Does God Exist?

To invoke is to cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument. I don't assume this appearance I observe it. I observe the actions associated with the concept of god and find substantial evidence for the ubiquitous use of god inspired vernacular.

Does god exist? That is an authority problem.

 

Every action we take is a projection into the future, otherwise we would see no need or compulsion to act.

If you do something because you believe it will positively influence your life, that is acting on a belief based in a future projection of said belief.
Really fucking simple and rather elementary.

Every time you step on your brakes you are exercising the faith you have developed in your mechanic, biblical faith works the same way.

As to your knowledge, that last statement confirms my suspicions about the degree of knowledge and understanding you possess concerning the topic.

 

That chick has way too much swag for god not to exist..

 

I don't see the relevance to the discussion, but I'd agree with you that these fringe movements of so-called Christians are pretty bad.

 

this wouldn't qualify as a book report in grade school

 

Thanks for the info. It helps illustrate my point. You said earlier:

"Exact same thing" is pretty precise. You cite an internet source, but you don't identify who the source is or why anyone should believe what it says. Was it put together by the inmate of a mental hospital or by a reputable scholar? The site administrators call themselves the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, purportedly an "inter-faith" group. Still not much to go on in terms of credentials relating to expertise. Are any of them Egyptologists? Do any of them even speak or read Egyptian?

I don't think anyone would quarrel with you that Horus was "a documented god of the Egyptians having been written about 3,00 years ago." The issue is all the alleged parallels between him and Jesus. I don't know the immediate author of your source, but I do know who the ultimate author was: Gerald Massey, poet and amateur Egyptologist, writing in 1875, when Egyptology was in its infancy and the standards for scholarship were quite different than they are today--especially in separating fact from opinion. His fingerprints are all over the article. Massey's views aren't taken seriously by scholars today, but they are taken quite seriously by S. Acharya ( a.k.a., Dorothy Murdock), who makes a good living from the myth of the myth (pretty good for someone without a graduate degree or knowledge of Egyptian; by the Zeitgeist documentary that used her as a consultant; and by the atheist/agnostic blogosphere. But getting back to Massey: he isn't taken seriously by modern scholars because of his tendency toward wild over-generalization. For example, the howler that the Egyptian god Horus was baptized in a river by “Anup the Baptizer”. Murdock tries to defend the claim by saying what he really meant was the god, Anubis,the god associated with mummification and the dead. Part of the mummification process involved washing the corpse with palm wine. Is that baptism? Hardly. And Horus was never mummified, because he didn’t die. Massey used the title "the Baptizer" (his, not the Egyptian's terminology) to bring out the imagined parallel to John the Baptizer. As for Horus' twelve disciples, Massey made that connection from an Egyptian mural showing twelve reapers. Nothing to indicate a connection to Horus. Horus [FONT=&quot] had four to six demigods and sixteen human retainers in his retinue. [/FONT]An even more egregious example, which appears on the chart of comparisons given in your source, is Herrut, who is supposed to correspond to Herrod in the Jesus story. Massey said that Herod, the king of Judea when Jesus was supposedly born, was really derived from the Egyptian myth of Herrut, a serpent. Only problem with that is that Herrod, the king in the Jesus story, was a real king at the time of Caesar Augustus, with abundant historical documentation in Jewish and Roman sources. So that's the stuff you've chosen to give credence to and to call "fact" instead of "belief".

 

That's what I mean. God exists in your mind. You can't invoke god as he/she doesn't exist. You can only "pray" to your god.

What actions are associated with the concept of god? Are you saying "invoke" is god inspired vernacular as opposed to an English word?

 

Oh, I don't think the parallel life is "alleged". I think the basic concepts of Christ were taken from Horus. Of that, it's pretty clear in the article.

 

God didn't give that chick attitude; his daddy did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0"]Foghorn Leghorn Rant! - YouTube

 

I totally disagree. Few little is done with thoughts of the future. Positively affecting you is with regard to an immediate reward or promises of more money on the job. That's not faith in the future...that's kissing up.

I think I've pretty much held not only my own on this discussion, but have sent you scrambling to find a response.....am I right? Come on...you know I am...you can tell me....I won't tell a soul. :2thumbsup:


I don't have faith in my mechanic. I have a history and he has proven he is a good mechanic over the years. I don't need a faith that the car will stop, or the bridge will hold, or the plane will land. I have scientific evidence of all those things. It's scientific evidence, not faith, that most rely on to get through the day.

 

Enough said.

 

Nothing really honest in your quote and reply. Like picking and choosing which OT verses you can use to develop a following for your next group to hate, huh?

 

I quoted you. I don't engage in the activity you use as an analogy so I don't know. What I do know is that excited is a state of mind, is being excited not real? Your name as an identifier is not a real thing in that it was entirely made up! A chair begins as an idea and without being educated in the use of things you would have no idea what they were for.

I don't know what verses or statistics you use to come to this. Seems like you extricated it from an unlikely orifice.

 

Sigh! The article is clear--clearly bogus! Do you think Herrod was based on an Egyptian serpent myth and wasn't a real king? Do you believe in Anup the Baptizer? Do you think it's good enough in proving twelve disciples to find a picture of twelve reapers on a wall? Do you think it makes sense to believe what you read in an anonymous article on the internet using as its primary source an amateur scholar of the nineteenth century who isn't taken seriously today? If you do, you're a prime candidate for some fine bayou real estate. Seriously, we could go over the claims on that site one by one and refute them, but you have your mind made up that whatever you want to believe is a fact. As long as it gets you through the day and your brakes haven't failed, that's all you or anyone needs to know. Hope that works for you. Maybe ignorance is bliss after all. As long as the TV still works and the breweries stay in business, this country will be in great shape!

 

Well I could sit and pen a page further illustrating my position, yet I fear you lack the requisite background knowledge in both religion and science to comprehend much of it, as you have consistently shown via your juvenile conceptions of the topic at hand and subsequent "pop-culture" inspired understanding and answers you have provided.

Saying you don't have faith in your mechanic, you have a history of his performance.....DUH, what the fuck do you think faith is.

news flash for ya Sam, faith as REALLY taught/presented in the Bible is based on THE EXACT SAME FUCKING PRINCIPLE!!!

Faith develops based on prior experience with the object of faith, whether it be God making/fulfilling a promise or prophecy, or you getting your brakes fixed, same damn process at work.
Furthermore faith is ACTION based on the confidence developed by past experience. Faith without works is dead. Whether it be a Christian willingly going to the lions or you slamming on your brakes, both are ACTIONS based on CONFIDENCE you developed based on prior experience.

Yet your head is so polluted with your pop culture, tabloid, fringe philosophy, Charlton Heston conception of God, faith and the whole mess that it most likely precludes you from actually applying original thought to the topic and not just parroting the same old crap.

So what is scientific evidence anyway, Sam?

Is it 100% certainty that this or that will always happen, or is it that based on X number of observations, we can PREDICT (there's that fucking pain-in the ass future again!) the probability that said event will occur again.
Where arguments such as yours, lacking a fundamental understanding of that fact, fail is in making the asinine assumption that "if I ain't seen it, it don't exist".
or in other words, you fail to take into account the numerous events that fall far outside the degree of probability that we consider to render something "real", yet can not be denied that they occur.

Is the cat dead or alive???

 

Betcha he doesn't understand that reference.

 

I am honestly tired of your egotistical persona whereby you think your noxious opinion is fact.

There is a veritable difference in religious faith and secular faith.

Religious faith is nothing more than wishful thinking based on ZERO evidence. For instance, I have faith that god will allow the sun to rise tomorrow. That kind of religious faith is not based on evidence, for there is no proof that god has any hand in whether or not the sun will rise from day to day.

Secular faith is based on the absolute fact that something repeats itself in the same manner based on objective observances. For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is a daily observable fact, because it is repeated constantly without fail. No nonsensical god required.

Now stop being ignorant and placating an irrational viewpoint that makes humanity appear retarded.

 

No, you highlighted two words I said. That's deceitful. Don't you think?

 

Well, your news isn't really relevant to my mind. I don't go around believing in an imaginary deity which seems to change eery 40 to 50 years depending on who is in office. I am responsible for my actions; I don't fall short of any deity when I fail, hurt someone, or do something bad. I fail, hurt someone or do something bad. There's also not a boogey man involved who makes me do anything.

I was brainwashed as a child. It didn't take when I began seeing how quickly the helping the poor of the 60's turned into hating everyone not a white old man. If a deity can change that quickly, it's a man-made claim, nothing more. If you want to have faith in old white men running a cult on people, have it. I don't have to. I'm an American. We are a secular nation.

 

Obvious moron who can't read what is actually written on the page.

I said "as it is actually taught in the Bible".
So are you familiar enough with what is ACTUALLY written in the book to dispute that FACT, or you just going to cling to your miserable conception of what Christianity is and what it teaches?
I doubt it, as you have also exhibited little more than a pop-culture understanding of the topic, I don't expect you to understand Biblical faith either.