quote:my pastor said today that "faith requires imagination"
Of course he did, Shan. That's because he knows that it's all made up.
unohoo,
quote:There are just too many observations available to disprove the existance of God. That is why this is a matter of faith
Like what? Statues with bleeding eyes? Trees carved with the image of Mary Magdelane (but only if you look at it...just the right way)? Seven miners rescued from a pit?
For every statue with bleeding eyes, you'll find a charlatan with a squeeze-bulb and some pig's blood. For every image of Christ in a block of ice you'll find someone with an ice-pick. For every seven miners saved, you'll find hundreds killed in an East Indian ferry accident.
There is no God. Wishing won't make it so. Delusions won't make it real. Believing in it hard enough, and getting some warm-fuzzy feeling from your belief will not bring a thing into existence. By defining God, you'll only come closer to the realization that it's all made up. It's a story, told to children to make them feel safer in a randomly dangerous, and threatening world.
Please note, however, that although the alleged existence of God has not made the world a nicer place to live in, the actions of some people--driven by their belief in God--has. But, then again, there are always the Crusades and pedophilic priests to pretty much ruin that argument.
posted
You know, DOG, I think the alleged existence of God has, to some extent, made the world a nicer place to live. I don't think a lot of the morality we take for granted nowadays, and which we've struggled to philosophically justify for centuries, would have been so commonly accepted if we couldn't use religion as a carrot and a stick.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
With respect to the statement "God does not exist."
If you go to church, you will no doubt hear the preacher say "We KNOW that God...." such and such. He doesn't qualify his statements with wishy washy terms like "believe."
But a preacher doesn't really expect that there are atheists in church, so it's reasonable to make the assumption that everybody is reading from the same page, and bases their arguments on the same assumption.
For a long time, I thought that for an atheist to say "there is no god" is arrogant, and unnessesarily rude. But it's no ruder than saying there is a god, it's just a matter of where you are, and how well you know your audience.
I believe in ettiquette. That is, it is worthwhile not to piss people off without cause, so following some simple rules that help grease the wheels is worth doing. Within a group of atheists, I have no problem saying there is no god, because that's the assumption I operate under. But in mixed company, I'm careful always to say: "I don't believe in God" if the subject comes up.
I wonder whether people here would be willing to refrain from absolutes, for the sake of ettiquette, on both sides of the issue.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And faith kinda sorta implies believing things that can't necessarily be seen, tasted, felt or smelled.
You know, it takes a great deal of imagination for a child to learn to read, but that doesn't mean that reading is not believable. Maybe God is a verb, rather than a noun.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And faith kinda sorta implies believing things that can't necessarily be seen, tasted, felt or smelled
Actually, "faith" implies believing things that specifically cannot be seen, tasted, felt or smelled. If you could physically sense them, you wouldn't need faith in them. You'd be foolish to say "I have faith that my right elbow exists."
The reason you have to have "faith" in God is that God does not exist. Religion needs to find a way to get you to abandon your reasoning skills in order to be able to accept the proposed existence of a known non-existent object. WHat it does is 1) state that you need "faith" to believe in God, and then 2) declare that all beliefs (I believe the moon exists, I believe that the speed of light is a natural limit, etc.) require "faith," thereby trashing "knowledge" and elevating "faith" to the level of "truth."
BTW, if anyone here starts into existential solipsism, I'll bite them on the leg! "How do we know what exists?" Indeed! If you can sniff it and pee on it, it exists. What else do you need to know?
quote:Maybe God is a verb, instead of a noun
What, do you write theological copy for Nike? A verb instead of a noun? You could only say that about a fictional concept, not an actual/real thing. What the heck does it mean, anyhow? God implies action? Again, God as not-real-object.
Shan, you're doing a great job of making my case for me.
--DOG
[pants, drools, and starts to foam at the mouth...]
posted
"By defining God, you'll only come closer to the realization that it's all made up. It's a story, told to children to make them feel safer in a randomly dangerous, and threatening world."
Oh? C.S. Lewis would prob'ly have disagreed with you, Taerg Dog . In case you don't know, he was an aetheist who believed he logically came to the conlusion that there must be a god. Unfortunately, Lewis happened to pick an idea of God that is, I believe, a bit oversimplistic, and most Christians share that view. The reason, Taerg Dog, I think, for your aetheistic idea quoted above, is that you also have an oversimplistic view of what God is supposed to be. Why, I wonder, are so many people like that?
The reason I may have an overly simplistic definition of God is that if I get too complicated in that definition, it all falls apart.
It's like a Gundam model from Bandai. Sooner or later, all you're left with is two legs, an arm, and part of the body armor.
No, but seriously: I have been asking people for a reasoned and reasonable definition (or description) of "God" for a very long time, and all I get are simplistic responses--if I get any responses at all.
By default, I've had to come up with my own. And, since it my own description, it's oh, so very easy for me to tear it down.
--DOG
(This deserves a longer, and better thought out response, but I'm exhausted!)
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Little do you know that I was an excessively vocal agnostic for the longest kind of time. (Chuckles)
And no, I don't write ads for Nike - I'd sure make better money if I did - hmmm - you have a good idea there . . . Thanks!
No, one of the ways I came around into having a belief, trust, faith (if you will) in the presence of some ordered being that I can't possibly define or place bounds on, was through "doing" -
and I am merely posing the possibility that although down through the ages God, Goddess, Spirit, Higher Power, Heavenly Father, Mother Earth, Zeus, Athena (whatever you care to call that indefinable something) was defined as such, that really, God is not a noun, person, place or thing) after all - that rather, God is a verb - an action.
You might care to check out this book I just finished, which was excellent: Why Christian? For Those on the Edge of Faith by Douglas John Hall. The author's probably lucky it's the 21st centry, otherwise he'd have been burned at the stake. I highly recommend it.
Here is a particularly interesting quote from the book:
" . . . faith understood as trust repsects the integrity and freedom of the person: it assumes personal decision, just as all profound human relationships do . . . it also maintains - and this is just as important! - our freedom to hold back and to doubt" (p. 92)
Miguel de Unamuno said that "Faith that does not doubt is dead faith" -
I agree!
Keep questioning, DOG!
*Edited for a silly spelling mistake, doubtlessly not the last)
posted
Nice bit of philosophy on God being a verb, there.
Dog said: "...seriously: I have been asking people for a reasoned and reasonable definition (or description) of "God" for a very long time..."
Ok. The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe(or multiverse if you want to say that). And that, my friend, IMNSHO, is God. Everything. Material and immaterial, immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
By all means, go ahead and try to rationalize that the God I'm talking about doesn't exist. Since an argument that claims to prove the space-time continuum theory wrong is doomed to logical failure (unless one's argument consists only of the initial assumption that the latter theory is wrong, thus 'begging the question'), I'm afraid that you'll have to assume that nothing exists and that, in short, you do not exist. This theory is acually held by a group of philosophers(I forget the name), but I personally have yet to see the practical application of this philosophy.
In the words of Albert Einstein, and this is an approximately direct quote: "There are two ways to live your life. One is as if everything is a miracle. The other is as if nothing is a miracle.
posted
Dog, you took what I wrote completely out of context and then misinterpreted it. I said, essentially, that there is much evidence to dis the existance of God. How did you get from that that I was trying to say that there is a God? Also, I said (paraphrasing myself ) that to believe is a matter of faith. It is impossible to prove definitively that there is or isn't God. That's why there is faith, or not.
How do I not believe in God? Oh, let me count the ways.
-I do not feel a need for God -I find some use God as an excuse for things that go wrong -I find some use God as an excuse for things that go right -I think that life as we know it does not depend on the existance of a superior being -There is very clear evidence that all life on earth evolved from events on earth (forinstance, I've read that we humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana) and so on
However, just because I do not believe, does not mean that I do not respect anyone else's belief. It is my choice to interpret the evidence I see one way, and another's choice to interpret the evidence differently. Nor will I try to convince anyone else to think as I do unless that person is asking me to. Likewise, I hope that those who do believe in some higher omnipotent being will not try to persuade me that they are right and I am wrong.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, unohoo, no problem. Just take a gander at my theory and you can believe that there exists not one but many "higher omnipotent" beings that are, in fact, not God!
quote: The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe(or multiverse if you want to say that). And that, my friend, IMNSHO, is God. Everything. Material and immaterial, immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
I'm not a physicists, *but* I've read some things about the theory of relativity, and I don't remember it saying anything of the sort. I think the theory basically states that space/tinme exists and is continuous. How does this equate to flotillas of omnipotent beings? Can you point me to a reference?
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
You said: There are just too many observations available TO disprove the existance of God
I think that what you are saying you meant to say is: There are just too many observations available WHICH disprove the existance of God
And we're good to go.
I have a question: why are people so eager to say that "It is impossible to prove definitively that there is or isn't God."?
The implication inherent in that approach is that you therefore have to accept every theory which proposes the existence of a unproveable object. Are we to accept pixies, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, loch ness monsters, compassionate conservatives, etc., etc.?
This is getting soooooo old. If you propose (and, unohoo, I know now that you don't!) the existence of something, be prepared to prove it. If one proposes something defined by an inherent resistance to proof, then why bother proposing such a thing at all?
Sun
quote:The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe
Which space-time continuum is that? Not any that I've heard of, outside of the realm of pure sci-fi. Think of it: for every radioisotope that decays now, there is another universe where it decays now, instead. First, current scientific thought is that our universe has a finite life, and will not cycle through an infinite number of cycles. We (this) may be "it." Secondly, there are "orders" of infinity: Infinite(1): Set of all rational numbers; Ininite(2): set of all subsets of all rational numbers. Which infinity are you proposing?
And no, I can't sniff gluons. And they may not actually exist. Electrons as waves may not actually exist. Electrons as particles may not actually exist (I feel much more comfortable talking about electrons, as you can tell). Something exists, and depending on what tests I perform, it may respond as a particle or as a wave. Others may perform the same experiments, and get the same results. When someone performs the same experiment, and gets different results, then the scientific community rallies together to kill the person who comes up with the wrong results, and buries the body in a 55 gallon drum somewhere in the Meadowlands (near Jimmy Hoffa).
No, that's not right. They typically acknowledge the unexpected result, and attempt to seek out the cause.
Pretty much everything in life acts this way. If you behave a certain way in a certain situation, you come to expect a certain result.
And how does religion fare? It is inherently untestable. It wants to be untestable! It constantly makes premises which fail to be supported by physical reality, and then just changes premises. It seems to be a pretty useless premise.
quote:immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
What sort of nonsense is that? Material in immaterial form? Blue in Green form? Apples in chair form? If you want to say that God is everything, and everything is God, then great.
You still have not defined "God." You've begged the question.
But God as the creator of the universe? A conscious, controlling entity? All-knowing/all-seeing/all-powerful? Loves us as a father loves his son? Not a sparrow falls without but God knows of it? Christ as the bringer of the Black Death? No. I don't think so.
posted
No, sorry... that's not really what I meant. It's as much philosphy than scientific theory- I'm not even sure I have the name right. It is, however, scientifically and logically impossible to prove wrong. And, arguably, it is also scientifically impossible to prove correct.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL you do that. "Of what value is a theory which cannot be proven wrong?" In this case, to prove that you cannot prove that there is not a God.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan> Random thought of the day...a eulogy fragment for one of our preachers by another: "He waved no plumes, wreathed no garlands, but struck from the shoulder and at the vitals. He was barren of poetry and destitute of imagination."
Curious thought about faith...
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, do you read Madeleine L’Engle? Her non-fiction books have some glorious stuff about faith and imagination. Particularly in The Rock that is Higher and Walking on Water.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Again, this is a situational case. Nobody currently liveing invented the idea of God. That happened in the remote past, and we can't expect that/those persons to come back and support their propositions.
Belief in God is an issue of social momentum. God is everywhere, in terms of public opinion, so it's hard to claim that any one person or group of people have to prove he exists. I don't think that anyone has to prove the truth of an assertion that they make because they heard it somewhere, and it makes sense to them.
However, when someone makes the claim in an attempt to convert someone, either from non-beleif or from some other religion, they do have to support their claim, if they want to be taken seriously.
BTW, C.S. Lewis' claim that he was once an atheist is highly questionable. I don't have any quotes handy, but he makes references to "being angry at god" while he was an atheist, as well as other claims that presuppose the existence of God. One can't be angry at something that one doesn't believe exists.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that anyone has to prove the truth of an assertion that they make because they heard it somewhere, and it makes sense to them
Let me chew on that one for a while...
When it comes to one's personal beliefs, then I agree. I shouldn't have to explain all my beliefs to another (then what the heck am I doing here!?! ).
But what about when a person, or group of people, start to (try to) impose their belief system on another group...at that point, I start to ask questions.
posted
Shan> It's church-of-Christ culture. Classically, imagination is downplayed because of the importance of fidelity to the Scripture. I found this quote in a book on Christian education; it also documented that we produce very few artists and many more engineers than theoretical scientists.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi dkw - Read Madeleine L'Engle a lot in my younger years - perhaps worth another read now in my 30's - especially since my son and I like to read together -
Maccabeus - Church of Christ culture . . . never been exposed to that - interesting.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely re-read with your son, but she’s also got some great fiction with older protagonists (I don’t want to say “adult novels,” but you know what I mean) which you probably didn’t read when you were younger. Plus the non-fiction reflections on faith and writing and art and such.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, see - I am kind of a mongrel mix. I was raised in a very divided household - LDS father and Roman Catholic mother. Consequently, I now attend (for the last 10 years) an ELCA Lutheran church. In the intervening years, I bitterly protested anything and anyone that professed a belief in God and attended an organized religious establishment - 13 years worth of fighting it all.
My pastor says I am one of the most eclectic christians he has ever met, but he's okay with that - he also thinks seeking and doubting and questioning (and imagination) are all wonderful things in growing one's faith, nor does he spout off at me that I am a poor member (or no member at all) if I don't buy into all the doctrine they teach.
Long answer to a short question. Sorry. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist, but they can't even prove evolution. And, it really makes much more sense to believe a book, part of which dates back 5000 years, and some of whose prophecies have come true, than to believe the masses of atheists, which have really only become "masses" the past one or two centuries.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that god exists outside of my mind. Every time I speak or type or think about the word I create god, so I can't claim he doesn't exist.
However, I know for certain that the christian god does not exist outside of my imagination. A god that knows that future, claims to love us and sends some of us to suffer for eternity cannot exist.
I've heardn this explained away as "God gives us freewill," but that's just it, with an omniscient being in charge, there is no freewill He controls us through our mere creation. He did not have to create us, thus preventing some of us from hypothetically suffering forever.
I've also heard other explanations like "god cannot see the future," or "god was lonely," or sometimes just "god's ways are mysterious," which is the worst cop out answer of all.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I know for certain that the christian god does not exist outside of my imagination. A god that knows that future, claims to love us and sends some of us to suffer for eternity cannot exist.
Saying "the Christian god" really doesn't work, as all religions have different beliefs regarding Him. See, I believe in "the Christian god", but I do not believe in Hell or any eternal damnation. The word in the Bible, Hades, was originally literally translated to "the common grave". Like you just said, a loving God wouldn't make you burn in hell forever. And it would make even less sense that he'd give his creation's soul to his enemy (Satan).
posted
I dis agree with your first post, Da_Goat, but I think your second one is spot on!
However, I see no condridiction between evolution and the Bible. I mean, clearly the Bible provides a very simplified explenation of Creation (not wrong, but very very simple). After all, it says God created the universe in one day, and yet, a day is measured by the roatation of the Earth, which was created yet so how can a day exit, or time exist before the universe was created? I think that when the Bible says that it took seven days, it does mean a literal seven days, but rather 7 distinct periods of creation.
quote: Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist, but they can't even prove evolution. And, it really makes much more sense to believe a book, part of which dates back 5000 years, and some of whose prophecies have come true, than to believe the masses of atheists, which have really only become "masses" the past one or two centuries.
Can I take that to mean you are a "Flat Earther" as well?
The bible was written by humans and they were largely guessing, trying to fill in the blanks that they could not explain. There were many more things that were mysterious to them, so they invented this higher being to help explain these mysteries. A lot of the stories in the bible were moral lessons for the believers, i.e. a coda on how to behave.
What do you mean that science can't prove evolution? I thought there is enough physical evidence that does prove evolution, and while science has not filled in all the blanks (missing links, etc.) we have plenty of evidence in the DNA to show that life on earth evolved and is linked to each other.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bible was written by humans and they were largely guessing, trying to fill in the blanks that they could not explain. There were many more things that were mysterious to them, so they invented this higher being to help explain these mysteries. A lot of the stories in the bible were moral lessons for the believers, i.e. a coda on how to behave.
Unohoo, if Thiests try to use phrases like "I believe" and "I think such and such is true" can you try too?
quote:What do you mean that science can't prove evolution? I thought there is enough physical evidence that does prove evolution, and while science has not filled in all the blanks (missing links, etc.) we have plenty of evidence in the DNA to show that life on earth evolved and is linked to each other.
There's some pretty big missing links (and I don't mean from apes to humans) in evolution in terms of the fossil record. However, missing fossils isn't the same as being dis-proved. Personally I think that evolution can not explain somethings, but it's basically true.
quote:Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist
Da_Goat: I agree. I believe with my whole heart and soul that the wind and the waves are caused by 750 foot tall invisible orange Leprechauns, because science has been totally unable to prove that they don't exist.
Trust me, though: you don't want to know how those Leprechauns cause the wind and the waves.
So, then, am I free to put in any unproveable term I like in the proof? There are ancient Irish texts describing the Leprechauns...for all I know, they may predate the Hebrew texts (I assume those are the 5000+ year old documents to which you referred).
It's one thing to keep an open mind. It's another thing to have one's mind so open that all your brains fall out.
And prophecies? Puh-lease. Of all the Bible, how many "prophecies" have come true. For the sake of fairness, you may only reference the prophesies which are proven as accurately and precisely as science has proven evolution. None of this "Eagle with two heads" nonsense. If you're going to accept that over-interpreted squiffle, then I don't see why you have any problem at all with the allegedly unproven theory of evolution. Let's have some real prophesy: Names and Dates; Real Events; Actual Places; Nouns and Verbs!
Ready, steady....GO!
Hobbes,
quote:Unohoo, if Thiests try to use phrases like "I believe" and "I think such and such is true" can you try too?
Yeah, that's nice, but when a Theist says "I believe," they usually mean "I believe in an unproveable entity, or the alleged actions of said unproveable entity." When an atheist (or, if you like, a rationalist) says "I believe," they mean "I believe in something that has a reasonable amount of support and proof, and is therefore a pretty reliable statement of fact."
There's quite a big difference. At least, that's what I believe.
posted
Dog, I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to pretend they don't think that their believes are true, just don't state them as facts. It's been mentioned before, but if you were in a Church, saying "God is my Father" is acceptable since all present accept your believe as truth too. If you were with a group of Athiests saying "God does not exist" would also be acceptable. When your with mixed company, can't you state your beliefs as if you thought they were the truth but realizied that not everyone else did?
quote:Yeah, that's nice, but when a Theist says "I believe," they usually mean "I believe in an unproveable entity, or the alleged actions of said unproveable entity." When an atheist (or, if you like, a rationalist) says "I believe," they mean "I believe in something that has a reasonable amount of support and proof, and is therefore a pretty reliable statement of fact."
Some of us feel that we've encountered enough evidence to make God a reliable entity in our lives. Before you start saying that no rationalists are Thiests, remeber that just about all great minds have been, including those in the 20th century (Einstein for instance).
posted
For the record I'm not comparing myself to Einstein in any way, just pointing out that there's plenty of highly intelligent people who believe in God.
posted
[strong irony]Pascal, for another[/strong irony]
At the risk of repeating myself:
All I've ever heard or read here is emotional and anecdotal "evidence of God."
In addition, after repeated requests for some sort of definition of what GOD is, no one here seems to really know. Or, at a minimum, be willing to say. Apparently, GOD is whatever you want It to be.
It's sounding less and less like a real thing, and more like an imaginary playmate.
posted
That's true Dog, a lot of the evidence Thiests have for God is emotional and anecdotal. Which is why most of us don't think that our evidence is prove for others, but that doesn't mean it can't be prove for us. I'd like to give you a non-thiest example of this.
Let's say your in love with someone. You know your in love because of how you've acted around them and how you feel when your with them. This person your in love with becomes very important in your life. You make various sacrifices for them and in return, they do things for you (not in a barter situation but just generally you help each other out). If someone else asks if your in love with them you know for sure that you are, but how can you convince them? All you have is emotional and anecdotal evidence.
quote:All I've ever heard or read here is emotional and anecdotal "evidence of God."
Which is why the only God I believe in is the one that I personally have come to know.
Then it's a matter of trust to believe that others have had the same anecdotal experiences that I have -- and there are those that believe in the same God that I do whom I feel that I can trust, others that I don't, and others that I'm not sure. But I'm never 100% sure -- except for when it comes to my own 'anecdotal' interactions with God.
EDIT: Hobbes you continue to impress with your perceptive comments. Very nice.
Some of these are unprovable (born of a virgin) but many are specific (sold for 30 pieces of silver). Obviously just being sold for 30 pieces of silver doesn't prove Jesus was the messiah, but that's one of over 300 similar prophecies that were made of which Jesus fulfilled EVERY ONE. Please see the link, and even look up the verses before you try to shoot this down. Keep in mind, no one debates whether or not Jesus existed, just whether he was God, or just a guru of sorts. Maybe "hearsay" isn't enough to prove the existence of God (aka Jesus) to you, but remember, hearsay is how we know Napolean was at Waterloo. (Except that there are fewer written accounts of Napolean being at Waterloo than there are of Jesus' resurrection.)
posted
Paula, it's worth noting that it's easy to fulfill prophecies if you're writing the stories after the fact. Even DESPITE this, the authors of the Bible had to really play with Jesus' lineage to make a few of 'em work.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On this point I agree with Tom, fullfilment of Prophecies within the same text as made the prophecies isn't real proof. Then again, it's not disproof either...
posted
Has anyone read "THe DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown? This is a murder mystery, *but* it is imbedded with a very different theory about Christ and Mary Magdelin (sp?). Apparently, there are christians who think that Jesus and Mary were married, and that she was a good girl, not a prostitute at all. Also, there seems to be enough evidence of this that one cannot dismiss it out of hand just because the Catholic view of this is the most popular. In other words, people who are adherents to the alternate theory feel that the Catholic POV is a lot of propoganda.
It's an interesting book in addition to being a good murder mystery (one other genre I seek out to read ).
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
. In case you don't know, he was an aetheist who believed he logically came to the conlusion that there must be a god.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
And, it really makes much more sense to believe a book, part of which dates back 5000 years, and some of whose prophecies have come true, than to believe the masses of atheists, which have really only become "masses" the past one or two centuries.
