Have you ever wonder about the existent of GOD?

did you know that you still haven't answered my question? jude, here's my question AGAIN, in reply to your view on other religions: So give me a better principle for governance than the golden rule and I will embrace other faiths as well. You show me a better principle and I will stop thinking of my faith/religion as being a superior one. You can believe whatever you want, it's your free choice since belief is a choice. But I would really like to see a superior principle to the golden rule, something even Ingersoll (a famous atheist) would adhere to. See, I am listening to what an atheist said. Actually here's what Ingersoll said: Ingersoll a well-known atheistic writer referring to Jesus: "With Renan, I believe Christ was the one perfect man. <Do unto others what you would that they should do unto you> is the perfection of religion and morality. It is the summum bonum. It was loftier than the teachings of Socrates, Plato, Mohammed, Moses or Confucius. It superseded the commandments that Moses claimed to have gotten from God, for with Christ's <do unto others> there could be no murder, lying, covetousness, or war"
Really looking forward to the superior principle. Here's your chance to prove me wrong and put me back in my box.

Still waiting for your reply.

 

Good point, I recently made a blog post about Hitlers religion and the fact that he was not an atheist. The claim he was atheist is just another lie from the church in an attempt to distance themselves from something they see as bad PR.

proteindude your inherent christian hypocrisy is shining through again. How can you demand that judetheobscure answer your questions when i have asked you numerous questions, numerous times, and have yet to read a reply? What did jesus say about the hypocrite again?

 

So what was the question again? Or questions?

 

God gave us all something called a free will. He's idea of creating humans was for Him to share his love with us and for us to love Him back freely. He did not want us to be like slaves by programming our minds. When Adam and Eve sinned He DID NOT stop them from eating the forbidden fruit because of the free will he gave us.

You say " All the questionable history of Christianity aside, the arguments back/forth about the Bible's origins aside, the lack of real proof of God in our world aside: I simply can't rationalize a just God who would condemn me to Hell for all eternity if I was a truly good person who can't rationalize and accept belief in God using my brain which God gifted me"

You are absolutely correct! We are the ones taking ourselves to hell!!. From the book of Genesis, God said if we ate the forbidden fruit we would die. Adam/Eve took that command lightly and it came to pass.

Though out the history of the Bible you see God reaching out to people to reconcile with him through the prophets. He utimately sent HIS own Son to die on the cross for us as a penalty for our sins in order to reconcile us back to Him. When Jesus died on the cross it became an open door to all humanity that whoever would accept Jesus as their Lord and Savoir will be saved from eternal damnation in hell.

I dont know about you, but it surely looks like God doesnt want us to go to hell. Its only us who are trying to reason with God about our sinful condition

 

Mao and Stalin are what he will retort with - even through they killed for political/psychopathic and not religious reasons. "Had they been religious they wouldn't have done it!" is what will be screamed, and then you can point out that well - had they been religious they probbably would have killed anyone not aligned with their faith because... they were psychopathic.

 

Please update a poll so we can have an overview

 

You forgot Jackuulism. "Leave people alone and eat thine fruit of the world Cheese"

 

Do I ever question whether god exists?
NO
There is no question in my mind that it does not exist.

Confucianism's "Filial Piety": Respect. Older brother respercts younger brother, younger brother respects older brother. People respect ruler, ruler respects people.

And why do you do good things? Because you are a product of your environment. Your average person is kind, and doesn't want to hurt you. They in turn are products of their environment. Also, those pre-school shows, "if you do good things, it will make you happy", probably have a large impact.

And Jesus wasn't wise. I believe in the scientific method: There's no evidence that he didn't walk on water etc., but there is no evidence that he did, except that if you try to walk on water with whatever he likely would have worn, I guarantee that you will fail EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And there's nothing wrong with the treat others as you want to be treated. Actually, it's the main rule in pre schools across america.

You act as if you know Jesus personally. Tell me that you personally saw him, talked to him etc., I will be very surprised. I would bet all of the money in the world that you don't even have a clear picture of his appearance in his head. You can argue that Black is White until you're blue in the face, but they'll still stay seperate.

 

Many people believe that if they dont see God it doesnt exist. But can a man see the air he inhales every second, or see electricity he uses?
He can prove they exist on the other hand. But what about miracles done by the invisible hand of God? (like recovery from incurable disease bacause of the religious faith of a man)

 

Firstly air and electricity can be measured and studied. They exist, They are actually measurable things. (of course I'm not going to point out that electricity is very much visible in the form of a spark or lightning, That would just embarrass you.)

As for miracles, They don't happen, if you think otherwise you are going to have to prove it. Your problem is that you like to make unsubstantiated claims when all studies done on the subject showed prayer and faith to have zero effect on a persons recovery. In fact, In the biggest study done of it's kind the patients who were being prayed for recovered worst and experienced most post operative complications. So stop lying and stop making stuff up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

let me guess... God doesn't like to be tested? I know there will be some catch that will allow you comfortably carry on lying, carry on making things up and carry on making false claims when evidence says the exact opposite.

 

Sorry dude, I don't mean to put you down in anyway, especially since this is your very first post here. But the argument you presented is extremely weak when compared with the teachings of Christ. The golden rule is such a tough one that even dudes such as judetheobscure and stox who always have something to say have gone extremely quiet on this point. I must say, it's very unlike them to be silent but this golden rule is something even atheists are silenced by.

Now, to be fair I do have my issues with my faith and has nothing to do with whether Jesus walked on water which He most certainly did. My issue is why I don't always get my prayers answered. A good argument would be that my prayer is always answered however, the answer to the prayer is no. WHich can also be clasified as an answer.

But to compare Christ's golden rule with the teachings of Confucius, that is so weak of a comparison.

 

Not going to address the study that proved prayer had a negative effect on recovering patients then protiendude?

What's the question?

 

Ok, here's my question originally addressed to Mr Atheist of the Month judetheobscure: did you know that you still haven't answered my question? jude, here's my question AGAIN, in reply to your view on other religions: So give me a better principle for governance than the golden rule and I will embrace other faiths as well. You show me a better principle and I will stop thinking of my faith/religion as being a superior one. You can believe whatever you want, it's your free choice since belief is a choice. But I would really like to see a superior principle to the golden rule, something even Ingersoll (a famous atheist) would adhere to. See, I am listening to what an atheist said. Actually here's what Ingersoll said: Ingersoll a well-known atheistic writer referring to Jesus: "With Renan, I believe Christ was the one perfect man. <Do unto others what you would that they should do unto you> is the perfection of religion and morality. It is the summum bonum. It was loftier than the teachings of Socrates, Plato, Mohammed, Moses or Confucius. It superseded the commandments that Moses claimed to have gotten from God, for with Christ's <do unto others> there could be no murder, lying, covetousness, or war"
Really looking forward to the superior principle. Here's your chance to prove me wrong and put me back in my box.

Still waiting for your reply.

Now stox, regarding the power of prayer I just mentioned above I have my own Christian issues with it myself. I pray and the prayer is unanswered. Technically you could say (well you wouldn't but a Christian would) that the answer to the prayer was no, so hence I still had my prayer answered.

To be totally honest, the NYTimes is not something I read a lot. But I do know of an ex friend (an agnostic) who wanted to get pregnant and asked us all to pray for her because she read an article that said scientists said the total opposite of that NYTimes article.

 

Relax. How can i reply while you are still writing your post?
Ready to be put back in your box? Here we go.

Not only is "Do unto others what you would that they should do unto you" not the "perfect rule", It's an entirely flawed rule.

See, What that rule incorrectly and arrogantly assumes is that because i would like people to do unto me certain things that they would also like it done unto them. it's a self centered rule that allows me to do whatever i like to other people simply because i would like it done to me.

Let's assume i have a foot fetish, I would like people to put their feet in my face. That rule allows me to put my feet in peoples faces just because i would like it done unto me. What if i like being burned with cigarettes? That rule allows me to burn people with cigarettes just because i would like it done unto me.

here is a much better rule; "Don't do things to people if they don't like it." - So don't base you behaviour towards people on what you would or wouldn't like, Base it on what they would or wouldn't like.

You got totally served there.

But the test involved nearly 2000 people and the consensus at the end is that prayer not only had no effect, But that the people who were prayed for developed more post operative complications than the people who received no prayer.

So if god doesn't answer your prayer in the way you would like (which he didn't for 2000 people) he makes the condition worse? What an asshole. That's like stealing a tramps cup of pennies because he asked you for change.

 

The fact I was waiting for a reply was something I was addressing to jude. It was the third time I asked the question and he avoided it. So I was only copying and pasting.

Dude, you so just lost my respect for you dude. That is so weak of a reply, it makes me question your logic towards everything religious. You have to love yourself first of all. If you don't love yourself how can you love others? As I am typing this I keep shaking my head, man stOx is deluding himself. Even when faced with logic he starts twisting it because, eh, it's coming from a religious nut (I am a nut but I am screwed on the right bolt).

If I (proteindude) have a foot fetish it doesn't mean I assume everyone else has a foot fettish. Sorry dude, but your logic this time is so dumb in my view it simply amazes me. I just can't get over your twisted logic. It just proves to me that even when faced with facts you can't take it because religion is involved. Maybe Ingersoll wasn't an atheist after all.

Regarding the study, again, I don't believe everything NYTimes has to say. It's not what I rely on. And YES, I told you, there are times when I pray and I don't get an answer. Or technically the answer I get is NO. See, I admit my prayer isn't always answered. But back to that study, you are only willing to accept it because it validates YOUR point. If it didn't let's be honest for once and admit you would question it. I mean if the study proved otherwise.

 

Apologies. I thought you were talking to me because you quoted me.

Exactly, Which is why your "golden rule" is flawed because it does assume that anything you would allow people to do to you, You should be able to do to them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's very clear about this. it says do to other people what you would like them do to you. That is exactly why it's flawed, Because you shouldn't do to other people what you would like done to you, You should do what they would like.

You are just angry because i totally owned you on something that you thought was bullet proof. Anyone who reads this will be able to see exactly why your "golden rule" is flawed. I can just imagine you sitting there with a smug look on your face thinking "i got one over on the atheists", I only wish i could have seen your reaction when you read my post and see that i have torn it to shreds.

"don't do things to people if they don't like it" corrects the glaring error your lord made with his wording of that "golden rule".

The NY times didn't invent the study, They weren't even responsible for the study. The study was done by the Mind/Body Medical Institute. The NY times only reported on thier findings that they announced at a press confrence. Apparently scientific investigation and solid facts aren't your friend.

I accept it because it's a scientific study carried out by doctors and the results were publicly published and subject to peer review. If the study had found evidence that prayer was beneficial i would accept that as fact, Though i wouldn't accept that god was responsible because there would be no evidence for that. I suspect it would be some kind of placebo effect.

now you be honest. You only disbelieve the scientific study which has evidence to back it up because it contradicts your invisible-friend-grants-wishes theory.

 

What you showed me is the fact you will fight ANY point raised by a religious person. Of course the golden rule IS "bullet proof " to use your expression. It is so bullet proof that even an atheist, Ingersoll said the following: Ingersoll a well-known atheistic writer referring to Jesus: "With Renan, I believe Christ was the one perfect man. <Do unto others what you would that they should do unto you> is the perfection of religion and morality. It is the summum bonum. It was loftier than the teachings of Socrates, Plato, Mohammed, Moses or Confucius. It superseded the commandments that Moses claimed to have gotten from God, for with Christ's <do unto others> there could be no murder, lying, covetousness, or war"

And honestly, you know I am one of those who believe liars go to hell, so I will tell you the truth: I am not at all angry with your reply despite you thinking (or wishing) that. I am just more convinced that you do not reason when it comes to religion.

And this is also shown by the fact you didn't touch on my last point: If that article you mention was showing that prayer was in fact a positive factor you would question the article because it would not fit your agenda.

Let me tell you the positive, I believe judetheobscure is a better debater than you are. But then again, this is just MY opinion.

 

The "Rule" exists across every major religion. Which isn't surprising, since compassion is a fundamental thing, and I believe, our natural human instinct - witness a child reaching out. I have known of Confucius's "Golden Rule" since childhood, but a quick search yields the richness of this tenet across many, many faiths and creeds:

I think John Dunne said it very well in "For Whom the Bell Tolls":

(Side note: Just a brief visit - I wanted to thank Ly2 for creating such a kind thread, and the friends and members here who wished me well. You have no idea how gratifying it is that some of the things I wrote here have been appreciated; and equally how much I have appreciated being a part of this community. I am simply seeking to devote myself to writing, and otherwise quieting my mouth. In my martial tradition, a bow is a sign of respect; and I do so now to this forum and its people).

 

It doesn't matter what ingersoll said. He was wrong, As are you. The rule is flawed.

Explain to me how "do unto other as you would have them to unto you" doesn't mean that you should do to people what you would let them do to you.

And then explain how "don't do to people what they don't like" isn't better.

You know you messed up by laying so much on something that is so easily beaten. I have beaten you. Accept it and move on. Everyone else will be able to see it.

PS. I did address your point about the study, I must have been editing my post to include it while you were writing yours.

 

Man, I know we have our differences on some topics, especially one that I was very straight about. It's good to hear your point on this. So you agree then there is no better rule than the Golden Rule.

Ther reason the Gospel Of Thomas is not a canonical book is very simple: It states in that book that if you want to get saved you must read this book (The Gospel of Thomas) which of course from the start contradicts the rest of Scripture. This is a side issue I know.

Anyway, it's great to see some differences put aside and how does that saying go? That saying that stOx does not subscribe to: "I am not interested in who is right, I am interested in what is right."

ly2 is also a reasonable dude most of the time, but see, even he appreciates you.

stOx: you're making yourself clearer with every sentence: there is no way you will accept anything from a religious dude. And this must be understood before any attempt to reason with you. My fault for not noticing it earlier.

And yes, I read your reply about the study which again brings me to the point above: you would not accept it anyway.