The Strongest Arguments in Support of the Belief in God and/or Religion?

[guy]

Not exactly a groundbreaking topic, but I was wondering what people here think.

[Man of Ash]

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

1. The music of Bach exists.
2. Therefore God exists.

What more is there to say? You either get it or you don't.

[guy]

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

1. The music of Bach exists.
2. Therefore God exists.

What more is there to say? You either get it or you don't.
Music also occurs in nature (from simple forms like the chirping of crickets to the more complicated vocalizations of songbirds).

A contrary argument may be of the following sort:

1. Humans like sugar.
2. Sugar is not a particularly healthy food, but it was a widely-available energy source during our evolution. Therefore, people who liked sugar were more likely to survive and reproduce.
3. Creationism cannot explain 1.
Therefore 1 supports the theory of evolution rather than creationism.

[Angler]

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

1. The music of Bach exists.
2. Therefore God exists.

What more is there to say? You either get it or you don't.The human sense of beauty can be explained as a product of evolution, much like our sense of fear, love, and other emotions. One possibility is that a sense of beauty causes us to love life more, increasing our desire to survive.

Besides, there are certainly many ugly things in the world. If God is responsible for the beauty of a sunset, isn't he equally responsible for the ugliness of tapeworms?

-------------

For me, the strongest arguments for the existence of some kind of God are those that appeal to (1) the need for a first cause of everything that exists, and (2) the apparent improbability of abiogenesis. These arguments do not add weight to any particular religion, but only to the idea that some kind of transcendent Creator exists. That Creator may be conscious or unconscious, personal or impersonal. It is also possible, however, that life formed spontaneously and that a purely natural, yet timeless and self-existent, force was responsible for creating the universe. We simply don't know, and we may never know.

I have yet to see any argument that can remove the logical difficulties inherent in major religions such as Christianity, especially the Problem of Evil, without first assuming the truth of a religion and going from there.

[Man of Ash]

Music also occurs in nature (from simple forms like the chirping of crickets to the more complicated vocalizations of songbirds).
Yes, a beautiful birdsong can certainly take the place of a Bach cantata in (1).
Therefore 1 supports the theory of evolution rather than creationism.
What has this to do with the topic of the OP? The fact that this thread is in the Religion vs. Science section betrays a similar confusion.

[Man of Ash]

The human sense of beauty can be explained as a product of evolution, much like our sense of fear, love, and other emotions. One possibility is that a sense of beauty causes us to love life more, increasing our desire to survive.
Like I said, you either get it or you don't.

[Ixtab]

Like I said, you either get it or you don't.
You either get that it's a fallacious argument or you don't.

[Man of Ash]

You either get that it's a fallacious argument or you don't.
Is this what happens after someone shows you up in an argument? You follow him around the forum nipping at his heels?

[guy]

For me, the strongest arguments for the existence of some kind of God are those that appeal to (1) the need for a first cause of everything that exists,
Which always leads to the "who created God" question. The answer to that, I believe, is typically "By definition God was not created," but that's just a definition of a hypothetical entity that is in dispute, so I don't see how that is a solution to the problem.

(2) the apparent improbability of abiogenesis.
Which leads to the answer that since we don't know how frequent life is, we cannot say that we beat the odds on this issue.

[Ixtab]

Is this what happens after someone shows you up in an argument? You follow him around the forum nipping at his heels?
Loaded question: I'm not "following you around". In fact, this is the first time I have responded to you in a thread that I didn't start. All other responses to you were made in my own threads. Also, I refuted you in the thread on global warming.

[guy]

Yes, a beautiful birdsong can certainly take the place of a Bach cantata in (1).

What has this to do with the topic of the OP? The fact that this thread is in the Religion vs. Science section betrays a similar confusion.
There's no confusion. I could have put this in philosophy, but it's related to both philosophy and science. After all, science has replaced religion more effectively than philosophy ever did.

[Man of Ash]

There's no confusion. I could have put this in philosophy, but it's related to both philosophy and science. After all, science has replaced religion more effectively than philosophy ever did.
I see the conclusion has been determined in advance. In which case, I bow out.

[guy]

I see the conclusion has been determined in advance. In which case, I bow out.
I meant that science has replaced religion in the minds of humans, not that it replaced it as in it is the truth.

[Angler]

Which always leads to the "who created God" question. The answer to that, I believe, is typically "By definition God was not created," but that's just a definition of a hypothetical entity that is in dispute, so I don't see how that is a solution to the problem.Well, we know that something must be self-existent. We just don't know what that "something" is. That's the problem. Religious believers assume by default that that "something" can only be a God like the one of their religion. They don't understand that there are uncountable possibilities for the "first cause," and that it could be a purely natural entity.

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of a self-existent natural entity, since the notion of such is foreign to our common experience. But modern physics has proven that all kinds of bizarre, counterintuitive things can happen outside the realm of human observation. At the subatomic level, particles randomly pop into and out of existence. At very high speeds, ordinary mechanics is invalid. All kinds of weird stuff goes on in nature, and mankind is probably still only scratching the surface. So it's very premature to conclude that the universe must have had supernatural origins.

Which leads to the answer that since we don't know how frequent life is, we cannot say that we beat the odds on this issue.That's true. Hence my position that, although this is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a God, it's not a proof.

[guy]

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

1. The music of Bach exists.
2. Therefore God exists.

What more is there to say? You either get it or you don't.
Another way to look at this is to see the effect that popular music from Elvis to Led Zeppelin to Michael Jackson has on people. Are these musicians piggybacking on the holy nature of music, or are all musicians, from Bach to MJ, piggybacking on human nature, just like a cupcake shop piggybacks on the fact that sugar was a widely available energy source in our evolution?

[guy]

Well, we know that something must be self-existent.
Is it not possible that something has always existed before any supposed self-existent entities? How can we even know anything about the nature of existence prior to the big bang? Does a term like "always" even have meaning before time as we know it was created?

Edit: I think we may be able to generate plausible theories about pre-big bang existence in the future, but I'm not sure we're at that stage quite yet.

[Angler]

Is it not possible that something has always existed before any supposed self-existent entities?If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that an entity can be self-existent without having existed from eternity. Then something else could have existed prior to that self-existent thing. No, I don't think I could rule out such a situation. But when I say "self-existent being/entity," I'm normally thinking of something that transcends time itself.

How can we even know anything about the nature of existence prior to the big bang?I don't believe we can. In fact, it may make no sense to speak of "a time prior to the Big Bang." The Big Bang may have marked the origin of time as we know it. However, there may be other "time dimensions" outside the one in which we exist.

[guy]

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that an entity can be self-existent without having existed from eternity. Then something else could have existed prior to that self-existent thing. No, I don't think I could rule out such a situation. But when I say "self-existent being/entity," I'm normally thinking of something that transcends time itself.

I was responding to the suggestion that something must be self-existent. Why is it more reasonable to think that something popped out of nothing rather than that there was always something? Again, this brings us back to the question of time and the meaning of "always."

[Hunchblack]

There's no strong arguments in support of "God". Just because this existence appears to be beyond our comprehension does not mean that we should entertain the faggotry that comes from a religious mind, when it should be obvious that human beings know nothing of "God".

It could very well be that there is a "God", but the evidence shows that the people who claim to know and speak on behalf of "God", clearly suffer from mental illness.

[Keen]

If we understand the concept of perfection, but never witness perfection with our own senses, then how do we know what it is? Where does the concept of perfection come from? It would have to come from knowledge of a perfect being, which by definition is God.

[Crowley]

Religion is culturally valuable. That there may be a higher force in the world that ultimately has to do with the creation of life is very possible. That people can touch that higher force within themselves is self-evident to people who 'get it'. Religions themselves are cultural expressions and should be understood as such.

[Vindex]

I agree religion is just another word for culture our Race has always held one and it kept us together and advancing. This is why the Jews used it against us a collective Trojan Horse in the form of Christianity which pushes universalism, raceless egalitarianism, proto-Communism, servileness/slave mindset and general pacifism and elevates the Jews to God.

While tearing down our cultures and Gods as inferior and evil and teaching us to hate ourselves for the crime of being born.

This excerpt quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is very revealing:
In the same way the Greeks and Romans may have worshipped their divinities, fondly believing them to be good. But the Christian Scriptures declare that all the gods of the Gentiles are demons.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Devil Worship
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04767a.htm
DEMONS ARE THE GODS OF THE GENTILES!!!!


"There were a number of Jewish brotherhoods, several of whom believed that they were "God's elect" and that salvation would come through them. Their principle agent of salvation (yesha) was the Messiah (Christos), and in the Jewish communities influenced by the Greek culture ("Hellenized") this messiah was depicted not as a warrior but as a spiritual and mystical entity. In this way not only would the Romans and Greeks themselves be overthrown but so too would be their Gods, replaced by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh…These various Jewish sects were intent on creating a philosophy or religion that would manipulate the Gentiles into the "monotheism" of Judaism and away from "idolatry," or polytheism, with the awareness that those who held the keys to a monotheistic god would dominate in religion and culture in general. One group of these "Jews by Birth"….was that of the Alexandrian Therapeuts......

All the need more to purify ourselves and our ancient culture of the Jewish corruption and dross. In doing so we cleanse our individual and collective racial psyche of the Jewish poison.

Religion is culturally valuable. That there may be a higher force in the world that ultimately has to do with the creation of life is very possible. That people can touch that higher force within themselves is self-evident to people who 'get it'. Religions themselves are cultural expressions and should be understood as such.

[Count Sudoku]

I'm not going to read this entire thread but the biggest arguments in favor of Christianity is

1) Life emerging from no life. Something which is probably impossible without intelligent design.

2) Predictions made in the Bible that have come true even up to this day.

[guy]

If we understand the concept of perfection, but never witness perfection with our own senses, then how do we know what it is? Where does the concept of perfection come from? It would have to come from knowledge of a perfect being, which by definition is God.
Whatever understanding of perfection we have is due to our ability to extrapolate. Of course, perfection is subjective anyway.

[Opus131]

The only argument in support of religion that actually makes sense is the one proposed by the perennial traditional school, started by Guenon. Most religious leaders today, particularly Christian ones, always seem to argue from a purely exoteric, that is, materialist, point of view, which is absurd.

[Petr]

The only argument in support of religion that actually makes sense is the one proposed by the perennial traditional school, started by Guenon. Most religious leaders today, particularly Christian ones, always seem to argue from a purely exoteric, that is, materialist, point of view, which is absurd.
Typical esoterist arrogance. It would be more reasonable to claim that "perennial tradition" can be a very useful apologetic method, but you must insist that it is "the only one that makes sense".

[Opus131]

Esoterism is the only raison d'être for any religion. Without it, all you are left with is just another secular organization, no different from any other. Without a firm conception of the Absolute, the supreme Principle, what reason is there to follow a particular religious edict or another?

Prior to my discovery of perennial tradition, my only source of empathy for religion was Dostovesky. Now, its like entirely new vistas have been made open for me which actually validate millennial traditions which until very recently i dismissed as primitive superstitions.

[Basil Fawlty]

Esoterism is the only raison d'être for any religion. Without it, all you are left with is just another secular organization, no different from any other. Without a firm conception of the Absolute, the supreme Principle, what reason is there to follow a particular religious edict or another?

Prior to my discovery of perennial tradition, my only source of empathy for religion was Dostovesky. Now, its like entirely new vistas have been made open for me which actually validate millennial traditions which until very recently i dismissed as primitive superstitions.Perhaps you should set out the main elements of esotericism for the benefit of those who might be unfamiliar with it.

[guy]

Esoterism is the only raison d'être for any religion. Without it, all you are left with is just another secular organization, no different from any other. Without a firm conception of the Absolute, the supreme Principle, what reason is there to follow a particular religious edict or another?

Prior to my discovery of perennial tradition, my only source of empathy for religion was Dostovesky. Now, its like entirely new vistas have been made open for me which actually validate millennial traditions which until very recently i dismissed as primitive superstitions.
If true religion relies on a firm conception of the Absolute, perhaps providing this conception would be pertinent to the topic.

[Opus131]

Perennial philosophy is the idea that there is an eternal truth, call it God, the Absolute, what have you, which can only be gleamed by means of an "higher intuition". This metaphysical reality, metaphysics here understood as the application of this higher intuition and not as a mere branch of philosophy, being eternal and immutable, is the only reality that actually matters, and our material existence finds purpose and justification only in terms of its relation to this eternal principle.

The traditionalist schools holds that, while this truth cannot be explained nor written down, it has nonetheless been expressed, however imperfectly, in all the various traditional cultures. In the Tao Te Ching of China, in the Bhagavad Gita of ancient India, in the esoteric teachings of Christianity and Islam, in the works of philosophers like Plato and Plotinus, and in medieval Europe through the writings of a Meister Eckhart.

All those sources differ from one another in the mode and means of expression, but the eternal truth they attempt to explain is always the same. This esoteric doctrine is religion in its real sense. Exoteric doctrines are just a mean to transmit something of those perennial principles to those who cannot understand the real mysteries contained in the religion, but are still in need of spiritual guidance (that is, the majority of the population).

Going into the nature of the Absolute is beyond my powers at the moment, not the least because i just discovered this school of thought, and for the time being my understanding of true metaphysical principles goes as far as realizing, with exact certitude, that there is in fact an Absolute. Beyond that, my foray into true metaphysical problems is still in its infancy. One thing that i think is relevant here is that prior to my realization into the nature of true metaphysics, i honed this special intuition those traditionalists speak about by means of my understanding of genius, which took considerable time for me to accept, as that too belongs to the field of true metaphysics, and cannot be explained nor reasoned out. To paraphrase what Jung said when he was asked why he believed in God: i don't simply believe in it, i just know.

[007]

2) Predictions made in the Bible that have come true even up to this day.

Can you give us some examples of those, please?

[calvin]

It seems likely to me that equipped with an average IQ of around 100, and some of the most feeble senses in the animal kingdom, man is ill equipped to accurately perceive reality in it's totality. Man is, obviously, equipped to navigate reality, and idiots like Dawkins believe that the limitations of our perceptions constitute the limitations of the actual.

Given the limitations of human perception I think that it is reasonable to assume that there is an unobtainable world beyond these perceptions. Our inability to fully perceive this world beyond our perception and cognition, does not mean that we are not constantly acted upon, or interact with this higher reality. Given that we are dwellers in this higher reality, regardless of our definitive powers of perception, it seems reasonable to assume that, to at least some extent, we interact with higher reality on a cause and affect basis. It seems also to be reasonable to me to assume that, despite an inability to grasp fully, higher plains of existence, given that we are a part of of this whole, we inevitably have an intuitive perception of the world beyond our immediate perceptions, and possibly some individuals may be able to access higher states of consciousness in which they can contemplate totality.

The main obstacle to transcendent perceptions is man's arrogance, which cannot abide the revelation of his insignificance and transience.

[Count Sudoku]

Can you give us some examples of those, please?

Finally someone with half a brain asked the right question.

The Bible makes a whole bunch of predictions about "Israel" which all came true but not for "modern Israel" but for the Anglo-Celtic people specifically and NW Europeans in general. Furthermore, the Bible predicts that there would be a group of imposters who would pretend to be Israelites and that real Israelites would be for the most part blind to their own identity.

The sheer amount of correct predictions is proof of the divine because otherwise all these predictions coming true would have been the result of an astronomical fluke.

Throughout the Bible there are a whole bunch of predictions and means to identity Israel. They are...

FIFTY (BIBLE) REASONS WHY THE JEWS ARE NOT ISRAEL

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/50reasons.html

http://www.divinepageant.com/Miscellany/RACE.htm

[007]

Cheers, Count. :thanks:

[Keen]

Furthermore, the Bible predicts that there would be a group of imposters who would pretend to be Israelites...

The Bible accurately describes these imposters as well:

I know your afflictions and your poverty--yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.- Revelation 2:9

[Count Sudoku]

Cheers, Count. :thanks:

Rep me you S.O.B!

Swell Old Boy!

[Count Sudoku]

The Bible accurately describes these imposters as well:

- Revelation 2:9

Correct. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

The Bible also predicts that the Edomites (Jews) would have power over the Israelites (White People) for a time.

Well that's exactly what we have isn't it?

I didn't even mentioned all the predictions made before Christ that came true.

Here is more detail about modern predictions.

http://www.cogwriter.com/britishisrael.htm

[calvin]

Sounds a bit fanciful to me. Revelations is an anomaly. If that's the only reference for the Jews not being the chosen people it's not too convincing. Jews have been prominent in Communist movements throughout the world, Jewish oligarchs and Zionist politicians control America and arguably are the powerful people described in the Bible.

[Keen]

If that's the only reference for the Jews not being the chosen people it's not too convincing.

Ashkenazi Jews (the ones that currently control America) are not in any way descendants of the Biblical Israelites. They are the descendants of the Khazar tribes of Russia that later on converted to Judaism. This has been proven by numerous historians and scientists.

RZn8rq9_xD0

[Count Sudoku]

Sounds a bit fanciful to me. Revelations is an anomaly. If that's the only reference for the Jews not being the chosen people it's not too convincing. Jews have been prominent in Communist movements throughout the world, Jewish oligarchs and Zionist politicians control America and arguably are the powerful people described in the Bible.

If you read the links I provide it would all be explained to you.

[Ixtab]

Ashkenazi Jews (the ones that currently control America) are not in any way descendants of the Biblical Israelites. They are the descendants of the Khazar tribes of Russia that later on converted to Judaism. This has been proven by numerous historians and scientists.

RZn8rq9_xD0
False. Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

[Count Sudoku]

False. Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

Regardless I'm pretty sure the people we call "Jews" today are imposters and not Israelites. Something the Bible predicts by the way.

[Keen]

False. Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

Perhaps it is false that Azkenazi Jews are Khazar descendants. I didn't read much from the links you posted because it would waste too much of my time trying to understand them. However, this does not refute the fact that they are not the original Jews of the Bible. They have far too many European traits to have originated from the lands written about in the Old Testament.

[Ixtab]

However, this does not refute the fact that they are not the original Jews of the Bible.That is not a fact. It is your wishful thinking. It would be an extraordinarily unlikely coincidence that Mizrahi (Oriental) and Ashkenazi Jews should be genetic cousins if they did not originate from a common Israelite population and underwent geographic branching and independent evolutions. You would have to deny that both Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are descended from the Jews of the Hebrew Bible. You would have to believe that both groups independently decided that they were the Jews of the Bible and by an extraordinary coincidence happen to be closely related genetic cousins.

[banjo_billy]

False. Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract)

http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf (http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf)

Another Jewish liar pushing his crapola.

The only ones who refute the Khazar history, are the lying Ashkenazi Jews. They want to disprove these facts because that is the only way they can substantiate that they have the Biblical right to steal Palestine from the Palestinians.

They "refute" this historical fact with a gobbly-gook of scientific skewed data and false assumptions derived from unsubstantiated and misleading "studies". By offering a mishmash of jargon, you lying kikes hope to cover the facts with confusion. And then out of the confusion, you offer your lies such as: "Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory." And the second "study" doesn't prove anything that you can use to prove your assertion of "False".

Both of your links above are examples of this deception among the Jews. The first study is an example of Jewish lies that use false direction: "Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were indistinguishable from one another, whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly, from Ashkenazi Jews. The differences among Ashkenazim may be a result of low-level gene flow from European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation."

In this case, the Jews are claiming that their "pure Ashkenazi" stock was contaminated with European genes rather than the fact that the "pure" Khazar-European stock was contaminated with Sephardic genes.

In addition, none of these studies are worth a damn when the intention of the authors is to prove or disprove something using specifically chosen subjects, such as Ashkenazis who were already mated with Sephardic kikes.

What the Jew scientists try to do is the same as a crooked Jewish grocer selling black and white beans. The customer wants to by only white beans but the grocer only has black beans to sell with a few (two or three) white beans left over that fell on the floor from his last customer. So, the Jew tosses these two or three white beans into the sack among all the balck beans. The customer says, "Sell me a sack of white beans." The Jew reaches into the sack and pulls out the white beans and shows the customer who buys the entire sack of beans.

That's all these Jew scientists are doing, picking out the few genetic markers that suit them and then claiming that they represent the entire population of kikenvermin.

[Pastor Bill]

Regardless I'm pretty sure the people we call "Jews" today are imposters and not Israelites. Something the Bible predicts by the way.
That is true, after the Assyrians invaded the northern Kingdom of Israel they relocated most of the ten tribes to the frontier of their empire, near the Cacaucus mountains and relocated certain Edomites to Palestine. The people we now know as Sephardic jews are actually Edomites, that is where the hook nose came from.

[Pastor Bill]

False. Recent genetic studies refute the Khazar theory. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11573163&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf
My question is who funded and controlled these studies? The protocols of the elders of zion was "proven" to be a forgery yet everything that it instructs jews to do has either been done or is in the process of being done. Jews use their money to buy influence wherever they need it. I have no doubt that if one were to dig deep enough they'd find that jews are behind this study.

[banjo_billy]

My question is who funded and controlled these studies? The protocols of the elders of zion was "proven" to be a forgery yet everything that it instructs jews to do has either been done or is in the process of being done. Jews use their money to buy influence wherever they need it. I have no doubt that if one were to dig deep enough they'd find that jews are behind this study.

The Protocols are genuine. Read my essay The Protocols of the Ruffle-Crested Kikes of Zion (http://www.bamboo-delight.com/raxbweel/Protocols_of_the_Ruffle_Crested_Kikes_of_Zion.pdf) for the facts.

The Jews only have two powers: the power of money and the power of lies. One supports the other and none of their powers come from God. The Jews are devils.

[Keen]

By offering a mishmash of jargon, you lying kikes hope to cover the facts with confusion.

A very common debating tactic among them indeed. I had a hunch those links were nonsense (especially the second one) just from skimming through them.

[Pastor Bill]

The Protocols are genuine. Read my essay The Protocols of the Ruffle-Crested Kikes of Zion (http://www.bamboo-delight.com/raxbweel/Protocols_of_the_Ruffle_Crested_Kikes_of_Zion.pdf) for the facts.

The Jews only have two powers: the power of money and the power of lies. One supports the other and none of their powers come from God. The Jews are devils.
I have no doubt they are real, that is why I mentioned that everything they instruct jews to do is either done or being done. Any study or proofs that favor jews are guarenteed to be funded by jews. Also, as A believer in the dual seedline CI theology I believe that jews are literally descended from Satan, you are preaching to the choir here. I have found that we pretty much agree on everything when it comes to jews.

[Crowley]

Regardless I'm pretty sure the people we call "Jews" today are imposters and not Israelites. Something the Bible predicts by the way.

Jews are not Israelites, although they probably share some genes with Israelites. Jews are the mixed-race post-Babylonian Exile occupants of Israel. They are Babylonians really, or were, with a Babylonian Holy Book.

[Vindex]

The characters in the Jewish bible never existed they where all stolen and rewritten from Gentile cultures and that goes for their mythological Israel, David, Solomon.etc

They have dug up the holoyhoax land for decades and have founding a big fat zero of all the great cities and sites claimed in the Jewish bible.

It's all mythology we might as well be looking for a physical Asgard or Olympus.


The Jews created this bible to give them a identity and entitlement as the Chosen and to yoke the Gentiles to them with the New Testament. Its a psychological warfare or "black magic" book.

Jews are liars who would have guessed.

[PsychoStick]

I am not a believer in any god. But I have had countless arguments with friends about the subject. The best point any of them has ever made was a reply to my request.

I asked them to rationally explain what leads them to believe in the existence of a god.

The response was "God isn't rational, how can I argue rationally in favor of His existence?"

People who believe, just do. I wish I could have faith in something as they seem to have because they always look happy.

Of course, retards always look happy too.

:otard:

[Parapliers]

I wish I could have faith in something as they seem to have because they always look happy. :

You do have faith in something as they do. You have faith in your rational mind but it does not make you happy. If you want to be happy, then be happy. Don't wait to discover something that will make you happy. Knowledge will not make you happy and neither will faith. As a seeker of knowledge, you must know there is a seeker born every minute.

[PsychoStick]

You do have faith in something as they do. You have faith in your rational mind but it does not make you happy.

I was referring to faith in a higher power, a god, or a higher purpose to the universe. (I suppose that technically I do believe and have faith in Eugenics, which is a cause with a purpose) People who have religion see a higher purpose in all the bad shit that happens to people, while I just see bad shit happening to good people. Of course, most bad things are people doing bad things to each other.

[Ixtab]

The protocols of the elders of zion was "proven" to be a forgery yet everything that it instructs jews to do has either been done or is in the process of being done.
Only in your paranoid imagination

[Ixtab]

Another Jewish liar pushing his crapola.Yes, anything that refutes your delusions is part of the conspiracy. You might as well suspend all rational thought when talking about Jews.

[banjo_billy]

Yes, anything that refutes your delusions is part of the conspiracy. You might as well suspend all rational thought when talking about Jews.

Hold up a mirror to your Jewy horse face when you say that.

[banjo_billy]

I am not a believer in any god. But I have had countless arguments with friends about the subject. The best point any of them has ever made was a reply to my request.

I asked them to rationally explain what leads them to believe in the existence of a god.

The response was "God isn't rational, how can I argue rationally in favor of His existence?"

People who believe, just do. I wish I could have faith in something as they seem to have because they always look happy.

Of course, retards always look happy too.

The Aryan prince Gautama Buddha discovered that joy and bliss are natural to Mankind. Happiness is found in the heart and no where else. It cannot be applied from the outside, only discovered waiting there in one's heart for those who look.

Look at the smile of a little baby and listen to his giggles. As Jesus said, Be ye as a little child.

[Monty]

Happiness is found in the heart and no where else.

The lilies of the field would beg to differ. :)

[PsychoStick]

It's strangely disconcerting that more people picked up on that one line about my happiness, rather than the rest of the content about the topic of the thread.

But thanks for being concerned with my happiness, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :thanks:

The truth is that no one knows who is right yet. But maybe one day science will prove that there is a god, and unite us all. (yeah, i know, it's a pipe dream) And no, I still don't believe in god nor do i follow religion. But I would be willing to work on a scientific program aimed at proving the existence of a higher power. I don't know if that makes me an agnostic, but I do know that even if one day science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god, a lot of people still won't believe.


The god particle:
http://jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/higgs.html
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

particle physicist takes up the cloth
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/polkrev.html

The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics

[Parapliers]

It's strangely disconcerting that more people picked up on that one line about my happiness, rather than the rest of the content about the topic of the thread.

It is disconcerting because so many saw through your subterfuge. You have more faith in peer reviewed Jew approved science than in your own being.

Chris Langan says God's existence can be proven mathematically. I don't care.
I don't know if this is it, or if he has supposedly done it yet or not, I got tired of looking for it.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

[calvin]

It's strangely disconcerting that more people picked up on that one line about my happiness, rather than the rest of the content about the topic of the thread.

But thanks for being concerned with my happiness, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

The truth is that no one knows who is right yet. But maybe one day science will prove that there is a god, and unite us all. (yeah, i know, it's a pipe dream) And no, I still don't believe in god nor do i follow religion. But I would be willing to work on a scientific program aimed at proving the existence of a higher power. I don't know if that makes me an agnostic, but I do know that even if one day science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god, a lot of people still won't believe

People picked up your false analogy between religious believers and retards. That's the sort of trite, transparent tripe that Dawkins delights his idiotic groupies with. According to situational expediency, atheists portray believers as aggressive fanatics, miserable uptight hypocrites, or happy, clappy retards. Believers are fanatics on a monday and cheek turning marshmallows on a tuesday.

Science is part of the created universe. Saying that science could one day prove the reality of God, is like saying that a child might one day give birth to its parents.

[PsychoStick]

It is disconcerting because so many saw through your subterfuge. You have more faith in peer reviewed Jew approved science than in your own being.

Chris Langan says God's existence can be proven mathematically. I don't care.
I don't know if this is it, or if he has supposedly done it yet or not, I got tired of looking for it.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

What does the Jew thing have to do with it? And no, I have more faith in peer reviewed and approved science about the physical world than I do in feelings or emotions. 'My own being' is a spiritual reference. I said I have no belief in any god nor do I follow any religion. I am a spiritual person. But it's my spirituality and it has nothing to do with you or anyone else.

I know this is a little move off topic, and I don't want to hi-jack the thread with evolution, but math has supposedly disproved darwins evolution also.
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/discovery-institute-math-disproves-evolution/

People picked up your false analogy between religious believers and retards. That's the sort of trite, transparent tripe that Dawkins delights his idiotic groupies with. According to situational expediency, atheists portray believers as aggressive fanatics, miserable uptight hypocrites, or happy, clappy retards. Believers are fanatics on a monday and cheek turning marshmallows on a tuesday.

Science is part of the created universe. Saying that science could one day prove the reality of God, is like saying that a child might one day give birth to its parents.

Thanks. Until now I had never read anything about Dawkins. I feel dumber already. <--- see that, that's the same type of off handed comment that isn't meant to be taken literally or to heart.

[calvin]

Thanks. Until now I had never read anything about Dawkins. I feel dumber already. <--- see that, that's the same type of off handed comment that isn't meant to be taken literally or to heart

There was nothing unintelligent about your point. I just disagreed with its apparent conclusion.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

What does the Jew thing have to do with it?
Jews are currently in control of much of our material world on earth right now. If you were a materialist (who for example needs material proof to believe something), then you'd be basically on the side of the jews.

If you're really spiritual, then having the experience of the spiritual world when renouncing the material world will be sufficient proof.

I understand, though, that you might see God as a loaded word and prefer not to use it.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

What does the Jew thing have to do with it?
I should also add that atheism happens to be the religion of the jews. They won't even allow themselves to say the word God. I've read that more than 80% of them are self-avowed atheists. Every jew I've met outside of the fake jew religious orgs has been an atheist. Even the jews in the religious orgs will often openly say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not."

I've read that this has something to do with the old Edomites losing their ark of the covenant (a gold box), which they called god. Later on, the Ashkenazis went to imitate these people and are upholding the tradition that as long as they are a defeated tribe without their gold god box, they have no right to believe in God or say His name.

[Vindex]

Jews have confessed this fact, that Jews simply and only believe in the world here and have no metaphysical views. They are gross materialists and even Juadism is a racial saturn cult in the most negative sense. The gnostics put their finger on the God of the Jews well.

The underlying problem in the Western World is it has been terraformed into a Juadic paradigm. The Jew is the race of the Kali Yuga.

I should also add that atheism happens to be the religion of the jews. They won't even allow themselves to say the word God. I've read that more than 80% of them are self-avowed atheists. Every jew I've met outside of the fake jew religious orgs has been an atheist. Even the jews in the religious orgs will often openly say, "I'm not sure if there's a God or not."

[banjo_billy]

As to the subject of the thread: the strongest arguments in support of the belief in God or religion (besides one's own direct observations of Reality and personal relationship with God) can be found in the un-connected observations of all peoples worldwide.

If any group of related people see the same thing, one can always argue that they are victims of some sort of group delusion or empathetic "belief" whereby they all agree to imagine the same mirage. This cannot be relied upon as a proof of any kind.

But when un-connected peoples from different parts of the world without comparing notes as to what they see, all record an identical phenomenon, then you have the basis for the existence of something that is more than mere imagination.

Such is the case for phenomenon such as auras, halos, and emissions of light from the human body that has been recorded in drawings, paintings and sculptures from the most ancient times, including paleolithic cave art. So, when a guru or saint is surrounded by the same spheres of fire, radiating beams of light, auras and halos of radiant energy, and this same phenomenon is identically recorded in the identical manner, worldwide by un-connected and divergent peoples, then you can see that there is something happening but you don't know what it is.

This Holy Spirit is the easy part of the equation. Once one finds their own Holy Spirit, then the next question is: Is this human spirit immortal or does it pass away with one's death? And if it is immortal, where does it go? And if the Spirit which is so obvious and real can exist in this spiritual form, then what difference is there between this and the Great Universe of God, a Universe that contains not just matter and energy but also spiritual Being and Existence?

Therefore, the strongest argument for the existence of God, is your very own existence and spiritual Being. Look and you can see, listen to the Silence and you can hear. Can standing in the Void be called standing? The entire Universe is vibrating, can you hear the music? In this sweet blessedness, how can you tell me there is no God? And even if not, standing between vibrating atom below and whirling galaxy above, it is all mighty fine, anyway.

[calvin]

The universality of religion and its recurring themes suggest to me an innate knowledge of the divine. Living creatures survive through a combination of knowledge that is acquired and knowledge that is hardwired or instinctive. Science is acquired knowledge, the knowledge of a meta-sensory reality is hardwired into every human.

[banjo_billy]

The universality of religion and its recurring themes suggest to me an innate knowledge of the divine. Living creatures survive through a combination of knowledge that is acquired and knowledge that is hardwired or instinctive. Science is acquired knowledge, the knowledge of a meta-sensory reality is hardwired into every human.

And for this reason, it is the meek and the poor and the humble who see God while the knowledgable, the educated, the rich and the powerful are blinded by too much philosophy and the grasping for wealth and power, none of which helps them on the True Path of Life.

Humble appreciation of Reality gives insight into the Eternal while haughty glaring from the eyes gives only a material view.

[Monty]

Humble appreciation of Reality gives insight into the Eternal while haughty glaring gives only a material view.

Wow, that's a meaningless states.

BTW, I just realized there was a "Religion vs. Science" section. Was this another Fade idea?

[banjo_billy]

Wow, that's a meaningless states.

BTW, I just realized there was a "Religion vs. Science" section. Was this another Fade idea?

Glaring with your eyes at Reality blinds one to what is best seen with a gentle look.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

In North America, the best argument in favor of the existence of God is:

Try not masturbating for two weeks.

If you live in another location, replace the word "masturbation" with whatever the popular addiction is.

If you keep staring at letters, reading books, and working out logical theorems, you won't get very much. Most of the truth on this world is understood through practice.

[PsychoStick]

In North America, the best argument in favor of the existence of God is:

Try not masturbating for two weeks.

If you live in another location, replace the word "masturbation" with whatever the popular addiction is.

If you keep staring at letters, reading books, and working out logical theorems, you won't get very much. Most of the truth on this world is understood through practice.


I don't understand how this is an argument in favor of the existence of god.

[Kuniklo Nigra]

I don't understand how this is an argument in favor of the existence of god.
Basically what happens is, through giving up material addictions, you are led to the light of spirit. It is only when you turn around and look that you see God (or whatever you'd call consciousness/spirit as a whole).

[Kuniklo Nigra]

It's an argument in favor of doing something which then allows you to see God.

[Pastor Bill]

And for this reason, it is the meek and the poor and the humble who see God while the knowledgable, the educated, the rich and the powerful are blinded by too much philosophy and the grasping for wealth and power, none of which helps them on the True Path of Life.

Humble appreciation of Reality gives insight into the Eternal while haughty glaring from the eyes gives only a material view.
That is 100% correct.