Proof that there is no god



  • Reply 61 of 233
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Originally Posted by Mr. H

    Whilst I agree that MarkUK did himself no favours by using such derogatory profanity, that is no good reason to ignore the rest of his valid points.

    The vast majority of Christians [..] do tend to take the bits of the Bible that they like at face value[..].

    Well I don't, and I don't appreciate billions of people being thrown into one single pot. It's not just unfair; it's also ignorant. And ignorance happens to be the very criticism MarkUK claims to have against Christianity.
  • Reply 62 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Originally Posted by Chucker

    Well I don't, and I don't appreciate billions of people being thrown into one single pot. It's not just unfair; it's also ignorant. And ignorance happens to be the very criticism MarkUK claims to have against Christianity.

    As for billions being thrown into a single pot. I'd just like to ask what God's rabble promises to do to the 'infidels' who dont believe in him or his sun? Surely its a bit hypocritical of you to complain that i'm being ignorant, when God himself promises the highest order of ignorance to people who wont bow down to suck his cock.

    so Chucker, stand out from the crowd, prove your uniqueness and tell us all why Jesus raised an Egytian Sun-God.

    Of course, the very fact that Osiris isn't 'real' should send the alarm bells ringing all over Christendom about the literalness of Miracles.... How did Jesus resurrect a mythical entity...Unless....Hmm better not think about it......Fingers in ears........

    But there is a more fundamental reason than even that above...Spill the beans Chucker.

    Don't you agree, this single event put a whole new perspective on the story. Its kind of a revelation.

    It must be real annoying for some people who realise that the biggest jerk on AI is also one of the wisest.
  • Reply 63 of 233
    From my experience:

    When a scientist and a religionist (not necessarily mutually exclusive, but let's assume in this case we just have a pure scientist, and a pure religionist. We can tweek the generalization to specific situations later) get togeather to debate the existance of God, the Scientist always looses.

    When a scientist and a religionist (not necessarily mutually exclusive, but let's assume in this case we just have a pure scientist, and a pure religionist. We can tweek the generalization to specific situations later) get togeather to debate the existance of God, the Religionist always looses.

    The Scientist will never convince the Religionist of his position because the Scientist refuses to present arguments in the form that the Religionist will accept: Feelings, emotion, and the personal connection with God that the Religionist feels. Thus, the Scientist looses.

    The Religionist will never convince the Scientist of his position because the Religionist refuses to present arguments in the form that the Religionist will accept: Logic, reason, and the empirical evidence which the Scientist observes. Thus, the Religionist looses.

    The Scientist relies on the argument, "Prove it" and refuses to rely upon trust in others and his own feelings to guide him. Faith is not enough.

    The Religionist relies on his trust in others and his own feelings, and refuses to demand any kind of real proof. Faith is enough.

    So the Scientist demands proof, and the Religionist says, "There's TONS!" because he has been told by others whom he trusts that there is, and it supports his position.

    The Scientist then says, "Show me!" and the Religionist, never having seen the evidence which he claims exists, and thus not being able to produce it, says, "Go find it yourself! I'm not here to convince you!" He then goes off to try to convince someone who is more suceptable to a sales pitch.

    Or, the Religionist may say, "You prove there is no God!" The Scientist then rolls his eyes, and ever after regards the Religionist as a retard, because the Scientist believes that it is impossible to prove the non-existance of anything. He then goes off to try to find someone who is more dependent on logic, and willing to change their position if sufficient evidence if presented.

    The only way to convert a scientist is through logic and reason (if you do it in some other way, then that scientist's credibility as a scientist should be questioned.

    The only way to convert a religionist is through trust, emotion, and appealing to their heart and that which they can feel.

    Pascal's wager is flawed, in that it assumes that there is only one god to believe in. If one takes into account all the varied religious positions and beliefs which exist in the world, then one sees that the likelyhood of choosing the correct religion and the correct god to belive in is terrifically slim. So it becomes far more likely that one will choose wrong, and, in choosing wrong, burn in hell or otherwise draw the wrath of the true god, while also suffering in the current life by expending income, time, or, as is frequently the case in many parts of the world, blood, in pursuit of the false religion which he or she has elected to pursue. Much murder has been commited in the name of one diety or another over the course of human history, and unless one takes the position that each of these dieties is simply a manifestation of one's own diety (that would make the diety kinda evil, using one set of followers to kill another set, wouldn't it?) then the majority of these killings, be they through war, terrorism, murder, execution, crusade, inquisition, sacrifice, or whatever, are completely unjustified.

    Some people make the argument that regardless of whether their religion is truth or not, it is simply the best way to live, and therefore justifies itself. These people frequently make the mistaken assumption that without the threat of damnation and eternal suffering, people would not live togeather peacefully.

    This is not necessarilly true. Those values which are traditionally associated with subscription to an organized religion, such as love your neighbor, etc, and esp. don't kill, don't steal, and do not treat others as you do not wish to be treated, are easily and logically present even in the abscence of the threat. It is a simple social compact. Bob understands that it is within his power to kill Joe, Mark, Betty, and Ophilia, and take their belongings. The others understand the same thing, from their own perspective. They all also recognize that in attempting to achieve this dominance over others, they run a very real risk of loss themselves, by theft, murder, whatever. Thus, an agreement is reached, "I'll not harm you, if you don't harm me, and since there are lots of us, and none of us want to be harmed, lets just say no one harm anyone. Those who do, will be punished, so as to protect the rest." It is a very practical position to take which increases the chance of survival for everyone in the group. No threat of eternal damnation is needed. Just the threat of immediate suffering.

    ok, back to chemistry.

    Oh, and in regards to the original post.... lets see some empirical evidence to support your statements. Can't find any? Stop getting high off of your own fantasy induced brain chemicals, and come back to the real world before you screw your life up. Theory is fun, but be careful that you don't mistake fantasy or theory for truth.
  • Reply 64 of 233
    Originally Posted by MarcUK

    Contradictions really???

    In John, why does Jesus ressurrect the old Egyptian sun-god Lazarus?

    ??? how are you making the Lazarus=Osirus connection?

    <O.o> <o.O>????
  • Reply 65 of 233
    Originally Posted by Homestar06

    There were lots of replies and I won't be able to get to all of them. No, it's not because I can't explain some and I'm too scared to admit that I'm living my life for the completely wrong thing. I want to know the truth just like everyone in this forum. We all want to know the truth. What's the point if everything we know and believe is false? I guess some people do think ignorance is bliss, but I think deep down everyone wants to know there is a meaning to it and truth in that meaning. I'm not even sure where to start here. Thanks for all the replies. Everyone is thinking, which is good, but almost everyone tends to run away from Christianity. Christianity tends to be the religion that people either grasp with everything, or abhor. ...well thats not entirely true. There are plenty of people who claim to be Christians but don't live as if they are. Anyways, that's a bit off topic.

    To say Christianity lacks in tolerance is an absolutely true statement. You have to understand the context first. God is the omniscient, omnipotent, all powerful creator of everything. (according to the Bible). God is a perfect, holy God. If He created humans to worship Him, (which He did according to the Bible), then why would He let just anyone be in heaven with Him? There would be no point if we were robots who had no choice in worshiping God. That's the beauty of this discussion. We all have free will to accept God and worship Him, or deny Him and do nothing. The other beautiful (and yes, truly beautiful) thing is that sinners, people who are imperfect (all of us) actually can get to heaven. God made a way for us. My point is that He didn't make robots to worship Him, that's pointless. If any of you have children, it's much more meaningful when your kids obey you because they have the choice not to. It wouldn't mean anything if they didn't have a choice. I think this is a hard thing to grasp (not confusing or "above" anyone) when you don't actually believe in God and the Bible. Not that I'm any smarter than anyone, I'm probably the least intelligent of anyone in this forum. I'm just saying that people who don't believe in God have a hard time accepting that there would be a Hell and God would allow people to go to Hell. It's not because He doesn't want us in heaven, it's because we choose to deny God and we're imperfect and aren't fit to be in His presence.

    One quick thing about evolution vs creation. The probabilities that have been calculated, by evolutionists, are far far beyond the impossibility threshold. The impossibility threshold, to my knowledge, is 1 in 1*10^50. The chances calculated for the smallest simplest organizm to evolve and form is 1 in 1*10^340 million. The chance for life to evolve as it has now is way smaller. That one is 1 in 1*10^2 Trillion. 1 in 1*10^50 is considered scientifically impossible.

    Think about how many specific details have to come together for us to even live and breathe. The earth has to be tilted at 23 degrees. The earth has to be the distance it is away from the sun. Any closer and we'd burn up, and further and we'd freeze. If the earth was spinning at a different speed it wouldn't work. The moon and the tides it causes are essential for life. That stuff is just to do with earth. Then think about the atmosphere, the gases and the environment. Then our bodies, how they are made up. The DNA. There are a lot of things that are irreducibly complex. I won't go into that, it seems like a lot of people agree that there is a God. sorry for that rant, that stuff just amazes me.

    What exactly do you mean when you say Christianity preaches things that lead to death like AIDS and declaring people sick? If you mean it doesn't make sense for a God to make bad things, then you're right. The only reason those came about is because we turned from God and sinned. Evil entered the world and you get AIDS and diseases.

    There are countries where Christianity is nearly non-existant because people have chosen not to follow God and Christ. It all started in the middle east, but almost all of that is muslim.

    Honestly, I know very very little about plate tectonics. I don't know how things worked. Creationism doesn't always mean a young earth though. Some creationists believe there could have been lots of time between the days that God created things. There wasn't a sun for some of those days so that 24 hour period, no one really knows.

    The historical facts in the Bible are often duplicated in other history books. I can't explain every one obviously, but there is lots of evidence that the Bible is valid. Check out the book "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell. The author set out to prove that the Bible wasn't valid and it wasn't trustworthy and he came out with a different conclusion than he expected. It goes through the old testament and new testament and explains how they are in fact trustworthy sources.

    Like I said before, I doubt anyone is going to change their mind by the end of this discussion. Look deeper. If you believe there is a god but not the god described in the Bible or the Koran, then find out who that God is. If you believe there is a god but that he's not a personal God at all, then find out who that god is. Why isn't he personal? Could he be? Ask questions. I am asking questions to, validating that what I believe is true, or maybe it isn't. Currently I have found nothing contradictory or not trustworthy about the Bible and the fact that there is a God is apparent to me as it is to some of you. If there is a contradiction or if it's not true, I certainly want to know. And if there are no contradictions to the Bible and it is in fact true, then I would think y'all (I'm in the south right now, I can say that) would want to know too. Sorry if this was long and if I rambled needlessly a bit.

    Don't have time to go into detail, but the analysis of science in this post is not correct. 1/(1*10^50) is not impossible. It's improbable. big stinking difference. if it's possible, regardless of how probable, it is, then eventually, given an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amout of space, then somewhere, sometime, it will happen. Actually, it will happen an infinite number of times. The statistical analysis which has been given is not valid.

    Secondly, if it WILL happen, and if there will be people created (because it is a possiblity, even though improbable) then clearly, it is absurd for those people to argue that they can't exist because it's too improbible. there is no where else that they COULD exist, execept in the moment in time when the improbable occured. So the fact that the improbable DID occur (or can be assumed to have occured, implied by the people's existance) invalidates the probablility argument.

    Regarding tilt of the earth, environment, etc etc etc, this argument assumes that our present form is the only form that could have come into being. This is silly. Life has been shown to be remarkable adaptable, and if conditions were different, then whereever life occured, it would adapt accordingly. In other words, if earth was a planet completely covered by water, then clearly we would have developed into seafaring beings, rather than land walking ones.

    Basically, I'm saying that arguing that we couldn't have come into our present state by accident because the co-occurance of the conditions needed to bring that about are too improbable, ignores the fact that we ARE in our present state, and that there are very very very*10^50 few ways that we could have come to that state except through the highly improbable co-occurance of the conditions needed to bring it about.

    We are how we are becase the conditions made it so. NOT the conditions came be because we are as we are.

    Just because it's counter-intuitive or hard to understand does not give us license to ascribe it to a catch-all cause. Society has traditionally ascribed all that it does not understand to some mysterious supernatural force, be it a diety, dieties, magic, or whatever other cop-out can be come up with. But as science progresses, and we find viable mechinisms to produce the phenomena which we observe, we quit trying to ascribe it to the catch-all.

    Or I could have my head up my ass. If you go to church, I bet you think I do.
  • Reply 66 of 233
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    Originally Posted by Chucker

    May I suggest everyone ignore MarcUK's religion-related posts.

    Just a friendly recommendation.

    Post of the Year.
  • Reply 67 of 233
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    The universe is infinite in time and space. If you look at a single atom in your finger, you'll find a universe with galaxies and solar sytems within it and and planets with humanities in them. And this humanity has atom with universes and so forth. This is the infinitely small as represented by the triangle pointing down. If we look beyond our universe, we will see that we are part of an atom that is part of a solar system that in another universe and this universe is part of an atom and so forth. This is the infinitely large as represented by the triangle pointing up. The swirl within the Star of David repesents infinity of time. There is no beginning and no end. The universe has always existed and will always exists. And that's what the medallion in my avatar symbolizes. So knowing that, where would this "God" be located? The best description at this point about "God" is that it is infinity as described above. But this infinity has no intelligence and no consciousness. Therefore no "God". Eventually we will have the scientific knowledge to physically prove this.

    There you go: Proof that there is no God. The question man has been thinking about for thousands of years, answered in a single logical proof less than 500 words long.

    Next up, we're going to prove string theory correct in a single word:

  • Reply 68 of 233
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister

    There is just too much here for it to be real.

    Bingo. It is not real. This "life" is a dream. Suffering is not real, it is not our true state of being.

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister

    If God is all-powerful and created us in his image in order to worship him, and if we turned from him, then he is by definition not all powerful because he created something that was imperfect.

    Why, also, does god need people to worship him? If he alone indeed created the entire world, why was he not satisfied? What insecurities has he got? Some that are similar to those that people have? Then he is just like the rest of us.

    If he resurrects a pagan god, then there are other gods, and god is being rather selfish in demanding that humans worship only him.

    Bingo again. Try thinking of yourself as God, one with God, a God, the God, One in Unity with all of endless Creation. Within this frame of mind, think now, do you need people to worship You to feel Loved? Would you worry about harm that can never *actually* come to You? That You ARE Eternal Love? Brotherly Love is the beginning, forgiveness, Love as it is is simply the state that we are all really in. Now imagine you create another being. You invite him/ her/ it/ alien/ thing/ cat/ sentient/ Gaia/ etc. to join you in Love. One catch: you cannot FORCE it to Love You. But You created it perfect, no matter what it thinks or does. It has the spark of the Divine, and will return when it so chooses. It is only a matter of time and space, the separation between a sentient being slightly out of alignment with the continuum of Eternal Love Consciousness - of which words can only describe the start of the path. <morpheus>I can only show you the door - you're the one that has to walk through it</morpheus>. God/ Goddess/ All Divine Universe/ cannot shove you through the door. Yet it remains, forever Open to You.

    You know what's more infinite than infinite lives/ dimensions/ quantum vibrations/ fractal multidimensional universes? One Eternal Infinite Creative Love Beyond Words Can Describe. When You Feel It You Will Know, a Calling so Ancient yet Fresh on Your Lips.

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister

    Just got back from watch Stone's movie World Trade Center. One of the guys in it saw Jesus coming to him... why then did Jesus not choose to visit everyone before the planes hit the building and protect them from the harm?

    We really need to start understanding the non-reality of this so-called reality. Not by putting One's head in a bin and going 'la la la la la' but unlearning and shifting perceptions. Does anyone die? What IS real? Where do we go after this? Where do we come from? I don't have all the answers. But what I seek IS relief from my endless suffering (its been good and bad on average over the past 28 years) but seeing a glimpse of the Divine, you'll know what you want, you'll know what Is and what is not.

    Now either this is the case or I've had one ecstasy pill too many (I've taken a total of say 10-20 in the past 4 years) or doing too much Yoga/Meditation. But I tells ya, before I did stuff other than alcohol, I cried for half an hour after watching Contact (Jodie Foster). And Gattaca. And came out of the theatre after The Matrix going, whoa......... all before trying ecstasy. All before a single Yoga pose.
  • Reply 69 of 233
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    An alternate theory though: Since we are all God, therefore we cannot know there is a God. Because, if we know there is a God, then we can know there is not a God, which if we are all God why would God want to know that there is no God? God would be all there is. Therefore not knowing there is a God might prove we are all God.

    Some brain-crunching stuff here, just throwing it out there. This is my God-exists-by-Definition theory. More relevant is my previous post which is more my spiritual leaning at this stage.
  • Reply 70 of 233
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Originally Posted by slughead

    Next up, we're going to prove string theory correct in a single word:


    OMFG YOU PROVED STRING THEORY !!!11one!!!one!!11!!!
  • Reply 71 of 233
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    By the way this is Hoozel:
  • Reply 72 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Originally Posted by Celemourn

    ??? how are you making the Lazarus=Osirus connection?

    <O.o> <o.O>????

    Osiris' original name in Egyptian is Azar

    El is a hebrew word meaning God

    Os is a greek suffix they added to many non-native Greek words to greekify them - "The-OS" being Greek for God, "Mac-OS" being geek for God!

    Making a composite word that become understandable across a cultural and linguistal divide, you take words that mean the same thing in all languages and unify them into one word.

    El-Azar-Os unites the Hebrew, Egyptian and Greek - all parties then know that you are talking about the same thing. An Egytpian God and a hebrew God, greekified for all audiences. With the prime concern being that all audiences realise that this new composite person is actually the same entity.

    L-Azar-Os is the original spelling of Lazarus in the common dialect of Greek that was spoken circa 300BCE to 300CE, the same dialect in which the NT was written.

    Obviously a little time has modified the word into a more common spelling that more easily comes off the tongue.

    Then a whole related topic is that the gospel of John was specifically written to subjugate the Egyptian religion under Christianity. Credit to dmz and Segovius for that last nugget of info.

    Naturally, i'd better add a 'Cunt Jesus' in this reply so that the ignoramus can have something to latch onto so they can "ignore" the wisdom. I do it out of compassion - Its not nice to find out that everything you believe in is shit.

    Jesus raising dead people from the ground. Miracles for Wankers.

    Actually its a 'political' resurrection designed to send the Egytian religion a message that their religion has been superseeded by a more powerful one. "Our God bought your God back to life. Who is more powerful? Who should you really be worshipping?"
  • Reply 73 of 233
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,740member
    Originally Posted by Chucker

    Well I don't

    Really? You don't take the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ the son of God literally? If not, why do you choose to call yourself Christian, and how do you interpret this cornerstone of Christianity?
  • Reply 74 of 233
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Originally Posted by slughead

    Next up, we're going to prove string theory correct in a single word:


    This is funny.

    While this thread is interesting in some ways, does it really have a legitimate place in this subforum? The description of this forum says "General tech discussion" and this thread clearly is not one. The original post basically read like spam, but of a religious nature. Isn't there an alert button somewhere?
  • Reply 75 of 233
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    For those of you who rightly wonder how ancient language scholar MarcUK combines Hebrew, Egyptian and Greek to get a perfect English translation of a Jewish name: Yes, he is crazy.

    Lazarus is simply a contracted form of the quite common Jewish name Eleazar which means 'God has helped'

    The name is also used in one of Jesus' parables in the book of Luke to describe someone entirely different, and who does not rise from the dead.
  • Reply 76 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Originally Posted by Frank777

    For those of you who rightly wonder how ancient language scholar MarcUK combines Hebrew, Egyptian and Greek to get a perfect English translation of a Jewish name: Yes, he is crazy.

    Lazarus is simply a contracted form of the quite common Jewish name Eleazar which means 'God has helped'

    The name is also used in one of Jesus' parables in the book of Luke to describe someone entirely different, and who does not rise from the dead.

    True, Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar, of which the root is derived from a combination of El and Azar. Hebrew God El and Egytian God Azar, combined to signify that they are both meaning the same thing. When it was adopted by the greeks, they added a part of their God, OS.

    Well done frank.

    You might also want to know (well perhaps not but hey!) that the Egyptian Ele-asar-u is the constellation of Orion in connection with Osiris, so if we were not to take a parable literally, we could conclude that Jesus raised Orion. Which is a bit odd, unless Jesus himself is Astrological.
  • Reply 77 of 233
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    Different languages have different word meanings, Marc.

    Azar in Hebrew means 'to surround; to protect or help'. It has nothing to do with the separate Egyptian God Azar. Even if you want to make the case that the word evolved from the time of the Jewish captivity in Egypt, that still does not mean that Jews name their children Eleazar to reference an obscure, false Egyptian god.

    Your whole theory does not make any sense. The Lazarus story is not made up to send any sort of message to the Egyptians. It occurs in the first century, when the Romans were the occupying force in Israel. Egypt was no threat and there was no need to "subjugate the Egyptian religion under Christianity." Alexandria was a place where many false teachings about Christianity were being spread, but none of these had much of anything to do with "Egyptian religion."

    Furthermore, the Gospels were written by Jews, not Greeks. Even if they were, saying that Greeks went around adding -OS to everything in worship to "their god" is simply nonsense.
  • Reply 78 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Forgetting the fact that the worship of (Osiris) Azar was amongst the most widespread of the Egyptian religious beliefs and continued up until the 6th Century AD - until it was wiped out by Christain Thug hitmen...(hardly an Obscure false Egyptian god )

    Lets look at this a bit closer.

    Lazarus has two sisters, Mary and Martha, who live with their brother in Bethany.

    "Beth" means House, any is the Greek of Anu - trailing u's become y's

    Osiris (Azar) has two sisters Isis (Meri) and Nephthys (Merti) who live with their brother in the "House of Annu"

    Meri is Mary, Merti is Martha and Bethany is the House of Annu.

    Osiris is annointed by Isis (Meri) with her long hair...Lazarus has his feet wiped by Mary's hair...

    Azar is resurrected by Horus, as Lazarus is resurrected by Jesus.

    I do recall that I spent a while outlining the similarities between Horus and Jesus. But to really quickly do a recap, they're both personifications of the Sun.

    Mary and Martha lament for their dead brother Lazarus , as do Meri and Merti for Azar.

    Some coincidence. One story preceeded the other by thousands of years. Syncretization produced the Lazarus story. Its the same story, not a miracle. Not literal.
  • Reply 79 of 233
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Frank, dont you realise what Im telling you?

    There is no need for you to look upon other cultures with contempt, distrust, anger, fear. You all believe the same things. All you have is ignorance between you, that breeds more of the above, and eventually leads to war, where you destroy eachother - For What? Failing to recognise that the characters of your beliefs have different pronunciations in different languages.

    But first, you must give something up. Give up the Arrogance, bullshit and feeling that your beliefs are something especially unique forever under persecution. And just give in to the unifying truth.
  • Reply 80 of 233
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    Bethany is a place Marc. Everyone knows where it is.

    Your convoluted version of history isn't even remotely plausible. I hope one day you come to realize how wildly off-track you are. While I might give Sammi-Jo a tough time for jumping on every possible conspiracy angle to current events, even her conspiracies have more factual basis than your sun god version of events ever will.

    This is one of those rare areas where modern scholarship, science, religious tradition and Occam's Razor all combine to refute an obviously twisted interpretation of historical fact.
Sign In or Register to comment.