On the Existence of "God"

ok, my mistake, but one did die.

CC: you seem to think that what i had said was fact, it was an opinion of mine, which you and i both pointed out.
1)its not so much an abscence of god, as simply no-god. an abscense (sp) would imply that one does or did exist, but isnt present, or is missing or something, whereas i believe there is no god, there never was a god, there never will be a god.
2)people may disagree with what i have to say, but i will say it anyway, because i truly believe it. it is not an inherently bad thing itself, and it does cause alot of good. but in my opinion, it causes enough evil, and is so unnecessary, that it is not worth it to have it
4) well, ideally, i would not have to argue politics, because there would be none to argue. however, as long as i live in America, or any society where politics exists, i will discuss it. also, politics is different from religion. arguing and discussing politics is something that almost has to be done, by the very nature of it. religion however, no matter your stance on it, does not have to be publicly discussed, some people just choose to.

Which one died? And would you mind to cut the story short and post it?

@F_alk:

Which one died? And would you mind to cut the story short and post it?

Baldur-I believe his claim to fame was the most beautiful god.
Anyway, there was some prophecy that he would be killed, and so his mother went through the world getting everything to promise that it wouldn’t kill him. Loki (the trickster god) appeared to Baldur’s mother in a different form and asked her whether anything hadn’t promised to kill him, and she said that she never asked the mistletoe plant, as it was so small and harmless. Loki promptly went off and made a mistletoe dart. Meanwhile, all the gods were throwing various objects at Baldur and seeing him not get hurt by any of them. Loki went up to Baldur’s blind brother Hodur? and asked him why he wasn’t joining in. Hodur replied that he was blind, and Loki said that he had a dart that Hodur could use and he would guide his arm. Hodur threw the dart, and it killed Baldur.

That’s the story, as best as I can remember it.

Hmmm…
Baldur’s death is the start of Ragnarok, that’s why there was the effort of getting everythings promise not to hurt him.
So, it’s more the faith that is already known, but hasn’t happened yet … As if it had happened, then Thor would have been dead already as well…

Not sure if it was the start of Ragnarok, I think theres a second part to that story where they try to get everything to cry for him (Baldur) so Hel will release him. I think they find out about Loki too, and mess him up a bit.

I named my kitten Loki 8) .

just a small point, loki wasnt actually a god. im somewhat hazy on the details, but he was kinda like a demi-god, or son of a god, or something. im thinking somehow connected to the frost giants, but that has no basis. anyway, ill double check on exactly what.

cystic crypt wrote:
ok, i’m confused . . .
the “fallacy of the church”? It appears that you are the one who does not know his history. I obviously do agree with the second part of this paragraph.
And which book was written by which Roman emperor??

He is referring to Constantine issuing the bible at the Nicean Council…

Prior to Constantine’s 400something AD council, where he and his political advisors laid out the Christian bible, Christianity was much different. Jesus’s followers believed Jesus was not the Son of God, but the mortal messager from God. Jesus had a well known wife and family line, his wife being Mary Magdalene. The holy day of Christianity was Saturday. The list goes on (Read the Da Vinci Code thread for more info if you don’t mind the book being ruined).

Constantine needed to create a Religion to rule the three major religions of his day. Early Christianity (in reality, Judaism), Roman Paganism (Jupiter, Apollo ect), and Sun-Worship. Traits from all three were incorporated into the Bible. Jesus had to be the son of god, a deity himself, for the religion to work for Constantine. This way, Christians could only find salvation through the only link to god, the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy day was changed, to Sunday, in honor of the Sun god (who Constantine himself worshipped). Many Roman Pagan holidays simply had their names changed into Christian holidays. For example, December 25 was the birthday of both Apollo, Venus, and some obscure Egyptian god before that whose name I cannot recall.

The Bible was created. Constantine ordered all prior Christian documents destroyed. Few survived. The Dead Sea scrolls predate the Bible, and give us a picture of what Jesus and his contemporaries really taught. The church is struggling to keep these scrolls from being released to the public.

In fact, its a general misconception that Constantine was a Christian. He never practiced, and was only baptised on his death bed, too weak to refuse. The whole modern Christian religion was created by him and his advisors, to better rule the masses of Rome. Why do you think it was so successful? It was created to be so.

regardless of that the old testament speaks of Jesus being the son of God…

the coming messiah savior of the world, prince of peace, righteous kingdom so on so forth… and Isaiah was in the Dead Sea Scrolls

@Janus1:

just a small point, loki wasnt actually a god. im somewhat hazy on the details, but he was kinda like a demi-god, or son of a god, or something. im thinking somehow connected to the frost giants, but that has no basis. anyway, ill double check on exactly what.

From what i recall he is Thor’s brother, and father of the Fenris Wolf and/or the Midgard Serpent. He was the “patron” of a lot of Giants AFAIR.

GG, your second post does not back up the claim that the messiah/prince of peace etc. has to be the son of god…

its pretty obvious theres a God because if there wasnt why does everyone go to church???

because people are stupid. but thats just me venting. look, all god is, is a legend/myth. just like the greek myths. i mean, what makes this god better than those gods? i actually think those myths were even more believeable. when man cannot explain something, he turns to science or religion. in the past, there was no science (im talking way long ago), or whatever science did exist was primitive at best, and people believed in dragons, and magic, and all that other good stuff. why? because it explained things to them. now, we are “more advanced” and know that to be untrue (we know nothing). but apparently, “god” isnt counted among those numbers, because “god” actually exists (absolutely not). It may have been Nieztsche, but I actually dont remember who “if god did not exist, man would have created him”. he almost hit the nail on the head. god does not exist, he is a mythical creation of man used to explain things that previously had no explanation. the only difference between god and magic and the like is that god was apparently a more popular myth, and caught on better. (and even if you believe in god, please dont tell me you support any of the christian churches, they are so wrong it hurts)

Both extremes tend to scare me.

I consider myself a weak athiest (lack of belief in a god)

as opposed to a strong athiest (belief that there is no god)

Imho, the second position requires just as much faith as a thiest does.

I’m not sure what the point of my post was, but I’ll end saying there are worse things to donate to than a christian church!

@Janus1:

because people are stupid. but thats just me venting. look, all god is, is a legend/myth. just like the greek myths. i mean, what makes this god better than those gods? i actually think those myths were even more believeable. when man cannot explain something, he turns to science or religion. in the past, there was no science (im talking way long ago), or whatever science did exist was primitive at best, and people believed in dragons, and magic, and all that other good stuff. why? because it explained things to them. now, we are “more advanced” and know that to be untrue (we know nothing). but apparently, “god” isnt counted among those numbers, because “god” actually exists (absolutely not). It may have been Nieztsche, but I actually dont remember who “if god did not exist, man would have created him”. he almost hit the nail on the head. god does not exist, he is a mythical creation of man used to explain things that previously had no explanation. the only difference between god and magic and the like is that god was apparently a more popular myth, and caught on better. (and even if you believe in god, please dont tell me you support any of the christian churches, they are so wrong it hurts)

Janus I have to Disagree with you here man. first of all I dont understand how you could ever think that the Greek Gods were more Believable then our one God now. First of all there wasnt a one true church to hold up the Religion. Their Beliefs varied from town to town. Now We have the Church that has stood for 2000 years. It has had its faults in the past, Everyones human. But it is still the only true holy church. Because it is the One, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. Its Origin was divine. Jesus himself made the church with his words to Peter the first pope. Even if you dont believe that Jesus is the Messiah, which is nonsense, you must still believe he was holy. He did many miracles on earth which have been notated in the bible and foretold from the Prophets of old. As for the Jews, who were the chosen people(ekklesia), I dont understand how they could not see him as the messiah, and what is even more shocking is that they call him a prophet! How could he be a prophet if he said hes the messiah. Most prophets in the past were not liars. So the Jews of Jesus’ time knew he was holy but they would not except him for he spoke out against the crooked scribes in charge of the Jews at that time.

O and about you Nieztsche quote, heres a few others:

1.“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

• Hey mr. Nietzche, Sorry but Im afraid I cant agree with you on this one. Your trying to portray a culture where all are brought up so that they must all agree on al topics. Huh, sounds like communism.

-ECT

2.“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

• Sorry Mr. Nieztche but Im afraid Ill have to disagree with you. Maybe if you were a God, your view would be a little different. If you went to the trouble of making a people and giving them the chance to live in eternal happiness, maybe you’d want a little respect and praise. And second of all the people in this world barely give you an hour of their time every week. Most so called Christians only go to mass once a week and they dont even give you a thought the rest of the week.

-ECT

@Ect.:

Janus I have to Disagree with you here man. first of all I dont understand how you could ever think that the Greek Gods were more Believable then our one God now. First of all there wasnt a one true church to hold up the Religion. Their Beliefs varied from town to town. Now We have the Church that has stood for 2000 years. It has had its faults in the past, Everyones human. But it is still the only true holy church. Because it is the One, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. Its Origin was divine. Jesus himself made the church with his words to Peter the first pope.

What about the orthodox church? Does it not use “older”, more pure rites and sets of believes than the catholics?
I remember something about that. Just look up your history book about the year 1054.

Even if you dont believe that Jesus is the Messiah, which is nonsense, you must still believe he was holy.

I need not believe anything. “Must believe” is more nonsense than not believing. With the comment on N-i-e-t-z-s-c-h-e (which totally misunderstood to the point of probably not reading it carefully), the “must believe” is more sounding like “agreeing on all topics” and “communism”.

… How could he be a prophet if he said hes the messiah.

because it was a time of a lot of false prophets and false messiahs. And i am not sure that JC said himself he’s the messiah, or wether that was the title given to him by his followers.

Most prophets in the past were not liars. So the Jews of Jesus’ time knew he was holy but they would not except him for he spoke out against the crooked scribes in charge of the Jews at that time.

So, he was a revolutionary, a left-wing radical. I can agree with that. But i don’t see how that makes someone a messiah.
Oh, and Mohammed of course is a liar and false prophet, right?

1.“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

• Hey mr. Nietzche, Sorry but Im afraid I cant agree with you on this one. Your trying to portray a culture where all are brought up so that they must all agree on al topics. Huh, sounds like communism.

Read the quote again. He describes a way to corrupt a youth! That’s done by holding people with the same beliefs in higher esteem. Not-corrupting is not-judging people wether they agree with you or not.

2.“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

• Sorry Mr. Nieztche but Im afraid Ill have to disagree with you. Maybe if you were a God, your view would be a little different. If you went to the trouble of making a people and giving them the chance to live in eternal happiness, maybe you’d want a little respect and praise. And second of all the people in this world barely give you an hour of their time every week. Most so called Christians only go to mass once a week and they dont even give you a thought the rest of the week.

You mix up the reality (people spending an hour a week), and it is only your reality, as european christians usually spend much less time, with the divine demands on its believers (which is what Nietzsche talked about). On that topic you say “you’d want a little respect and praise”, which is not disagreeing with Nietzsche (“who wants to be praised all the time”).

Ect. I exaggerate quite a bit, so dont always take everything i say to heart, either try and decipher my meaning (which i dont think is that hard) or just ignore me.

about the greek gods, i dont believe in those either, my point was that god is just another myth, like they were, and i personally like the greek myths better. my point about the christian church was intended to say that christianity has truly gotten bogged down in humanity (that is, it seems to be the most corrupted by human hands). I will dismiss the rest of your post about jesus, because you are arguing from the assumption that jesus was divine, which is not possible ( :wink: )

i dont know if my quote was from nietzsche or not, like i said, i do not remember. but frankly, it doesnt matter. it also doesnt matter anything else he said, because he is just a man. philosophers are funny like that. no one is right (except me :wink: ) because its all opinion. anything one guy says, is sure to be backed up by a bunch of others, and refuted by a bunch of others also. its really just a lofty form of thinking and arguing. so dont try to prove me wrong by refuting nietzsche, i dont even agree with most of what he said, i was simply using a quote that may have been from him.

Both extremes tend to scare me.

yes, extremes in anything are generally a bad thing.

I consider myself a weak athiest (lack of belief in a god)

as opposed to a strong athiest (belief that there is no god)

Imho, the second position requires just as much faith as a thiest does.

thats an interesting pov, ive never thought of that before. but imho, being an atheist does not require a belief. if we try to argue this, we get bogged down in semantics, but basically, if i tell you there are no invisible elephants in this room, i dont really have to believe that, i think most people would agree with me, but if i say there are invisible elephants in here, id have to believe that. does that make any sense at all?

I’m not sure what the point of my post was, but I’ll end saying there are worse things to donate to than a christian church!

agreed. i wont say that the church is evil or bad, it has intentions to do good. but i disagree with what it stands for, and do not support it. if you choose to do, thats fine, just be aware that when the revolution comes, you will be killed. :wink: :P

finally, ignore my arrogance. im not stubbornly opposed to the idea of god, if something ever changes my beliefs, i will admit it, but they cant, because im right. :D

but basically, if i tell you there are no invisible elephants in this room, i dont really have to believe that, i think most people would agree with me, but if i say there are invisible elephants in here, id have to believe that. does that make any sense at all?

No. First, define “here”, second, you don’t necessarily have to “believe” what you say.

if you choose to do, thats fine, just be aware that when the revolution comes, you will be killed.

No I won’t. :P

finally, ignore my arrogance. im not stubbornly opposed to the idea of god, if something ever changes my beliefs, i will admit it, but they cant, because im right.

Or just unwilling to admit it. :P

When you assert something, be it ‘There are no invisible elephants in this room’ or ‘There is no God’, you are making a positive claim.

In other words, you claim to have knowledge, or somehow know that God, or invisible elephants do not exist.

Therefore, the initial burden of proof lies with you. You must show evidence to support your claim, and anyone who has taken logic 101 knows it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. (i.e. something does not exist)

I can’t think of any evidence you could provide that would conclusively prove there are no invisible elephants anywhere. So why try? Just say
‘There is no evidence supporting invisible elephants, so I have no reason to believe they exist.’

Viola! Burden of proof is on the other guy.

~Cheers