New religions name? :)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
religious teaching exists irrespective of whether God exists, it is in fact meaningless to talk about the existence or non existence of God, for it cannot be proven one way nor another

Yes but religions are pointless if the god/s they are based on don't exist.

Given that there is no evidence for god, and thus no evidence for what this non-existent
god may or may not want, any religion based on that god is meaningless.

And actually it isn't true it can't be proven one way or another.
God could prove his existence easily, if he existed.
It's proving the non-existence of god that's impossible.

That said, in the total lack of any evidence for or in support of the existence of god, the only
sensible position is non-belief until such time as evidence is presented.

And it is possible to rule out some 'versions' of god as nonsensical/impossible/ridiculous.
Omnipotent gods for example.


If you can't prove that your god exists, then you have no basis at all in any way shape or form
to claim anything about what he's like, wants, or teaches.
You have no basis for your religion, belief or faith.

Blind faith is demonstrably stupid, and illogical.
As is any religion based on it.

By admitting you can't prove your god exists you automatically negate your entire belief structure.

That's why people like RJH claim their 'personal experience' of god as their 'proof', although it's no such thing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You can't claim knowledge of something for which there is no evidence.
God is indistinguishable from non-existence and thus doesn't exist.

It is meaningless to talk about the properties of something that doesn't exist.

One of the three persons of the Godhead became as man and gave
testimony of the other two that has been recorded as history in the
Holy Bible. The evidences of the existence of God are the things He
has made, which we can clearly see. We have the testimony of many
men from the past and even the testimony of God himself. He left us
proof of His time on earth among men, not only written in the Holy
Bible, but also, the physical proof of the empty tomb and His burial
"face-cloth" and shroud. So you are without excuse for your non-belief.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but religions are pointless if the god/s they are based on don't exist.

Given that there is no evidence for god, and thus no evidence for what this non-existent
god may or may not want, any religion based on that god is meaningless.

And actually it isn't true it can't be proven one way or another.
God could prove his existence easily, if he heir 'personal experience' of god as their 'proof', although it's no such thing.

Yes but religions are pointless if the god/s they are based on don't exist.


no that argument for the existence or non existence of God is pointless, you cannot
prove that it doesn't exist, i cannot prove that it does. Its a dead end. Religious
teaching exists, irrespective of any claims of the existence or non existence of a divine
being, i repeat it again, irrespective. Whether the teaching is valid or not is another
matter entirely, but that it exists is incontrovertible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but religions are pointless if the god/s they are based on don't exist.


no that argument for the existence or non existence of God is pointless, you cannot
prove that it doesn't exist, i cannot prove that it does. Its a dead end. Religious
teaching exists, irrespective of any claims of the existence or non existence of a divine
bein ...[text shortened]... teaching is valid or not is another
matter entirely, but that it exists is incontrovertible.

which would be an issue if I was arguing that religions didn't exist.
I'm not.
I'm arguing that they are pointless and meaningless because the beings they believe in don't exist.

I am not arguing against the existence of the teachings, I am arguing against the substance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
One of the three persons of the Godhead became as man and gave
testimony of the other two that has been recorded as history in the
Holy Bible. The evidences of the existence of God are the things He
has made, which we can clearly see. We have the testimony of many
men from the past and even the testimony of God himself. He left us
proof of His time o ...[text shortened]... tomb and His burial
"face-cloth" and shroud. So you are without excuse for your non-belief.

There is no evidence that this person was the son of god or could perform miracles.

and there is no evidence of a god.

You are thus wrong, and multiply so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no evidence that this person was the son of god or could perform miracles.

and there is no evidence of a god.

You are thus wrong, and multiply so.

no i am not wrong, you cannot prove anything, which makes all of these statements
assumptions, which means they are mere opinion, your opinion, which means that are
irrelevant to anyone but you, i repeat, you can prove nothing and all such arguments
of the basis of your non proof are merely opinion and unsubstantiated at that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but religions are pointless if the god/s they are based on don't exist.


no that argument for the existence or non existence of God is pointless, you cannot
prove that it doesn't exist, i cannot prove that it does. Its a dead end. Religious
teaching exists, irrespective of any claims of the existence or non existence of a divine
bein ...[text shortened]... teaching is valid or not is another
matter entirely, but that it exists is incontrovertible.

double post.

Originally posted by googlefudge
which would be an issue if I was arguing that religions didn't exist.
I'm not.
I'm arguing that they are pointless and meaningless because the beings they believe in don't exist.

I am not arguing against the existence of the teachings, I am arguing against the substance.

no they are not, its an absurd statement, unless of course you are willing to argue that
all hypothesis ever formulated are also useless, until proven.

Originally posted by galveston75
I think "1st RJH's congregation of 1 and only 1"

Well I'd think by now we would know where RJH is coming from but it seems no one knows but him.
That being said he is who he is and he will have to answer to God for what he preaches to others. Most of us let it go in one ear and out the other as we can see clearly he's out there on many levels.
But I feel he's a good guy and not really wanting to cause harm.
But a couple really simple things the Bible says in the description of a Christian would be their love for their fellow man and especially for the brother's within the same faith.
A couple problems here that has been discussed is he would at the drop of a hat be willing to kill one of his brothers in faith in another country. No doubt there.
Well first he has no brothers in faith as he stands alone in his personal beliefs which is not allowed in a Christians life. Jesus talked of "the love among the brotherhood" and the Bible also says "no man should lean upon his own understanding."
So with just these two simple guidelines ( to love one another and to not kill ) he does not qualify as a Christian as he states that all around him are not.

The Bible also says God hates a hypocrite..................... Not a true Christian trait.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I'd think by now we would know where RJH is coming from but it seems no one knows but him.
That being said he is who he is and he will have to answer to God for what he preaches to others. Most of us let it go in one ear and out the other as we can see clearly he's out there on many levels.
But I feel he's a good guy and not really wanting to c ...[text shortened]... e Bible also says God hates a hypocrite..................... Not a true Christian trait.

I would not kill another brother in Christ as you claim just because my
government says so. I have no reason to kill anyone, much less, a
brother in Christ, like the one I have renamed "sunnydid". I am sure
he feels the same. We shall all answer to God for what we have done,
so that is nothing new to me. I have no hatred for anyone on this forum.
I am simply debating and presenting the truth as I believe it to be. My
strong words at times are meant to wake up those that have there head
up their rear. I believe it is a sign of my love that I tell you the truth
about God so you may be able to break the spell that the Watchtower
and Satan may have on you. I will let Jesus decide if I am a hypocrite
at the Judgment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no they are not, its an absurd statement, unless of course you are willing to argue that
all hypothesis ever formulated are also useless, until proven.

I'm sorry... your ultimatum is for me to retract my statement or support the scientific method?

you said....

"no that argument for the existence or non existence of God is pointless, you cannot
prove that it doesn't exist, I cannot prove that it does. Its a dead end."


And I agree that I can't prove the non-existence of god, and I agree that you (any/all theists)
haven't proven the existence of god, but that doesn't mean the issue is pointless.

It is absurd to believe in things for which there is no evidence. (and note, I say no evidence, not
no proof, it isn't just that there isn't any proof for god, there isn't any evidence for god of any kind)
And not only is it absurd to believe in things for which there is no evidence (things who's existence
is indistinguishable with non-existence) but because you have no evidence for or about them, you
can't make any claim about any property they may or may not have.

It would be like me telling you what the properties and attributes of dragons are... I can find plenty
of books that talk about them but no evidence or real dragons I could go and research so I would
either just be making it up, or repeating someone else who was just making it up.

...actually dragon myths are probably based on attempts to explain fossils found by ancient peoples...

Because dragons are not real, or evident, neither of us can go check what properties they might have
and thus any talk about what there abilities or temperaments might be would be pointless and meaningless.
...outside simply discussing them from the perspective of fictional creatures, perhaps for a book or something...

There are an infinite number of things you could believe, it only makes sense to believe in things for which
there is evidence, with the strength of belief being weighted according to the amount and quality of that
evidence.

Otherwise you have no rational basis for deciding what you do or do not believe.
Sure you can do it on whim, but that is a totally intellectually bankrupt and unsupportable idea.


So yes, I (try to) only believe things for which there is evidence, and consider this the only sane and
rational way to go.

Religions obviously exist, however if the deity at their cores doesn't exist (and as of now there is no
evidence at all suggesting they do) then those religions are at best pointless, and meaningless, at worst...
Well you know all the crimes that people have laid at religions door.

If you can't prove (or at least provide convincing evidence of) the existence of your deity of choice then your
religion is empty and without meaning or point.
The words of your holy books simply the utterances of other men, in a distant place and time.
Your moral groundings without foundation or backing.

Whether or not your god is real IS the entire ballgame.
And until you can show ANY evidence of any calibre worth considering that your god IS real, then the default
position is that things you can't detect (and yes this includes the wind rustling the leaves thing) don't exist.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

Originally posted by googlefudge
By admitting you can't prove your god exists you automatically negate your entire belief structure.

That's why people like RJH claim their 'personal experience' of god as their 'proof', although it's no such thing.

The first statement is so wrong as to be ridiculous. It simply does not follow.

And RJH's "personal experience" proof of God is HIS proof, not yours.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm sorry... your ultimatum is for me to retract my statement or support the scientific method?

you said....

"no that argument for the existence or non existence of God is pointless, you cannot
prove that it doesn't exist, I cannot prove that it does. Its a dead end."


And I agree that I can't prove the non-existence of god, and I agree es thing) don't exist.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

balderdash my good man, we have our own minds and we may even be prepared to
use them! why should the supernatural be subject to rationality, you have not
explained, nor can you!

googlefudge said
By admitting you can't prove your god exists you automatically negate your entire belief structure.

I'm with Suzianne on this. What an outlandish claim against a belief structure that is entirely based on

...being sure of what we hope for, and certain of things we do not see. Heb 11:1

Originally posted by galveston75
But a couple really simple things the Bible says in the description of a Christian would be their love for their fellow man and especially for the brother's within the same faith.

Is this your church's position?

If so, I would maintain that one of your own members here has demonstrated his own disavowal of this description. Therefore he doesn't follow his own church's description of his own faith. Ironic, isn't it?

If not, why not? You just said this is in the bible, yes?