What's the utility of faith?

[_Rambo]

There's also evidence that Paul Newman existed. Does that constitute evidence that Paul Newman is god?

Really, you're employing some very sloppy reasoning here. Try to clean it up.

no no no..(mormonx presses his index finger gently on Buffalo's lips) you had me at "there are evidences" that's all I wanted to hear your lips whisper.

(mormonx putting his fingers to his ears saying lalalala I'm not listening)

Buffalo said there is evidence of Jesus exsiting but not evidence of him being god. Don't take him out of context.

[Guest]

I can most certainly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOUR god doesn't exist. Quite easily.

Please do.. prove that Jesus doesn't exist. I'd like to see this.

Jesus the historical figure? Sure, I can prove he doesn't presently exist as a living person. When was he born? 2000 years ago or so? The maximum level for human lifespan is well below 200 years, let alone 2000 years.

But that isn't what I was talking about. You're probably used to talking to atheists who think Jesus was a fictional character - that isn't me. I'm talking about the GOD YOU WORSHIP, not just the limited historical Jesus.

It boils down to this, in a nutshell. For Christians, Jesus is the great "I Am." In other words, Yahweh.

Just one problem - Yahweh isn't original to the Hebrews, and was not originally the grand creator God. Yahweh replaced/merged with El in the Hebrew pantheon. El was a god they stole from the Canaanites, while Yahweh was a god stolen from other tribes in the Sinai/ Paran/ Edom/ Teiman area. That's where Yahweh first comes into the picture, as a minor god (sometimes a war god, sometimes a god of storms or metallurgy) worshiped by various tribes, later appropriated and promoted by the Jews.. It's only later that he becomes conflated with El.

El himself is also not original to the Hebrews. He's what you'd call a pagan god. He was a carouser and a drunkard. He had a body and a penis and he used it to impregnate his various wives:

In one of the Ugaritic (the earliest worshippers of El, as far as I know) texts it tells the story of how El impregnated the goddesses Asherah and Rahmay:

Long is El's penis like Sea's.
El's penis is like that of Flood...
El bends his bowstave,
He draws his mighty shaft...
El seduces his wives,
Lo, the two women cry:
O husband! husband! streched is your bowstave,
Drawn is your mighty shaft...
The women are (now) El's wives...
The two travail and give birth...

So yes, I can absolutely prove that your particular god isn't real. I can prove it by showing his evolution, and how humans have changed him over the centuries. He has all the hallmarks of a fictional character.

[_Buffalo]

Really, you're employing some very sloppy reasoning here. Try to clean it up.

Jesus Christ proved that he was God and that his gospel is true and that it may be acquired precisely as Christ and the saints of all ages have witnessed. I was visited of God who wrought a new creation upon my whole heart, might, mind and strength. I was TRULY born of God. This event occured on or near the 20th of January, 1970 in the upper room of this house that rented out rooms at the time on Gardner Street just off Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.



It the room where the light is on:

I'm not seeing god in that picture. Where is he?

[_Hoops]

You have to understand, mormonx, that on this board, if you're an atheist/agnostic, you don't have to have reasonable discussions. Where one makes a statement and the other disagrees and provides reasons why. No, here, agnostics/atheists only have to parrot the same old tired claims, and all the inhabitants will cheer wildly.

It is what it is. But it isn't what it claims to be.

[_Buffalo]

It's a synergistic process between experience (meeting a person of the opposite or same sex who is attractive to you, or having kids) and chemicals. And that's it. And yes, I do know that.

Wow, Buffalo is a genius and a chemist and a neurologist. (I'm waiting for the reply back.. "uh, actually I am mormonx" haha, that would be funny.)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... to-be-away
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... etty-faces
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 72,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

[_mormonx]

Buffalo said there is evidence of Jesus exsiting but not evidence of him being god. Don't take him out of context.

Okay, buffalo also in another statement said their was evidence for the Bible, (though he/she think it's bunk) I came on this thread and saw a few atheist? Trying to spin off a lie as if it were the truth. "there is no evidence" my goal of sitting here was to refute that lie. Now I see that both atheist have admitted to evidences. So the lie has been refuted and I feel better. I like to stay on task... and that task is complete.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo said there is evidence of Jesus exsiting but not evidence of him being god. Don't take him out of context.

Okay, buffalo also in another statement said their was evidence for the Bible, (though he/she think it's bunk) I came on this thread and saw a few atheist? Trying to spin off a lie as if it were the truth. "there is no evidence" my goal of sitting here was to refute that lie. Now I see that both atheist have admitted to evidences. So the lie has been refuted and I feel better. I like to stay on task... and that task is complete.

Please, think carefully. Evidence of the existence of certain historical places and historical figures is NOT the same thing as evidence for your religious beliefs about them. Mount Olympus is a real mountain. It doesn't follow that this is evidence for Zeus' divinity.

[_Mad Viking]

You said earlier, that there was NO evidence. That is a fact denied. There is evidence, for the 4th time, it's just not "credible" evidence in your view.

You have not presented any evidence so how could I have said it wasn't credible? If you would care to share your evidence, we could have that discussion.

[_Buffalo]

You have to understand, mormonx, that on this board, if you're an atheist/agnostic, you don't have to have reasonable discussions. Where one makes a statement and the other disagrees and provides reasons why. No, here, agnostics/atheists only have to parrot the same old tired claims, and all the inhabitants will cheer wildly.

It is what it is. But it isn't what it claims to be.

I have yet to see you make an original argument. And I'm not really sure how discussing the origins of Yahweh constitutes a "tired old claim."

In any case, you seem categorically unable to refute ANY atheist claims, old and tired or not.

[_Mad Viking]

You have to understand, mormonx, that on this board, if you're an atheist/agnostic, you don't have to have reasonable discussions. Where one makes a statement and the other disagrees and provides reasons why...

The burden of proof is yours. You're irritated because some of us require more that vague and ambiguous lines of reason.