---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:29 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Lepperking at 4:32 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:51 pm on July 18, 2008

---

No, God cannot prove that He is NOT all knowing  or NOT all powerful. Only stupid people think of stupid questions like these.

---

 
  Can he prove he exists?

---

He can, yes. But He has given you free will for a reason.

---

Why does he put his evidence so close to delusion?
A little trial for us, a bit of a challenge, is it? A sieving of souls, a self selection of worthy and unworthy?

---

---

Quote: from Lepperking at 4:32 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:51 pm on July 18, 2008

---

No, God cannot prove that He is NOT all knowing or NOT all powerful. Only stupid people think of stupid questions like these.

---

 
 Can he prove he exists?

---

He can, yes. But He has given you free will for a reason.

---

And oddly enough, i found a graph showing the number of god proving miracles versus time (and one could say, knowledge). Ignore the numbers, look at the shape. Oh bum, pretend that it has already hit zero on the positive x limit.

---

Why does he put his evidence so close to delusion?
A little trial for us, a bit of a challenge, is it? A sieving of souls, a self selection of worthy and unworthy?

---

Presuming that you were brought up in a country where the Christian faith is represented. Otherwise it's hell hell hell for you.

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 10:48 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:29 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Lepperking at 4:32 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:51 pm on July 18, 2008

---

No, God cannot prove that He is NOT all knowing or NOT all powerful. Only stupid people think of stupid questions like these.

---

 
  Can he prove he exists?

---

He can, yes. But He has given you free will for a reason.

---

 

 Why does he put his evidence so close to delusion?  
 A little trial for us, a bit of a challenge, is it? A sieving of souls, a self selection of worthy and unworthy?

---

Can you imagine what kind of world this would be if God was an absolute proven fact? Read up a little on 'Sharia Law" and see if you would like a world that was totally given over to something like that. Only worse, because the existence of God wouldn't just be a belief, it would be a fact.

---

Yes I can imagine. If it's the god in the old testament, I wouldn't be much fond of it a all.
I'm certainly not advocating for that. I'll never will.
You're showing an extreme with sharia law, the positive extreme. The extreme that says that god is a given, when in reality it is nill.
What would happen if people became more atheists, and became more aware that religions are all nonsense? Would you have the equivalent of a secular sharia law?
Or would you have something like, say....Sweeden?

---

Yes I can imagine. If it's the god in the old testament, I wouldn't be much fond of it a all.
I'm certainly not advocating for that. I'll never will.
You're showing an extreme with sharia law, the positive extreme. The extreme that says that god is a given, when in reality it is nill.

---

---

What would happen if people became more atheists, and became more aware that religions are all nonsense? Would you have the equivalent of a secular sharia law?
Or would you have something like, say....Sweden?

---

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 12:58 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Yes I can imagine. If it's the god in the old testament, I wouldn't be much fond of it a all.  
 I'm certainly not advocating for that. I'll never will.  
 You're showing an extreme with sharia law, the positive extreme. The extreme that says that god is a given, when in reality it is nill.

---

But isn't that what you would be advocating with your desire to "know", absolutely, that God exists?  
 

---

What would happen if people became more atheists, and became more aware that religions are all nonsense? Would you have the equivalent of a secular sharia law?  
 Or would you have something like, say....Sweden?

---

Or say, the Soviet Union under Stalin?

---

"Wouldn't that be what I was adovacating".....what are you saying here? It's not your problem, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say.

"Or say, under soviet russia"
Oh, sure because the dogmatic political idealism of a dictator that rose to power is the same as an entire country.

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:09 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 12:58 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Yes I can imagine. If it's the god in the old testament, I wouldn't be much fond of it a all.  
  I'm certainly not advocating for that. I'll never will.  
  You're showing an extreme with sharia law, the positive extreme. The extreme that says that god is a given, when in reality it is nill.

---

But isn't that what you would be advocating with your desire to "know", absolutely, that God exists?  
 

---

What would happen if people became more atheists, and became more aware that religions are all nonsense? Would you have the equivalent of a secular sharia law?  
  Or would you have something like, say....Sweden?

---

Or say, the Soviet Union under Stalin?

---

 
"Wouldn't that be what I was adovacating".....what are you saying here? It's not your problem, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say.

"Or say, under soviet russia"
Oh, sure because the dogmatic political idealism of a dictator that rose to power is the same as an entire country.

---

If all were atheists, what would you expect the leadership to be? Stalin was an atheist. So that was the de facto 'belief' of the country. Or how about mid-century (and before) China?

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Shall I stay? Would it be a sin...?

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 1:24 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:09 am on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 12:58 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Yes I can imagine. If it's the god in the old testament, I wouldn't be much fond of it a all.  
 I'm certainly not advocating for that. I'll never will.  
 You're showing an extreme with sharia law, the positive extreme. The extreme that says that god is a given, when in reality it is nill.

---

But isn't that what you would be advocating with your desire to "know", absolutely, that God exists?  
 

---

What would happen if people became more atheists, and became more aware that religions are all nonsense? Would you have the equivalent of a secular sharia law?  
 Or would you have something like, say....Sweden?

---

Or say, the Soviet Union under Stalin?

---

 
"Wouldn't that be what I was adovacating".....what are you saying here? It's not your problem, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say.

"Or say, under soviet russia"
Oh, sure because the dogmatic political idealism of a dictator that rose to power is the same as an entire country.

---

Aren't you wanting God to prove His existence so that we no longer need 'faith'? So that you wouldn't have to 'make that leap'? So that you could take it as fact just as you do scientific facts and theories?

If all were atheists, what would you expect the leadership to be? Stalin was an atheist. So that was the de facto 'belief' of the country. Or how about mid-century (and before) China?

---

What's wrong with having a fact instead of faith?
Isn't it better to know for sure that what you're doing, based on that data, is going to lead you to the best conclusion possible?
Why keep it all hazy? Doesn't that make a choice more difficult?
Wouldn't free will be better applied and practiced if we had ALL the facts? Why Choice based on scriptures and faith, instead of fact and sound evidence?
Why is the 'leap' important anyway?

Atheism is not a belief. How many times does this have to be said. Is a person who doesn't bother with unicorns and Zeus, actively believing something? No!
Atheism cannot be responsible for anything.
Lack of religiosity might, like, if he looked up to Jesus Christ he wouldn't commit that?
We all know that that is not really a potent argument, is it? Crusades and Inquisition?

An atheist country is no more in danger of suffering of a new Stalin, than a Christian country is.
Actually I would argue that a religious country is more prone to suffering genocides and irrational, needless conflict. Because religion is an actual existing set of beliefs that can influence a person's behaviour.It's more prone to needless conflict, especially if the religion rises to power and looks up to an unquestionable dogma.
Look at the countries in the middle east. It's saddening.

Post edited at 12:07 pm on July 18, 2008 by TooImaginativeTeen

---

What's wrong with having a fact instead of faith?
Isn't it better to know for sure that what you're doing, based on that data, is going to lead you to the best conclusion possible?
Why keep it all hazy? Doesn't that make a choice more difficult?
Wouldn't free will be better applied and practiced if we had ALL the facts? Why Choice based on scriptures and faith, instead of fact and sound evidence?
Why is the 'leap' important anyway?

---

Having a knowledge of God as fact (which is what you are advocating) would most likely limit or eliminate free will and the choice to believe or not. Whether that be by knowledge or by decree. All governments would also be religious because of this knowledge. All laws in all countries would be based on this knowledge. And this is what you are wishing for when you want the evidence of God's existence to be obvious.

Best case scenario for any who refuse to accept God's existence would be similar to how 'Creationists' are treated in today's world. Worst case would be how some people are treated in the Middle East for not being 100% Muslim.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Shall I stay? Would it be a sin...?

---

Atheism is not a belief. How many times does this have to be said. Is a person who doesn't bother with unicorns and Zeus, actively believing something? No!
Atheism cannot be responsible for anything.
Lack of religiosity might, like, if he looked up to Jesus Christ he wouldn't commit that?
We all know that that is not really a potent argument, is it? Crusades and Inquisition?

---

---

An atheist country is no more in danger of suffering of a new Stalin, than a Christian country is.
Actually I would argue that a religious country is more prone to suffering genocides and irrational, needless conflict. Because religion is an actual existing set of beliefs that can influence a person's behaviour.It's more prone to needless conflict, especially if the religion rises to power and looks up to an unquestionable dogma.
Look at the countries in the middle east. It's saddening.

---

However

My belief of the keyboard having keys on it is testable, and once tested and verified, is then "knowledge". Knowledge is a useful term because it deals with the real.

I don't think i could call atheism "knowledge", because however small the likelihood of there being a god is, the various churches have been very careful to make their respective religions untestable. :P Clinically speaking, atheists are agnostics who recognise the pointlessness of recognising the flying spaghetti monster for the sheer improbability.

About countries that are atheistic in nature....

---

Indeed, countries containing high percentages of non-believers are among the most healthy and wealthy nations on earth (Paul, 2004). Of course, we must always distinguish between those nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators ("coercive atheism") from those societies wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion ("organic atheism"). Nations marked by coercive atheism -- such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and former Soviet states -- are societies marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, intellectual censorship, widespread corruption, ubiquitous depression, etc.. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism - such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.

---

Interesting side note,
China has the most atheists due to its crazy population. The percentage isn't anywhere near as big as say, sweden. This is interesting as sweden doesn't try to shove atheism down peoples throats.

If you want me to dig up numbers and stuff, sure.

Edit: Reading over this, its not my best writing. It's 5:23 in the morning and i haven't slept. Any non-sensicle parts will be fixed after nap.

Post edited at 2:24 pm on July 18, 2008 by Ravenscroft

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 2:05 pm on July 18, 2008

---

What's wrong with having a fact instead of faith?  
 Isn't it better to know for sure that what you're doing, based on that data, is going to lead you to the best conclusion possible?  
 Why keep it all hazy? Doesn't that make a choice more difficult?  
 Wouldn't free will be better applied and practiced if we had ALL the facts? Why Choice based on scriptures and faith, instead of fact and sound evidence?  
 Why is the 'leap' important anyway?

---

You seem to be having a problem tying my responses together.  

Having a knowledge of God as fact (which is what you are advocating) would most likely limit or eliminate free will and the choice to believe or not. Whether that be by knowledge or by decree. All governments would also be religious because of this knowledge. All laws in all countries would be based on this knowledge. And this is what you are wishing for when you want the evidence of God's existence to be obvious.  

Best case scenario for any who refuse to accept God's existence would be similar to how 'Creationists' are treated in today's world. Worst case would be how some people are treated in the Middle East for not being 100% Muslim.

---

Are you in a way saying that if god was real our world would decline in its achievements and quality of life? I mean...it would basically stagnate progress. Think about it! We'd have to start worshipping this god and spending our time living in a cosmic North Korea. It's not a good view at all if what more than 40% of America believes in, was actually true. And yet they do, and can't realise how lucky hey are that it's not.
And the views you offer are by no means desirable, as you rightly acknowledge.
Is that the reason you're, in a way, pleased that there's no evidence?
Aren't you pleased that you are free to live in a society that doesn't show its reverence for god on a massive visible scale? Where the people who do care about that sort of thing are usually seen as trouble makers and deluded anti-progressivists, like stopping stem cell research and the spread of contraception and wanting to put both Evolution and Intelligent Design in Science classes? Not to mention that it allows ignorance and delusion to run amok in the streets, which opens even more floodgates for more quackery like New Age mysticism and "alternative" medicine.
Aren't you happy to see that, when people don't bother with god or a holy book, things just seem more peaceful and worked out?

With that point of view, I ask what benefit is there for a society, to have millennial religion in its midst?

"Most atheists struggle with the idea that it's a belief".
Lol, who is the atheist here?
Do you actually have the arrogance to step in and dictate how our minds are working, based on very weak assumptions? And to be honest, misunderstandings.
Atheism does not mean "believes there is no god".
Do not play with words.
Sure atheism can "incorporate" that definition, but by no means is it defined as a belief. Don't come in and shake your finger at us, saying it is.
It isn't.

I'm not being picky. I just think that wandering around with the definition of words is not helpful for this conversation, that's all.

There are beliefs but they by no means come from being atheist. They come from believing reason and rationality is sufficient to lead an intellectually fulfilling life. That then, could be said to produce atheism.
Tell me what society has had problems from being too reasonable.
A non-system of beliefs cannot be directly responsible for anything. It's like blaming an unbeliever in Zeus for saying that irrational thought is silly. It's not necessarily because he disbelieves in Zeus, but because of other things, like looking to reason and skepticism.
That's really what atheists are doing. The god thing, among many other things, just happens to be silly, that's all.

"Neither extreme is a good way to go."
I agree but I still think that the non extreme part where it contains religion, gets worse results in the long run, than the one that doesn't bother itself with religion.
Sweden, or Norway, for example, are primarily atheistic in terms of beliefs. Most people there don't bother going to church, or praying, or believing in a god. They just don't bother. They lead atheistic lifestyles.
I'm not saying there's a connection but they're among the best countries in the world.

---

"Most atheists struggle with the idea that it's a belief".  
Lol, who is the atheist here?  
Do you actually have the arrogance to step in and dictate how our minds are working, based on very weak assumptions? And to be honest, misunderstandings.  
Atheism does not mean "believes there is no god".  
Do not play with words.  
Sure atheism can "incorporate" that definition, but by no means is it defined as a belief. Don't come in and shake your finger at us, saying it is.  
It isn't.  

I'm not being picky. I just think that wandering around with the definition of words is not helpful for this conversation, that's all.  

There are beliefs but they by no means come from being atheist. They come from believing reason and rationality is sufficient to lead an intellectually fulfilling life. That then, could be said to produce atheism.  
Tell me what society has had problems from being too reasonable.  
A non-system of beliefs cannot be directly responsible for anything. It's like blaming an unbeliever in Zeus for saying that irrational thought is silly. It's not necessarily because he disbelieves in Zeus, but because of other things, like looking to reason and skepticism.  
That's really what atheists are doing. The god thing, among many other things, just happens to be silly, that's all.

---

Post edited at 3:38 pm on July 18, 2008 by Forever Angel

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Shall I stay? Would it be a sin...?

---

Quote: from TooImaginativeTeen at 4:33 pm on July 18, 2008

---

"Most atheists struggle with the idea that it's a belief".
Lol, who is the atheist here?
Do you actually have the arrogance to step in and dictate how our minds are working, based on very weak assumptions? And to be honest, misunderstandings.
Atheism does not mean "believes there is no god".
Do not play with words.
Sure atheism can "incorporate" that definition, but by no means is it defined as a belief. Don't come in and shake your finger at us, saying it is.
It isn't.

I'm not being picky. I just think that wandering around with the definition of words is not helpful for this conversation, that's all.

There are beliefs but they by no means come from being atheist. They come from believing reason and rationality is sufficient to lead an intellectually fulfilling life. That then, could be said to produce atheism.
Tell me what society has had problems from being too reasonable.
A non-system of beliefs cannot be directly responsible for anything. It's like blaming an unbeliever in Zeus for saying that irrational thought is silly. It's not necessarily because he disbelieves in Zeus, but because of other things, like looking to reason and skepticism.
That's really what atheists are doing. The god thing, among many other things, just happens to be silly, that's all.

---

I think I'm done. You would rather argue meaningless semantics than discuss the actual points I'm trying to make and I seem unable to put them into the words that you are able to understand. I'm sorry.

---