Sort of like how xtians aren't supposed to take the lord's name in vain.....which supposedly no one is capable of saying anyhow.

 

If you are trying to invalidate my argument, you should dissect what I wrote rather than try to tie in some random point that doesnt even make sense.

You are mixing up the theologies and doctrines of Judaism and Christianity. It is Judaism that doesnt allow the use of God's name (the unspeakable "Yahweh").

 

It's probably hopeless to even repy to this kind of nonsense, but I'll give it a shot. The statement "there is no absolute proof that God in whatever form does not exist" is meaningless. As living, thinking beings we concern ourselves with things that are, and not the things that are not. Why? Because things that are not have no relevance to our existance. Maybe you want to waste your life beliving that everything that cannot be proven to exist is real. Well, they have funny farms for folks who think like that.

Maybe feeble minds can better understand it this way...

By your faulty reasoning you may expect a large, hairy 24-foot wide spider to crawl out from under your bed and suck you dry tonight. Don't bother about proving that the big spider is there, or that it's not likely to be there. Because you can't prove it isn't there, it's going to be there to get you, tonight.

Sleep tight, and may your boogie man protect you!

 

I think you need to re-read dub2w's post carefully.

 

After reading that I'll def. be taking everything he says with a grain of salt.

 

:-party

 

Certainly not at your house unless it's been thoroughly cleaned recently... wouldn't want any of those 24ft wide spiders I’ve been constantly hearing about to eat me or the guests.

 

Please dont next time.

 

Cyberboy,

In case you haven't seen the newest Fall line...

 

I see your point, but, ummm, If I had an 'invisible friend' who I talked to regularly and took on dates.... I would have just as much ground to stand on as someone who laughed at me and called me ridiculous? I don't think so. Religion, historically, has changed and adapted to fit what has been proven scientifically over time. Since all dieties are merely ideas proposed by various religions, I see them as nothing more than that weird kid's invisible friend. Personally, I'm not willing to believe in or give credit to something just because there is no proof against it. I'll wait for proof for it.... and I think I'll be waiting a while. Anyway, how could anyone disprove something like that - or even want to for that matter? Just because it is a widely held idea and has historically been very important and prominent doesn't make it easy for me to make that 'leap of faith,' required by virtually any devout religious following. Science and religion are mutually exclusive, in my mind.


Also, by your reasoning, wouldn't any athiest actually be an agnostic? That's how I feel. Those who say there is definitely no god, as you said, have no grounds for this reasoning (about as much as believers have) - so they actually don't know one way or another. So, following this - wouldn't all believers, nonbelievers, etc. all be agnotic in reality? Ahhh, hell - I give up. This argument is impossible to win either way...

back on track...so why do we have this idea beaten into our kid's heads everyday? It seems to me just as bad as confirming the non-existence of god, by including a phrase like 'under no omniscient diety' (...all except athiesm, although just as arguable, isn 't what our country 'was founded on' ...as some of you keep saying. (which I think is BS anyway, what did god do? Where is evidence of him assisting us, or even existing, to be founded upon?

As I see it, religion won't exist in the future, if the human race and environment last that long.

 

Had a cool party tonight and finished off the religious discussion with a snack.