'd be on here perhaps debating.....

 

To say that there is not a Leprechaun, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no Leprechaun means the person would have to know all things to know there is no Leprechaun. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be Leprechaun), then he cannot logically say there is no Leprechaun.

 

Can you prove to me without a doubt, that there is not a Leprechaun? Do you feel bad or sinful for not believing in Leprechauns?

[Antlerman]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

 

 

Let me requote you by changing just one word, that of the pronoun "god". Because if not for that one word being introduced by the ancients of long ago (long before Judaism and Christianity) you'd be on here perhaps debating.....

 

To say that there is not a Leprechaun, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no Leprechaun means the person would have to know all things to know there is no Leprechaun. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be Leprechaun), then he cannot logically say there is no Leprechaun.

 

Can you prove to me without a doubt, that there is not a Leprechaun? Do you feel bad or sinful for not believing in Leprechauns?

Where your argument fails is that everyone knows that leprechauns are not nice at all! See this photo of one as proof:

 

 

Since leprechauns are not nice, they could not have created the world and therefore this proves that unicorns did. Unicorns are nice, leprechauns suck. As it says in the book of Unicorn 3:4, "Drive out the believers in the forest elf from your midst, and hang them upon the walls of the city for all to marvel at their destruction".

[Lycorth]

To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

 

Therefore you cannot say there is a god, because by your logic you are making the same leap that Atheists are.

 

We don't know for sure if there are any gods. However, there is still virtually no evidence of any convincing degree that conclusively points to the existence of a god. So it is quite logical to assume no gods exist, simply on lack of evidence.

 

Atheism is more logical than Theism.

[NotBlinded]

The Pagan's could have just as easily stated that the devil used Christianity to distort the "True Faith" of Paganism.

 

"Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be--for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ--so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

 

From here: Mithra: The Pagan Christ Part 5

 

The Debil anticipated Christianity and created a false version of it BEFORE Christ came just to fool everyone.

 

I actually learned that a long time ago in church. And I read it in some apologetic publications. If I'm not mistaken, it was KJV Only's teaching it.

 

It's hilarious.

Damn that Debil! All of those false religions and fake dinosaur bones...how is a person ever supposed to know the truth? All the evidence in the world is nothing unless it is written in a book and makes the claim of divinity...no wait...that can't be right because many books make that claim. Oh the horror of the Debil! Which religion is not of the Debil? Oh...how do we know?!?!

 

I can't believe there are still people that think that way. As the quote above says, "...it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it." Isn't that the truth. One can just look at them and say, then think to yourself...

[NotBlinded]

There is a conspiracy, a cosmic conspiracy which has been at work since the beginning of this world. The leader of that conspiracy is Satan. Satan would have it that he would be God. This has always been Satan's ultimate goal.

 

When Satan and his angels saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took into themselves the daughters of man and had children, these were giants according to the written word.

 

Satan, was worshipped as a god. His angels were worshipped as gods. These were known as Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, Mars, Ares, Mithra, Chiune, Remphan, etc.

 

 

 

 

It was Satan's fallen angels which had rebelled against the High God of Heaven, & which taught man all of the evil which will virtually destroyed all Godly morality on earth.

 

And, here it is.

 

I'm still amazed that your mind is so messed up that you can't hear yourself. If it's Satan's ultimate goal, then what makes you think the book you worship is not of Satan? Sheesh... That would be very clever wouldn't it?

[neverclear5]

Since leprechauns are not nice, they could not have created the world

why do you assume something nice would make the world?

[NotBlinded]

What evidence do you have to prove that God does not exist?

 

How many ways must this be explained to you before you get it?

 

We'll just turn the question around and see if this registers with you:

 

What evidence do you have for the non existence of Zues? Your question makes about as much sense.

Vigile, he believes in Zeus. He just thinks Zeus is an angel of Satan. >snicker, snicker<

[Lycorth]

Seriously, Japeth...

 

If God is so good and Satan is so evil, why is it the worst thing that Satan is arguably depicted as doing in the Babble is bothering Job? He didn't kill anyone, he didn't torture anyone, he didn't make demands or give orders to kill anyone.

 

However, God does all of that in the OT. He orders his armies to rape, to kill, and to pillage many times. He demands his followers to obey all his laws, even when his laws only serve his own ego, and penalizes with death those who refuse to obey. Jesus in the NT identifies with the god of the OT, thus claiming (by default) that he is responsible for all the crimes committed therein. Jebus also plainly states that all those who will not let him rule over them are to be brought before him and killed; this is at the end of a parable, but not part of the parable. It clearly reflects Jebus' desires, which are consistent with the OT depictions of him.

 

So, how is Satan responsible for anything evil? It would seem that he's more of the good guy of the Babble, the one who gave the finger to Da Lard and tried to overthrow the mad dictator of "Heaven." If anything, Satan is a hero and God/Yahooweh/Jebus is the real devil.

 

Good thing none of them are real, but if they were, I'd cast my lot with Satan. At least he seems to have some decency.

[NotBlinded]

I dunno why! And mama told me that alligators are mad cuz they can't brush their teeth, and when a bell rings an angel gets his wings!"

HA! I loved that movie!

[Antlerman]

Since leprechauns are not nice, they could not have created the world

why do you assume something nice would make the world?

If the Creator was bad, then I would be bad also, but since I'm not, neither is He. Leprechauns are bad, so therefore cannot be the Creator. Unicorns are good, therefore I am created in their image, because I am good also. Simple Logic, and solid proof of their existence. Can you disprove that Unicorns didn't not create the universe??? I didn't think so.

[NotBlinded]

Since leprechauns are not nice, they could not have created the world

why do you assume something nice would make the world?

If the Creator was bad, then I would be bad also, but since I'm not, neither is He. Leprechauns are bad, so therefore cannot be the Creator. Unicorns are good, therefore I am created in their image, because I am good also. Simple Logic, and solid proof of their existence. Can you disprove that Unicorns didn't not create the universe??? I didn't think so.

Why...yes I can. Unicorns didn't do it because I don't have a horn in my head. Giraffes did it.

[Antlerman]

Why...yes I can. Unicorns didn't do it because I don't have a horn in my head. Giraffes did it.

So... you're saying that if we have a long neck, then Giraffes created us? Then by the same token, if I have horns on my head, then the friendly cosmic deer created me. If someone has wide eyes, then they were created by a Lemur god. Therefore, since no one is green, this is yet more proof that Leprechauns are not the Creator. Instead it appears that animals are. And Noah's ark was really more about saving our gods from being destroyed by evil Leprechauns!

[NotBlinded]

Why...yes I can. Unicorns didn't do it because I don't have a horn in my head. Giraffes did it.

So... you're saying that if we have a long neck, then Giraffes created us? Then by the same token, if I have horns on my head, then the friendly cosmic deer created me. If someone has wide eyes, then they were created by a Lemur god. Therefore, since no one is green, this is yet more proof that Leprechauns are not the Creator. Instead it appears that animals are. And Noah's ark was really more about saving our gods from being destroyed by evil Leprechauns!

No...the debil knew from the begining that people would think like you do! I have a long neck and that's all there is to it! Don't let the debil fool you. The Almighty Giraffe loves you so...it is written. I just wrote it yesterday and the Giraffe inspired me.

[Lycorth]

And Japeth, it's easy to prove God doesn't exist. No being can exist with his characteristics.

 

God is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful, right? If so, he'd never have let evil exist in the first place, being full of love and full of power. If he were all-knowing, he'd know what permitting evil to exist would do. So, the presence of evil proves God doesn't exist.

 

Evil is not necessary for free will. One can simply choose between varying degrees of good. If I can think that up, surely an all-powerful god can do even better. The argument that evil is necessary for free will is just a sad attempt to make the Xian religion seem reasonable when it is in fact nonsense.

 

No all-good god would want to see suffering. One that is also all-powerful would have the ability to prevent it. One that is all-knowing would know why suffering should be done away with - not just for the betterment of his creatures but for his own greater glory. A god with ego problems like the god of Xianity can't possibly avoid that chance. The existence of suffering proves God doesn't exist.

 

He'd also do away with sin and the devil. The devil is the source of sin and all the problems in the world, right? He is the one responsible for screwing up everything that God does, right? Then why not just get rid of him? It would solve everything. Only a cruel sick-ass would let such a dangerous creature exist to continue to do damage to al already damaged world, right? That the devil exists in Xian mythology proves that God can't possibly exist and the entire mythology is flawed.

 

Or how about the fact that every living being in the universe has to devour and/or oppress other living beings just to survive? Plants eat insects, or devour microrganisms in water, insects and animals and people eat plants, people and animals eat insects, insect bite and can poison people and animals, people and animals eat each other, people destroy plants and insects and animals to make homes or clear land for their use and animals often do the same, etc. See what I mean? Why would God make a world where living beings have to destroy each other? We can't even walk without stepping on things. The very nature of the universe proves God doesn't exist.

 

I could go on, but my point is clear, I think. You can stamp your feet and deny this, but in your heart, you know it's right.

 

Think about it - and don't waste your life on the lies of the Babble.

[Antlerman]

No...the debil knew from the begining that people would think like you do! I have a long neck and that's all there is to it! Don't let the debil fool you. The Almighty Giraffe loves you so...it is written. I just wrote it yesterday and the Giraffe inspired me.

There is a wisdom in you words. For no other animal is so close to the heavens as the Giraffe. He inspires us to stretch for new heights. He stands proud above all other beasts. He speaks mysterious utterances that no man can hear with his natural ears, save those who have the wisdom. He brings food forth from His belly to be chewed, and brought forth again. His eyes are ever watchful, ever vigilant. Indeed, I bow before the beast and ask to be raised high upon his back and ride forth from the forest into the light!

 

Have you accepted the Lord Blinky? To know Him is to know the mysteries of the forest. "Blessed is the man whose yard his maked out by his Holy Hoofs."

[NotBlinded]

There is a wisdom in you words. For no other animal is so close to the heavens as the Giraffe. He inspires us to stretch for new heights. He stands proud above all other beasts. He speaks mysterious utterances that no man can hear with his natural ears, save those who have the wisdom. He brings food forth from His belly to be chewed, and brought forth again. His eyes are ever watchful, ever vigilant. Indeed, I bow before the beast and ask to be raised high upon his back and ride forth from the forest into the light!

 

Have you accepted the Lord Blinky? To know Him is to know the mysteries of the forest. "Blessed is the man whose yard his maked out by his Holy Hoofs."

Well...good then.

 

Blinky, ahh yes, my little Lord Blinky. The Great Giraffe sent Blinky to pave the way for humans to find Him. He dropped him six feet unto the ground and the thud could be felt from the four corners of the earth. You will never walk alone with Blinky's Holy Hoof prints beside you. Although he is gone now, he will soon return in the Blink of an eye to save the ones that wallowed through his droppings in order to walk in his Holy Hoof prints.