God does not exist

There's no burden of proof for the believer, so long as he is the one behaving under the direction of that belief. But when he expects other people to behave as if they believe, or to behave in some way that only makes sense when one believes, then he must show a good reason why they should be have that way. If belief is the best reason to behave that way, then he must show a good reason why they should believe.

 

To me that seems kind of a universal principle which is not limited to religion but I agree. This does not say much about a belief in God and his/her/it's existence that should be proven by the faithful but more so about respecting each others beliefs in general, both by annoying evangelical christians ('cause they are often annoying indeed) and pushy and generalizing atheists (who are pushy and rigidly generalizing often on this forums as well).

 

Most would say that a world where everyone followed the principle; do on to others as you would have them do on to you would have them do on to you, would make the the world a much better place. You seem to disagree but most people would say you are an idiot for thinking so.

One, no one has any idea what the "precepts of My Little Pony" are and so they can not be judged on their merits unlike the Bible's principles which are available for all to read and understand.

Two, I did not say that the fact that people living by Bible principles would make the world a better place was proof that God exists, although one might wonder about the origin of such wisdom.

People can claim anything they want but claims are not proof. With claims about "interpretations" of the Bible, if the "interpretations" do not agree with what the Bible says then it is not a correct "interpretation".

Also if there is a God that "wrote" the Bible then he has the correct "interpretation" and thus one who agrees with that "interpretation" can also have the correct "interpretation".

 

Sorry, I'm not here to promote a particular religious denomination.

Mainly I like to talk about religion and enjoy talking with those who have done deep thinking about what they believe but I've found that most people's beliefs are not well thought out and are not internally consistent.

I've always found it interesting how some people can have beliefs that are "based" on the Bible and yet believe that the Bible is inconsistent, filled with inaccuracies and contradictions and yet still believe that their beliefs "based" on the Bible are not also inconsistent, filled with inaccuracies and contradictions.

Of course I believe my "interpretation" is correct. That's kind of the way beliefs work.

While I do believe most organized religions are far from correct, I do not believe they all are.

 

If only God exists in the minds of a man, that means he does exist that mans minds and that means he exists for that man.
So God exists for only those who believe that he exists.
If no man can know what is out side his minds, that can be a reason why no man knows who real God is.
So i find bassless for someone to claim that God does not exist!! How can you know what you can't know?

 

It is interesting that there has never been found a "primitive" tribe of man that did not have concept of God.

Since it is very difficult, if not impossible to conceive of something that does not have some basis in fact, it would seem that all of mankind no matter how separated having the concept of God would lead one to the idea that there might some reality to the concept of God.

 

oh man we still on this.....oh well its a topic close to many peoples heart.
god....is something i prey to every day. sometimes i call god jesus sometimes krishna sometimes budda mostly just god. you see the secret with this god number is having a frienship with the spirit. just talk like god was your best closest friend.people make things so complex....for me its real simple.....but im a simple woman....like boardering on dumb?well dont try and talk me out of it theres plenty of evidance there."i done all the dumbthings"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWhj4sVeVD0"]Paul Kelly And The Coloured Girls - Dumb Things - YouTube
lis

 

the problem arises when existence is not fully sensed .
love your enemy , love the stranger is of the fullness . this
compassion is an extension of knowing .

cultish socialization can repress it . socialization with no
repression of the existence feeling is what's honorable . god
may live within that feeling , or twinkle on and off for that matter .

 

What is fully sensed exactly? Doesn't that seem to automatically imply that the problem does not arise but is always present

 

it would arise from childhood . a newborn may be assumed to be of
full awareness . when i was born my ma broke her tailbone . of
course i felt her travail . oddly , and just lately , she had an hysterectomy
and on my birthday . during her recovery we had some feelings to share .
she told of losing her tail for one thing .

what is fully sensed exactly ?

indeterminate : and for this the doctor is humble .

the christian to be born again implies sensing the completeness
of existence . is it illusion ? it is metaphor , and in all metaphor
the imagination is engaged . what is the root ? a feeling of inter-
sected reality acknowledged and in search of a name ...

earth mother ?

could be that . it's a name for togetherness and home . ah ,
whatever , i was born again tripping windowpane in and old
farmhouse ... seven spirits arose ... and i'll never decide exactly
what to think about that . life Izz motion >

would a person fully sensible ever become a godly christian ? that'd
be very very humble pie . right , doc ?

 

^

tikoo:

Why not speak of your ecstasy?

Is the wild light so wonderfully common you might not place its kindness before its every story?

Is god just sleeping? Amongst the beasts of the field?


OWB:

LOL!

By the gods! Is it urreligion that you decline to bring up at Meagains prompting? :-D

 

How so?
If someone says they have the "correct" interpretation of a book and that "correct" interpretation seems to disagree with what the book actually says. I don't think that it is circular reasoning to say that it is probably not the correct interpretation.

Again if you agree with the author's interpretation of his book, I think most would say that is probably the correct reasoning on the book and not circular reasoning at all.

Also I am not using either of these statements to prove God exists, only that there may actually be a correct interpretation of what has been written.

Sorry, I guess my statement I was confusing.

No, I do not believe the Bible is inconsistent, filled with inaccuracies and contradictions, on the contrary I believe the exact opposite.

I was just stating how startling it seems to me that there are those who say their beliefs on based on the Bible and then go on to say how they believe the Bible to be inconsistent, filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. My first thought is, then why don't you believe your beliefs based on the Bible to be inconsistent, filled with inaccuracies and contradictions as well, but they don't.

Perhaps but Skip has said, "no proselytizing" and while I don't feel saying what I believe is proselytizing, I feel recommending a specific religion would being doing so. While in my personal life I have no problem with mentioning a specific religion, out of respect for what I consider the rules here I do not do so, even though others may do so.

As for what I believe, you can read all my posts or just ask me, I'll tell you.

Yes, I am aware but that does not change the fact that they had a concept of God without seeming contact with others that had a concept of God.

Name one and I'll point out how many connections it has to reality, because even fiction is derived from an extension of the realities around us.

Okay.

 

As I just said to Meagain, Skip has said, "no proselytizing" and while I don't feel saying what I believe is proselytizing, I feel recommending a specific religion would being doing so. While in my personal life I have no problem with mentioning a specific religion, out of respect for what I consider the rules here I do not do so, even though others may do so.

 

I'm talking about urmonotheismus.

 

The atheists can accept that god exists for the theists. Can the theists accept that god doesn't exist for the atheists?! :-D

Will they have to evolve to? lol

 

yeah..i dont beleive anything at all really. paradoxically i am a christian hindu kinda mix. but yeah...i get so inmeshed with what is going on round me. and that generates anxiety. i would like to let that go.
i prey to jesus in deep meditation ,i also prey to gaunesha and krisna....they are all the same ....idea.....im sure if you where talking on that levil names would be a tad unimposrant.
maybe it was my mom but i always had a talking relationship with god....except for about 15 years when i stopped it. when imtalking to god....life is a bit bgetter always has been.....just personal for me.
lis

 

Yes they can, I have seen it many times. Haven't you?

 

What do you mean that "the atheists can accept that God exists for the theists". Would this be purely subjective existence--maybe in the same sense we can agree that pink elephants exist for persons with DTs? I don't believe that God can exist for some people and not for others in an objective sense. But I do believe that theists and atheists can each have substantial evidence for their beliefs, and therefore each be rational in betting on them. Pragmatists would call both beliefs "true" for the believers, even though only one position is true objectively. Is that good enough?